TOWN OF HINESBURG
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 14, 2009
Approved October 28, 2009
Commission Members Present: Carrie Fenn, Fred
Haulenbeek, Joe Iadanza, Jean Isham, Johanna White.
Commission Members Absent:
Tom Ayer, Tim Clancy, Ashley
Orgain, Will Patten.
Also Present: Alex
Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Karen Cornish (Recording
Secretary), Andrea Morgante, Bill Marks.
West Side Road
location and master planning in the NW district
The group reviewed a draft letter by Fred Haulenbeek regarding the West Side Road. The following changes were recommended and agreed on by the group: to add an introductory paragraph, with the following wording: “This letter is written to provide the Development Review Board with the background and thought processes followed in the establishment of the West Side Road.”; to change the word “desired” to determined” (speaking about westerly views); and to change wording to “Riggs” Road where appropriate. They also voted 5-0 in favor of having Jean sign the letter on behalf of the Commission members.
Alex said the Select Board has been working to revise the Wastewater allocation process to reflect changes in the Village Growth area districts. He said they would like to see the master planning requirement the PC had discussed earlier in the year in place (as an adopted technical revision to the regs) or at least a draft proposal for their review before they complete the review of the wastewater service area. Alex said he needs to finalize those revisions. Fred asked to what degree the master planning requirement was being considered. Alex explained it had been brought up at a public discussion (shortly after the 5-25-09 adoption of village zoning regulations); he said although it was somewhat contentious, there was at least a straw vote to include it in the technical revisions proposed for the Zoning Regulations. Alex said he would work on drafting something for review.
Peter Erb said he thought the first two projects in the NW district submitted to the DRB after the regulations changed seemed like “cherry picking”, in other words, the choicest, least-expensive-to-develop lots within the district came up first for development, leaving the harder more-expensive lots to remain, with no master plan in place to integrate them all. He thought that if infrastructure was not shared among all the lots in that district, the Town would not get the amenities they wanted paid for by the developments.
The group discussed the master plan provision; Alex said it was discussed as a requirement for a single property coming under DRB for review. He noted that the discussion around sharing stormwater facilities was a different conversation – the need for the Town to spur more of a comprehensive district-wide look at how stormwater is handled. The group discussed the possibility of funds available for such planning (Will Patten had brought this up in a prior meeting) and also for the West Side Road; Alex said it was unclear whether they were in the realm of the projects being considered for USDA redevelopment funds.
Fred agreed with Peter, stating he (Fred) had been a big advocate of the development of the expanded district with the hope that each improvement would help contribute to the infrastructure and all the things necessary to make the whole development successful. Fred questioned whether a project should be allowed to hitch on to the current water and wastewater system as it may mean it has not then ultimately contributed to the cost of developing the whole district and contrary to the spirit of what was intended by the PC when they proposed new development there.
Joe I. asked Andrea Morgante whether the SB was considering a prohibition from hooking on to Town services. Andrea said they did not want any more hook-ups, although she understood there would be requests to do so. She said although it would probably be within the financial means of a developer to extend their lines to infrastructure, the discussion should not just be about sewer and stormwater hook-ups but about the infrastructure needed in and of itself, in other words, how the systems get designed, if done on a lot by lot basins, etc. Fred thought without that sharing of infrastructure, particularly stormwater measures, the town would not get the density and best use of the land it was hoping for. Andrea said there should at least be preliminary conceptual engineering within projects to figure out where roads and sidewalks should go.
The group discussed several large projects completed over the past twenty years – Commerce Park, for example. They discussed which elements were planned (the main road systems, planning for individual lots and lot sales over time), which were planned but not well integrated or incomplete (the drainage system, sidewalks, impervious surfaces). The group discussed potential changes to regulations and how they would affect (if at all) applications already in the DRB pipe. Peter said he wished to see the burden placed on an applicant to present the DRB with more extensively prepared plans, rather than the burden being with the DRB to acquire those. The responsibility of the applicant versus the landowner was discussed and members agreed the landowner had an equal, if not greater responsibility to speak for the project, particularly for the long-term vision of the entire parcel. Andrea said by developing small lots one at a time, out of a larger parcel, may enable a landowner to get around Act 250 approval, potentially leaving the town responsible for infrastructure costs in the long run. The group generally agreed with the idea that a concept for a whole parcel should be conceived and put on paper before any development is proposed. Alex said he would draft master planning language and get that to the PC as soon as possible.
Alex attended the last SB meeting for the purpose of presenting the rural planning options developed so far to see if the PC was on the right track. He said one member asked if there was a more sophisticated way to calculate the distance away (a project was) from a paved road. Andrea Morgante (speaking at the PC meeting) said her understanding was that Alex was there to give a broad view of objectives and options and she was not prepared at the time to have a large discussion. Alex agreed that the language was preliminary and said he could make changes to the two options developed before the November 11th public forum, but probably not more than that (i.e., there was not time to substantially re-work the options). The group discussed whether the formulas were specific enough. Jean said the forum would provide good feedback and the planning options could be revised after that and be re-submitted to the SB (where it would then be under review).
Alex compared this process as equally significant to the one done for the Village growth area. Peter Erb said he thought when the Village Growth Area was passed, it was done under the perception it was Smart Growth. He was concerned that those two words - “Smart Growth” – were not mentioned in this rural planning document and as such, felt the outlying areas were not tied into the original spirit of the Village document advocating for a less-dense rural area development. Generally he did not get the feeling that this document is a continuation of the Smart Growth principles.
Andrea said although the PC had done a good job of identifying the natural resources on a parcel when it came in for subdivision; she thought the document in general lacked the concept of looking at the town as a whole and the reasons for developing closer to town. She said many concepts were incorporated into the planning process for the Village area, such as pedestrian circulation, commercial buildings, places for people to work, how far people will walk to school, carry groceries, etc., but similar statements about the rural areas (such as a rural economy resource habitats) did not exist. She also advocated for creating more districts than just AG and RR2, based on specific natural characteristics in those areas, i.e. conservation planning principles. She said only then would the Town get the desired density in those specific areas. She cited the following as planning principles for rural areas: representative landform ecosystems; intact surface and groundwater ecosystems; undisturbed natural areas; connectivity and cohesiveness, both between the forests and land types and between the systems working there; priority species and certified rare and unique species. She cited energy use as an important factor to consider, stating a third of our energy use is from traveling. She also said the highest and best use in the rural areas may not be residential use – limiting development is recognizing our role in Chittenden County as a forested landscape and also as an area keeping the watershed for the whole of Chittenden County clean.
Bill Marks agreed that the distinction between the agricultural and Rural II areas was somewhat artificial, stating the west side of town has a lot of very important forest habitat, for example.
The group discussed what the term “Smart Growth” meant. Fred said it probably meant different things to different people, depending on what their idea of good growth was. Joe I. stated his position that a well-developed dense village developed under “Smart Growth” principles will still mean that there will be development in the rural areas, as the village area is made more attractive – the question is to how find the balance between stewardship of the rural land and growth. He said local farms are either folding or switching to a different land use. He said it would be important to make sure when development replaces a piece of forest or field, that the prior use is still maintained around the new use. Area zoning and clustering were ways to minimize the effects on watershed, on animal habitat, on animal byway, etc.; he said that was his definition of Smart Growth.
Peter said cost should be considered, both in terms of the impact on Town services and also the costs of living in rural areas in general (energy and transportation costs). He said developers should be asked to help with capitol budget costs (roads, services) to outlying areas. The group discussed again why the Norwich model did not quite fit for Hinesburg as it was not laid out as a spoke system of roads with a center hub. Andrea said that police and fire services still had to get to those areas as did school bus services (making it costly to the Town no matter the traffic use of the individual landowners).
Alex asked Andrea for specific suggestions of how the document could be improved, for instance, merging zoning districts. Andrea thought there should be more distinction of what is defining certain districts, looking at an area’s capacity, for instance, to provide services to that area, from a town infrastructure point of view. She said to then look at those natural ecosystem services that that area is providing in considering a density number. Finally, the mechanics could get down to the parcel level, locating the best home sites. The group briefly discussed ridgeline areas, earlier discussions regarding development there and also attempts to understand road maintenance costs. Fred said certain data is just not available – if it were, the PC could avoid arbitrary distinctions, creating area zoning that could be backed up with facts or dollar distinctions. Bill said there was plenty of scientific, environmental data available on such issues as erosion and water quality. Jean thought bringing any data to the public forum and to the process in general would be very helpful.
There was more discussion regarding Hinesburg’s unique natural characteristics, mainly in how varied they are as an area set between the flatter towns along Lake Champlain Valley and hilly town towards the Green Mountains. The group discussed how to organize the public forum and which ideas could be brought forth at that time. The small lot subdivision provision was discussed briefly, with Peter stating he did not feel those lots were suitable for subdivision, and Joe I. stating he had heard on many instances that people wished only to do this to provide one extra lot for their children.
Bill Marks suggested a specific change to model Option 1, flood hazard areas, stating that fluvial erosion areas should be included in that section. Alex said the PC has not finished discussed those particular areas but that they would before rural planning was completed. Bill also asked that the language regarding a landowner’s option to use studies or expertise in lieu of what is provided by the town, stating the town (DRB) should have the right to take all information “under consideration and decide based on the best evidence”. The group discussed the intent of that section; Alex said language can be included to clarify that a 3rd party source can be consulted at the expense of the landowner, not necessarily one hired by the landowner privately.
Other Business
P&Z Budget - Alex said he had a preliminary budget review with the SB who asked that funds budgeted for Growth Center designation be cut, along with at least one other initiative. Alex asked the group for their feedback on those programs they had discussed – Stormwater studies, Rec fields, Growth Center, Impact Fees. Jean thought stormwater studies should remain the top priority, stating the PC could draft a letter stating as much.
Vermont Gas Systems – Alex passed along information he had received from Vermont Gas, including a map showing their expansion into Hinesburg along Shelburne Falls Road.
CCMPO – Alex said the Regional Planning Commission is preparing their 2011 regional plan and is asking for feedback by December 1st; he asked the group for any particular subjects and issues they would like addressed. The group discussed how they interacted with this organization; Alex said although they use their services, they don’t get as much from their regional plan as it is made up of inspiration from all the municipal plans that make up Chittenden county. Fred wondered if they could operate as a clearing house for information, for instance, to let other towns know who has done or is doing rural density planning – what did those towns do, what were their formulas, etc.
September 23rd Meeting Minutes
Carrie MOVED to approve the September 23rd meeting minutes as amended. Johanna SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4-0, with Fred not voting and Will and Ashley abstaining.
The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, October 28,
2009.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:00pm.
Respectfully Submitted:
Karen Cornish
Recording
Secretary