TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISSION

July 8, 2009

Approved August 12, 2009

Commission Members Present: Tom Ayer, Tim Clancy, Carrie Fenn, Joe Iadanza, Jean Isham, Johanna White.

Commission Members Absent: Fred Haulenbeek, Ashley Orgain, Will Patten.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Andrea Morgante, Bill Marks, Dan Senecal-Albrecht.

Discussion on Fluvial Erosion Hazard areas and planning

Alex introduced Dan Senecal-Albrecht, a Special Projects Planner with the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. He was invited to speak about fluvial erosion hazard (FEH) planning. He described research being done and said available data on those areas can be used by communities for planning purposes. He explained that research shows erosion as the primary form of monetary damage experienced by towns. He said a community can use FEH data:

- to disseminate to the public

- to create an overlay district

- to describe hazards in their town plan

- in a site plan review (on a project-by-project basis)

- in emergency response planning

- in capitol budgeting/planning, as data is given for each culvert

Dan said a hazard mitigation planning report being done for Chittenden County is now available in draft form; text will be finalized this fall, in time for towns to use for adoption into their town plans by spring 2010. He said the information will make some towns eligible for hazard mitigation grants which can be used for culvert upgrades, particularly in areas with repeated flooding concerns. Andrea Morgante said that much of this type of work has already been done by our road crew staff, such as identifying culverts and bridges that are undersized and/or susceptible to erosion or failure. She said those reports need to be incorporated comprehensively into the town planning, both in the Town Plan and capitol budgets.

Ashley asked Dan to identify other hazards included in the report that may affect Hinesburg. Dan said the only other main concern for Hinesburg besides flooding was winter storms (producing power and telecommunication outages). He said Hinesburg was adequately prepared in terms of sheltering, as the CVU facility is equipped with a generator.

Ashley asked about the time frame used for the assessment. Dan said a formula looking at frequency, severity and geographic extent is used. For example, winter storms occur frequently and have a high area of coverage, but damages as a result of storms can very widely. He conceded that it was difficult to pin down some parameters for data such as exact location; he said tracking the frequency of an event is one of the more reliable parameters to track; frequencies are largely based on past events but are updated every 5 years.

Alex gave a visual presentation on the subject, covering these topics: flooding; the changing landscape of Vermont in the last 150 years; traditional river channel management and results; "inundation" versus "erosion" damage; and the NFIP (National Flood Insurance Program). He said most flood damage in Vermont is caused by fluvial erosion (the erosive power of flood events). He discussed details of the Fluvial Erosion Hazard Program, including ratings and meander belt width measurements. He said Hinesburg has two main watershed areas (the LaPlatte and Lewis Creek); those main stems will have hazard areas identified around them by this summer. He said other streams that have not yet been assessed can have buffer areas assigned to them. Andrea stressed that we pay attention to smaller streams, even those not covering the required square footage for permitting. Dan said buffer distances assigned by the NFIP do not mean the river won't go beyond them; they are only the minimum amount of room set back from the river for building. Andrea said the state is willing to invest in defined fluvial erosion areas.

Alex discussed these advantages of an adopting an avoidance strategy: enhances public safety; minimizes economic losses during floods; low cost alternative (versus the removal, retrofit, reconstruction or stabilization of structures); healthier river ecosystems; the alignment of Vermont Emergency Funding and DEC funding with FEMA.

Alex asked Andrea about the LaPlatte partnership and the corridor plan. Andrea said they have identified places where there are potential evulsions (where the channel is going to move). She said there is some funding available through the Clean and Clear program to purchase easements from landowners to agree to not do anything within that area. The Vermont River Conservancy is an agency now holding those easements in perpetuity. She said there is also wetland restoration funding available and a landowner incentive program to protect endangered species habitat. She said they have several agreements along Lewis Creek and that the Town is considering an easement along the town-owned portion along the Beecher Hill brook. Alex asked if this non-regulatory approach was better. Andrea said she thought it was effective but that it comes down to speaking directly to landowners and identifying the specifics for each property.

Jean suggested including something in the Town Plan regarding the erosion issue. Andrea confirmed that FEH is not specifically referred to in the Plan. She added that FEH is only one important component when considering the functions of a buffer area. She recommended focusing instead on the overall function of these water areas, drafting language from the standpoint that the waterways need to be looked at comprehensively (for FEH, for water quality, for ecosystem preservation, etc.). Alex asked if there were data available for any of those other aspects of ecological value. Andrea said yes, noting a document called an Active River Assessment that can be overlaid with FEH data.

Carrie said the stream setback mapping recently adopted could be adopted as an FEH buffer overlay area. Andrea said just because there are federal programs that provide insurance for certain flood hazard areas (if they meet certain criteria), a town does not have to allow building in those areas. Alex said we do allow development in these areas if projects meet certain criteria.

Dan summarized by stating they are wrapping up one grant and have some funding to help with small projects. He also described "Phase III" which may provide funding for engineering within certain project areas. Andrea said they used some Phase III funds on the Beecher Hill project.

Other Business

June 24^th meeting minutes

Commission members voted 6-0 to approve the June 24, 2009 meeting minutes as amended.

Grant applications

Alex discussed grant money applications. He suggested applying for Vermont Growth Center Designation (GCD), adding a town can apply within a consortium application (multiple communities). He noted the advantages of GCD:

1) Makes Hinesburg eligible for funding and also gives an advantage to securing grants over towns that do not have GCD.

2) It affects the monetary calculation of agricultural impact fees for agricultural lands within a GCD (it costs less).

3) It allows for the creation of a tax increment finance district, an innovative way to pay for public infrastructure. When new development happens, the bulk of the property taxes go to the State, then come back to pay for education. Within a TIF district, the town gets to keep 60-70% of what the state normally takes. These funds can then be used to finance growth center infrastructure such as sidewalks, roads and parks.

Andrea said she would be more inclined to apply for GCD if town regulations had a clearer vision and were tightened up to protect the ecological and agricultural values within that area. Jean said a GCD would provide the opportunity to secure grants to do that "tightening up", such as stormwater planning. Andrea said we should apply for a municipal planning grant for stormwater. The group discussed the GCD application process which Alex described as rigorous and lengthy. He noted that Hinesburg already has a Village Center designation that provides some advantage in the grant application arena. He thought Andrea's idea about using stormwater planning as a critical piece to understanding other required elements of the application process - economic development, growth projection and stream protection. Andrea asked how plans for the Saputo facility would affect the GCD effort. Alex gave a short update on the committee's efforts.

The July 22^nd Planning Commission meeting has been CANCELLED. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, August 12, 2009. The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:35 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

Karen Cornish, Recording Secretary