TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISSION

August 26, 2009

Approved September 9, 2009

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

Commission Members Absent: Joe Iadanza.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Matt Probasco.

Rural Area Development Density

The group reviewed 2 options for density language and build-out formulas: Option 1, a take-out model that bases density on developable land area and access roads; and Option 2, a model with a sliding-scale density table. Once a maximum build-out (number of homes) is established in either option, a set of rural design standards is applied to a project to establish the best building sites for the homes.

Alex reviewed maps of hypothetical build-outs on various parcels in Hinesburg, chosen as examples of size (large, medium, small) and rural location (agricultural or RR2 districts). For each parcel, Alex applied Options 1 & 2 to allow for a comparison of build-out results. Below is an example of the process as applied to the Geprags parcel, a large parcel in the Ag district with mixed forested and open spaces:

Geprags total acreage = 85.8

OPTION 1

Step 1: Add up take-out areas (fragile features of the land) on the parcel = 29.8 acres

- Steep slopes greater than 25% (at 25%, land is generally considered difficult to build on)

- FEMA flood hazard areas

- Wetlands and wetland buffers

- Stream setbacks

Take-out areas = 29.8 acres

Step 2: Identify primary agricultural soils* and apply 50% “discount” (variable)

Ag soils = 15.3 acres x 50% = 7.6 acres

Step 3: Add take-out acres to ag soil acres, subtract from total acreage =

Acres to include in density formula =

29.8 + 7.6 = 37.4 * 85.8 -37.4 = 48.4 acres

Step 4: Apply Road Class density

Class 2 road = 1 unit / 4 acres (variable)

48.4 ÷ 4 = 12.1 maximum development potential (conventional)

Step 5: Apply optional PUD incentive (variable)

12.1 x 1.5 = 18.15 maximum development potential (PUD)

Primary ag soils are identified by the state as having potential for agricultural. This does not mean they are un-buildable, either by town or state standards. Applying a percentage “discount” to ag soils recognizes them as a valuable resource for agricultural without removing them entirely for development. Note that there are different types of ag soils within the definition of “primary” that may be simply divided into “prime” (best) and “conditional” (have some issue such as drainage). Included in the above formula are only those soils that are “prime”.
Including ag soils in the Option 1 formula helps to create some parity for differences in land types found in the Ag and RR2 districts
Once the maximum development potential number is determined, design standards are applied to a parcel to ensure that ag soils are minimally impacted. (They are applied for other reasons as well.) ACT 250, a separate VT state process, also affects the amount of impact on ag soils by way of impact fees, a process separate from Hinesburg regulations.
Data sets used in this option are available from the town (who has access to those from the state) for landowner’s review. Any landowner may refute the data, bringing in new evidence in an effort to change their development potential.

OPTION 2

Step 1: Find allowable units range on sliding scale for 85.8 acres (variable scale)

80+ to 100 acres = 7 maximum development potential (conventional)

Step 2: Apply optional PUD incentive (variable)

7 x 1.5 = 10 maximum development potential (PUD)

FOR BOTH OPTIONS

Once the development potential (number of allowable units) is determined for a parcel, a set of rural design standards are applied to the parcel to help determine the best location for house sites.

Variables – where noted, the variables within the formula were chosen by Alex and Brian for the exercise only; the PC may wish to adjust those to see how build-out numbers might differ using different variables.

Alex reviewed the other examples and theoretical build-out results. The group discussed other development issues such as:

eligibility for the Current Use program (25+ acres is required)

the desire to preserve contiguous forest or ag lands

the clustering approach in siting homes vs. creating larger, more private lots

the marketability of small vs. large lots

the idea of a final build-out or “end game” for a parcel

soil types, including ag soils isolated by forested areas and the definition of “prime forest soils” that may (or may not) produce better timber

the trend towards small farming, making even a small tract of prime ag soil valuable

Specific comments:

- Ashley asked whether the isolation of ag soils should be used as a rationale for exempting those isolated soils from inclusion in a take-out formula

- Will said “soil is soil” (isolated soils should be included in formulas). He liked Option 1, which defers to the particular characteristics of a particular parcel rather than relying on a chart with manmade design standards.

- Fred suggested that design standards could keep isolated ag soil areas open.

- Alex summarized, questioning whether 1) there was a way to think about good forest soils in the RR2 district and 2) perhaps NOT considering ag soils at all in the RR2 district.

- Fred said he does not want another overlay district or complicated process. He said design standards need to be flexible to allow for a careful look at each particular parcel.

- Clustering: Fred questioned the marketability of small clustered lots and how they may affect (keep low?) land values. Will said clustering would provide more units to a developer (speaking to the profitability of that approach). Alex said the flexibility to do different types of layouts or allow varying lot sizes would remain no matter what formula was chosen. Jean mentioned an affordable housing seminar at which she learned that people are often forced into buying more than they need, and that buying a ½ acre may be desirable to them.

Tim noted that results seemed to be similar between Options 1 & 2 when applied to the same parcel, questioning why the take-out model did not produce lower densities. There was an extended discussion of how to compare the two options. Alex suggested that 1) the comparison may not be apples-to-apples and 2) the variables within the formulas (mainly the base density figure) could be tweaked in both options to provide different outcomes. Tim thought it was counter-intuitive that a take-out model identifying natural features (presumably for conservation) would give a higher unit number. He suggested it may be easier to go with the sliding scale model. Will said it came down to marketing the regulation changes to the public – that a take-out formula was more defensible. The group discussed building on ag soils further (see ag soil notes above).

They generally agreed that any new strategy should make the subjective discussion about appropriate development density (the build-out number) disappear at the DRB level, leaving the design of the lot layout as the primary focus. They discussed how to approach the public, whether a certain group of landowners should be queried for their opinions and/or ideas about their own parcels, or notice sent to all. Fred thought most landowners had an idea of what their property could sustain in terms of development. He thought the best way to engage an audience in the discussion is to have them come prepared with that number of units (for their own property) in mind.

More parcels were reviewed – medium and smaller sized – and exemptions for small lots were discussed. Alex reviewed a parcel for which a project had been denied mainly due to an overly-high proposed density. Johanna questioned whether some properties were so valuable for their natural resources that they should not be developed at all. The group discussed individual landowner’s motivations, the role developers play in a project, the financial expense of keeping land open and how to help owners do that. Alex cited a number of programs and agencies that are set up to assist landowners financially (Current Use, local and state land trusts, etc.). Matt Probasco of the Conservation Commission compared the risk of waiting to develop a parcel to risks taken in the “market” - that waiting to develop before surrounding properties did puts those landowners (who took that risk) in the position of not being allowed their desired number of units.

Alex said he would work on a take-out option with a lower base density (same formula, different road class density variable) to use for comparison with the other two options. He also suggested applying the options to two parcels that were alike in acreage but not natural features. The group discussed who would be interested parties in any conversation – only large landowners or also small landowners and/or village residents with very little land. Tom thought that any formula needed to firmly and finally establish a maximum allowable number of units for landowners and developers, allowing for predictability. Alex agreed but cautioned that the process may be more art than science, that in the end the PC will have to decide on a base density number. Jean asked if energy conservation could be included in the rural planning effort. Alex said it already is, as a design standard added in a separate energy section that applied to all districts.

Other Business

July 12 Meeting Minutes

Commission members voted 7-0 to approve the July 12, 2009 meeting minutes as amended, with Tim abstaining.

Fred said new FEMA maps are available. He discussed the possibility of the creation of clean energy assessment districts in Hinesburg, describing a program to incentivize (by helping with up-front costs) and help homeowners to install a clean energy device at their house. The group discussed the potential of the program, agreeing it created financing but not free money.

The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, September 9, 2009. The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:00 pm.

Respectfully Submitted:

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary