TOWN OF
PLANNING COMMISSION
Approved
Commission Members Present: Tom Ayer, Fred
Haulenbeek,
Commission Members Absent: Tim Clancy.
Also Present: Alex
Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Karen Cornish (Recording
Secretary), Brian Shupe, Matt Probasco.
Rural Area Development Density
Alex presented an overview of the issues to consider for
rural planning. He addressed current
Town regulations, stating he thought they do not adequately implement the
community's vision for Hinesburg’s rural areas.
He also reviewed Town Plan goals and suggested the Planning Commission
consider these objectives for revising the regulations:
1.
Create a clear system for determining allowed
development density
2.
Focus rural area review on resource protection first,
with development designed to integrate into, and benefit from, resource areas
3.
Do away with outdated and arbitrary zoning standards
(i.e. 2&3 acre minimum lot sizes) that hamper innovative subdivision design
and fragment the rural landscape
4.
Clearly distinguish the difference between density and
minimum lot size
Alex and Brian Shupe of the Vermont Natural Resources
Council have developed several options for the Planning Commission to consider
during this revision effort:
OPTIONS
1. Streamlined
take-out system for fragile features
2.
Refined take-outs and point scoring system, 4-acre base
density (
3. No
take-outs and point scoring system, 8-acre base density (lower density)
4. Sliding
scale area-based zoning (from the June 2008 proposal) with variable density
Common elements to ALL options are:
1.
Clearly defined densities; everyone starts off knowing
how much development is possible
2.
New and improved purpose statements for each zoning
district, especially Ag and RR2
districts
3.
Improved conservation design standards
4.
PUD revisions to encourage more innovative projects –
bonus provisions, a master plan requirement, increased open space, possible TDR
(transfer of development rights) via PUDs of non-contiguous parcels.
Alex noted
that
Alex reviewed the pros and cons of
the various plans. Will asked how best
to engage with large landowners who feel discriminated against. Alex suggested that many landowners are
looking at their land from a stewardship prospective; they may already
understand their land does not have a maximum build-out potential due to limitations
of the property and their desire for stewardship.
The group debated particular
options:
- Will said Option 4 is
personalized, Option 1 prioritizes the land.
- Fred suggested that the town
should float a bond issue and buy development rights. He also suggested assessing larger properties
lower taxes as a concession to different per-acre development potential. Jean noted that taxes are handled through the
state via a common level of appraisal.
Alex said large landowners already have an option for lowered taxes,
through the state tax stabilization program (Current Use – large landowners of
ag or forested land can enroll and their appraisal can be lowered). Alex said Hinesburg has bolstered the CU program
with another program for farm landowners – if you are enrolled in current use,
the town contributes more. Brian said
the other way the town already does that is to base the property tax on the
fair market value of land. If densities
are reduced, property sales are reduced.
He also suggested the possibility of an increase in values due to a
lower number available house lots (this would be a reverse effect).
- Fred spoke to costs of
development, stating an overly-complex development system would prevent some
people from developing their land to its full potential. Joe I. did not see that costs associated with
understanding the system (i.e. new rural regulations) would be different,
assuming all landowners had the same staff and DRB interface. Alex added that the town has a lot of data; it's
only when a landowner disputes the information that they hire private
consultation (such as for a new wetland delineation).
Alex reviewed different theoretical
build-out scenarios based on the 86-acre Geprags parcel, reviewing an
orthographic photograph and identifying natural features. Rare species designation was discussed; Brian
said it does not lend itself well to the take-outs as it is hard to determine
an exact area for the species. Alex agreed,
suggesting using the designation in a design standards section rather than in take-outs
formula.
Brian said there would be some
overlap of species within other well-defined take-out areas (such as steep
slopes). He said examples of natural
areas considered for “take-outs” are: prime ag soils, flood plain areas,
wetlands (the better classes only). He
said that under Option 4, prime ag soils are not off limits as these are often
the good building soils too. Brian explained
that unless you have protection standards, options only control densities but do
not direct where house sites are located (those would be controlled via design
standards).
Will suggested setting the density
as a relationship to how much land was taken out. Brian said Option 1 was meant to show it can
be a simple system. He said it is common
to take those un-developable features out for environmental reasons. Option 2 was intended to show how elaborate a
system can be. He suggested that the take
out system within those Options 1 & 2 could be adjusted. He noted a difference between Prime (the
best) and primary ag soils (statewide).
Alex and Brian reviewed the basic
point system, built on three measurements:
1. Location
from certain town roads – may be easier to judge based on the town classification
system (rather than road quality)
2. Traveled
distance from the center of town (measured from the nearest potion of frontage
OR to the access point (where development would be sited)
3. Distance to important conservation sites
Brian noted that the Geprags study
as applied to all options came to the same density. The group discussed how Hinesburg's layout is
different from
1) disagreement that the village should be considered a "hub" of development potential and the possible traffic problems that could result;
2) the “sphere of influence” of conserved lands – that adjacent properties would be not be allowed to develop their properties and thus be penalized unfairly, and also that neighbors would then (as an un-intended consequence) not support conservation of lands adjacent to them;
3) the overall prejudicial nature of the proposed zoning changes with regards to where in town property is located.
Joe I. suggested that the public
would want to understand why a certain base density was chosen. He felt if the system relied instead on
take-outs, an easier set of conversations would be had with the public, for
instance, whether wetlands were buildable or not, versus applying an arbitrary
base density. Jean said any option with take-outs
will also require a base density in its calculation. Joe I. agreed but said it could be
higher. He said people would like to see
a higher base density; most reasonable people would also then agree that you
can't build in a stream setback. Joe I.
also suggested counting ag soils as developable but using design standards to
minimize development in those areas. Alex
said we have that language now. Joe I. said
statewide primary ag soils are probably not the best buildable sites
anyway. Jean agreed that the best ag
land is the best for development, explaining where you don't have access to
services in the rural area, the soils are important for septic designs.
Alex said a base number needed to
be set within all formulas. Jean said
the lack of shared infrastructure (water, sewer) as well as the impact on rural
roads needed to be considered. Alex said
the Town Plan states there will be an increase in development in the village;
the debate is now about how one rural portion is going to have more or less
than another.
Fred said he believed a steady
density could be used, allowing the restricting features of the land to dictate
the ultimate density – any formula would come down to what kind of property you
have. Brian said one option would be to set
a floor and a ceiling; someone is going to have to negotiate their ultimate
density within the performance standards. Alex described that as a range – one would
have to demonstrate why they could develop to the higher number within the
range.
Matt Probasco with the Conservation Commission asked the
Commission to consider recreational uses of rural roads. He said they liked the Norwich model as it
added clarity to the process and dovetailed well with the new village center
to, in fact, create a center.
Members gave these summary comments:
* Joe I. considered two issues: 1) the Town Plan calls for
preserving open space and 2) people want financial gain from their
property. Joe suggested considering two
area-based density figures, perhaps within an incentive program that allows a large
landowner who agrees to a PUD project to get more units for that. Open area is gained and the landowner
realizes a greater financial gain (or development savings). * Tom agreed with Joe.
* Ashley said she is interested
in design requirements, such as those found in Option 1.
* Jean said the program must be
kept simple, easy for people to understand.
* Will said he liked take outs based on the natural
features/constraints of the land. He
agreed that class 4 roads could be used in a calculation but did not agree with
using a distance from the village core measurement. He stressed that prime ag land must be
protected as one of Hinesburg's assets.
* Brian said he could work on an option without the distance
from core measurement. He suggested a simpler
take-out system, focused on real physical site limitations, with a point system
then applied to the remainder. He said
any proximity to protected lands could be limited to the town forests and federal
wildlife management area. He noted that
“8” was used based on the research Alex had done, looking at average densities
over the years.
* Fred liked
an 8-acre density as he thought it was marketable. He suggested calling it a “maximum area based
density”. The “maximum” could be reduced
by the natural features of the land as a second layer, with a point system as a
third layer.
* Jean said she thought land needed to be kept in large enough blocks to be usable, not only to be qualified for current use but to keep it accessible. The current use program and its requirements were discussed, particularly whether there was anything multiple landowners could do to pool their land.
* Carrie said she liked take-outs
and also a focus on design standards; Johanna agreed.
Alex said he and Brian would continue work on formula
options, perhaps applying them to some (imagined) combined parcels created to
make one larger one.
Other Business
July 8th meeting minutes
Commission
members voted 5-0 to approve the
- Alex said NRG would like to put
36 solar trackers, stating they were interested in having a public trail going
through them as an educational opportunity.
- Alex passed out information on a
CCRPC Natural Areas Strategy report and also announced the Ancient Roads September
1st meeting and an Affordable Housing meeting in South Burlington on
August 24th.
- Will gave an update on the
Saputo Committee, stating that an idea for a natural technology park had been
raised.
- Alex gave an update on the
wastewater allocation process, stating the town needed to change the sewer
service area to conform to new zoning districts, requiring both a change in
mapping and the allocation formula.
The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, August 26, 2009. The meeting
adjourned at approximately
Respectfully Submitted: