TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISSION

September 23, 2009

Approved October 14, 2009

 

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

 

Commission Members Absent:  None.

 

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary).  VCAM was not present (meeting not recorded on video).

 

Energy Section of the Town Plan

Commissioners discussed draft changes as proposed by Carrie and Ashley.  They agreed that the general ethic in Vermont is towards energy conservation, but that it is unclear how long conventional (fossil fuel) energy sources will hold out.  Alex said Vermont Gas was interested in bringing natural gas service to Hinesburg in spite of Saputo's departure as they felt Hinesburg was primed for growth, particularly in the Village area where gas lines are currently being extended.

 

Alex asked whether 3-phase power and/or a new substation (referring to a conversation last year with GMP officials regarding Hinesburg’s near-capacity situation at the time) was mentioned in the plan.  Jean said it was covered in Sec. 7.6 and suggested changing the phrase to “an adequate electric power supply”.  Will asked Carrie and Ashley if they considered adding an Energy Assessment Zone to the section; Ashley said they referred to it indirectly (Sec. 7.4b).  Fred said he was still going to submit an official recommendation for such a district to the Select Board (as discussed at the 9-9-09 meeting).

 

Fred questioned the tone of the 2nd paragraph of the document (describing future climate change scenarios), whether it should be written with less of a sense of urgency.  The group discussed how the tone of the document should be presented.  Johanna said the point should be made that fossil fuels – cheap oil - will not last forever.  Climate change and Hinesburg’s relationship to the issue was discussed.  Tom objected to the tone as well, stating that global change evidence (in terms of what is causing weather fluctuations) is not completely clear.  Will mentioned population growth as another concerning factor to consider.  Ashley thought it was important to identify that we live in a complex, dynamic system and that international scientists are putting this information forth.  She thought it is our responsibility to be as sustainable at the local level as possible.  Two websites were sited:  http://www.globalchange.gov and http://www.climateandfarming.org.

 

Under the Goals and Recommendations section, Tom asked about 7.1(a) re: a “complete inventory” of individual town and/or town services, whether that meant to accomplish something new or finish something that has already been started.  Alex said Rocky has been trying to do this for CVU, Town Hall, HCS and the Fire Department.  Jean suggested adding the word “municipal” to clarify that it is not the town as a whole.  Will suggested keeping it focused to municipal services in that section, as section 7.3 deals with community-wide efforts.  Alex recommended stating “energy use and fuel consumption” in that same paragraph.  Carrie and Ashley agreed to review the document to make sure the word “Town” as capitalized is understood to mean municipal services.

 

Fred asked whether the Plan should state a concern about fossil fuel use or energy use in general.  Will thought nuclear energy, for instance, should be reduced as well.  Carrie said they did not intend for fossil fuels to be singled out.  Tim suggested wording that emphasized efficiencies around energy as a means to reducing environmental pollutants, rather than citing global warming and its causes, something people did not necessarily agree on.  Ashley said she thought it was important to address everyone's concerns.  Fred thought it may be easier to avoid language that refers to politically-charged issues.  Jean noted that pollutants also contribute heavily to quality-of-life issues.  Tim recommended the promotion of local, cheap renewable energy.  Tom asked if local energy was truly inexpensive.  Will said it was, once one was over the hurdle of the capitalization (cost of the investment).  Fred said even after capitalization, equipment would have to be replaced.  Will disagreed somewhat, stating once a system was built, cheap energy could be obtained for a long time.

 

Discussion of the Bissonette/Champlain Oil DRB application

Alex noted Wayne Bissonette's continued interest in working with the Planning Commission on the parcel he owns (Route 116 and Shelburne Falls Road).  Alex passed out maps and gave details of the proposal discussed at the Sept. 15th DRB meeting (Champlain Oil’s request to move the Jiffy Mart station across the street).  He said although there were some Official Map elements within the parcel that needed to be looked at, the larger discussion is how this first project would fit in with future projects on the rest of the property.  He said both the applicant and landowner have stated they don't have a vision for the remaining parcel (88+ acres) although Wayne thought there might be some future municipal interests in the property.  Alex said he thought larger-scale planning for this property needed to be done.  Will questioned the benefit of moving across the road.  Alex explained it gave the gas station operation more flexibility in siting an expanded building and additional pumps (including diesel); the existing parcel is about 1½ acres; the parcel across the street is double that size.  Jean thought redevelopment on the existing site could offer possibilities for the town, citing the other adjacent buildings/businesses there.  She thought the site could be redeveloped with professional offices, not a commercial operation.  Alex said if they moved they would tear the old building down altogether.  Alex said the DRB was not well-equipped to deal with the master planning aspect of the property.

 

Alex said he and Fred had a conversation about the Official Map elements.  Jean asked about assistance from the CCMPO (a county-level transportation group, as discussed at the last meeting).  Alex said there had been much discussion of traffic issues at the DRB meeting, particularly about “stacking”.  He did ask the CCMPO who will provide some input in order to give the applicant some feel for their proposal, whether the entrance off Shelburne Falls Road should be as they have proposed or much further to the west.  The group discussed the high ground areas on the entire parcel, those most suitable for residential building.

 

Joe I. said he was concerned about the corner area or “gateway” as something that should remain an inviting space that draws people in to stay.  He thought pushing the gas station back would be best as long as it left enough room on the corner parcel to be useful and inviting.  Joe questioned the orientation of the gas station as proposed; Alex said the applicant is willing to work with different arrangements (such as turning it). 

 

The group discussed their vision of the “West Side Road”, an official map element they have discussed over the last few years.  Alex said the applicant intends to accommodate the road, focusing on the northern terminus of it (at SF Road).  Joe I., Carrie, Fred and Jean all agreed they envisioned that terminus to be directly across from Pleasant View Road.  Alex asked the PC to provide input to the DRB not in terms of the Champlain Oil project in particular, but their vision for the entire road across the two main parcels over which it is planned.  He said the application will be discussed again at the November 3rd DRB meeting.  Will asked if the application was in line with the intent of the new zoning.  Alex thought the PC members themselves were in the best position to consider that question as they had been the ones to develop the Village growth package.  The group discussed the designation of the road on the Official Map; it was originally sited by the PC with its northern terminus across from Pleasant View, but reconfigured and ultimately adopted by the SB with a less precise terminus location (an ellipse now marks a wider, more general location).  The group agreed that the original intent of the road was to serve as an interior road that allowed not only access to business and residential developments on the parcel, but also effectively “transferred” the westerly views that would eventually no longer be possible to see from Route 116.  The group continued to discuss the original intent of the road, streams in the area, traffic implications, and a master planning effort for the parcel.  Alex said he would take the overall message back to the SB and the applicant that the Commission felt the West Side Road should be aligned with Pleasant View Lane.

 

The group discussed how the town could be involved with a master planning effort for areas over which the road was sited (the Bissonette and Lyman parcels as well as the Saputo site).  Next steps were discussed.  Alex said CCMPO would focus only on the northern corner of the Bissonette parcel.  Will said certain state and federal funds were only available as triggered by a community development project (economic development, restoration, etc.)  Tom thought the road could be designed to work no matter what development eventually takes place in those areas, stating no one could predict that development now (that it was market –driven).  Will said one of the impacts of the new zoning is that the Town has made the land profitable to develop.  A landowner would benefit from a master planning exercise on land that is recognizably valuable and a developer would benefit from the predictability of such plan in place.  Will suggested at least recommending planners to landowners; Alex said he would do that. 

 

Alex explained some details of the terms of the Official Map (timing and the Town’s obligations around the 120 days provision, how the DRB fits into the process, etc.).   Joe I. thought the map gave more guidance than perhaps they were recognizing.  Fred said he would draft a letter to the DRB that included their thoughts (an explanation of their original vision) on the West Side Road; he would have this ready so that the group could discuss it at their October 14th meeting.  Alex said they would also have time at that meeting to continue this discussion, suggesting they could invite the landowner(s) to attend.  Tom asked about wetlands found in the area and the construction of the road.  Tim asked whether the Official Map should also state the intention that westerly views along the West Side Road were to be preserved.  Alex said those questions could be part of their continuing discussion on this property and should also be considered for the technical revisions for the growth area.  Alex said the vision for the village NW district was that the Route 116 piece of it would not be a traditional Village streetscape, but that streetscape would occur on the West Side Road, with buildings facing on both sides.  Tim thought the westerly views were important and more compelling as an argument for the West Side Road in general than the other very real traffic issues faced by the town.  Fred thought the addition of a second lane on SF Road could mitigate the stacking occurring there now (adding a right hand turn lane).

 

Other Business

The group discussed work flow in general and how to interact (if at all) with the DRB on particular projects.  Alex gave details of the October 16th planning workshop; Fred, Carrie, Jean, Johanna and Alex are planning to attend. 

 

September 9th Meeting Minutes

Fred MOVED to approve the September 9th meeting minutes as amended.  Carrie SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-0, with Tom, Will and Johanna abstaining and Joe I. not voting.

 

The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, October 14, 2009.  The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:45 pm.

 

Respectfully Submitted:

 

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary