TOWN OF HINESBURG
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 28, 2009
Approved December 9, 2009
Commission Members Present: Tom Ayer, Carrie
Fenn, Fred Haulenbeek, Joe Iadanza, Jean Isham, Will Patten, Johanna White.
Commission Members Absent:
Tim Clancy, Ashley Orgain.
Also Present: Alex
Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Karen Cornish (Recording
Secretary).
The group discussed the format for the
November 11th Rural Planning forum.
Alex said forums have been run in the past with everyone participating
in one large discussion group (speakers and a Q&A session) and/or within
small groups (each run by 1-2 PC commissioners and perhaps a list of common
questions posed to attendees).
The group discussed what information they
wanted to relay to attendees and also what type of feedback they hoped to
receive. Jean thought breaking into
groups worked well for the Village forums; Fred agreed, noting they received more
comments that way and more varied comments from a broader base of
reactions. Fred thought the main
question to ask citizens concerned densities.
He said he is most interested in understanding individuals’ perceptions
of what a reasonable build on their land would look like.
Will thought we should explain generally why
are we switching from the type of zoning we have to what is proposed. The group discussed how the Town Plan (and
its goals for open spaces and the rural nature of the town) can be referenced
as part of an introductory statement about the rural planning effort. Will suggested quoting and displaying content
from the Town Plan as a reference; Alex agreed and suggested using poster
boards.
Alex said he wished to explain the basis for
each option and its general strategies (predictability, resource consideration
being up front, the land speaking for itself, impact on town resources and
services) rather than go into a lot of detail.
Will suggested stating what would happen if we did nothing.
Carrie asked if there should be a discussion
about distance from the center of town; she cited families en route to social
or recreational engagements as frequent users of roads. Will noted Andrea’s comments from the prior
meeting re: town services coming from the center of town (police, fire, road
maintenance) – they travel to rural
areas. He suggested asking citizens to weight
all the considerations: vistas, soil conditions, services, etc. and ask “What
do you think should be the most important engines of these regulations?”
The group discussed whether scenarios for specific
pieces of land should be reviewed but agreed the details of those may bog down
the forum. Alex said he would have them available
as Power Point presentations if requested.
Jean talked about the concept of cluster-sprawl in rural areas – groups
of little clusters of homes dispersed through rural areas, instead of areas of
open working land. She said these
developments can bring density numbers up significantly.
Fred said the focus of the whole conversation
will come down to whatever density figure is plugged into any formula. Karen asked if people, when asked to consider
a number will really understand what
density would look like with that number figured in? Alex suggested being open about the fact that
our current regulations are lacking in a variety of ways, including how the minimum
lot size provision leads to the misconception that your development potential
is area you own ÷ minimum lot size.
He said he would 1) discuss that misconception as part of an introduction,
2) state that this rural planning effort seeks to revise regulations to allow
for a more intelligent decision about what the actual density should be and 3)
state that the PC is still very flexible about what that density should be.
Will agreed, stating it should be made clear
that we have density regulations now, in other words, we are not just now imposing
them but wish to avoid the current scenario where density is negotiated piece
by piece at great cost and anxiety – it’s better to do it up front.
Jean asked about multiple rural districts,
whether that should be considered as it was for the village. Concentric development potential was
discussed. Tom asked why the village
area should be considered the center.
Jean said services - water, sewer, police, fire – have to travel from the center and those services are
expensive. Tom said he did not want to
see areas farther from the village center treated differently from others. Alex said that is why the PC initially did
not consider creating more districts. He
said it may be a good question to ask again (noting the current options don’t include multiple districts). Jean said no one's property will be treated
the same (with or without multiple districts).
Alex said the idea of smaller zones is not about the land and landforms,
but about neighborhoods. He said there
are areas in the RR2 district, for example, that are more developed than others,
as are the Lake areas. He said more
districts can be focused on land forms and their characteristics OR development
patterns. Will said he was only comfortable
with a focus on the land. Fred said if a
family had kept their land open with no development, they are now living in a less
densely populated area; to now create a low-density district that included that
parcel seemed like a penalty to a family that had kept their land open.
Carrie cited state statutes that put forth a
certain values for the state, one of which is to develop compact village
centers with less dense rural areas. Tom
said he thought Hinesburg would stay that way; Carrie disagreed; she said
without a change to our rural zoning, it would not. Johanna asked Tom why he felt certain
residents would be treated unfairly or differently. Tom said he thought the process appeared
arbitrary. Alex cautioned against losing
the edge that defines a compact village settlement. He said if rural zoning were made too similar
to the village zoning, development would blend the line between the two areas
(undermining both). Fred said residents
valued the uniqueness of our village as situated so close to rural areas,
noting the immediate accessibility from the village to trails, for example.
Updates on other projects:
Jean said she is busy working on flood hazard
and fluvial erosion language that needs to be adopted by March. She has had one meeting with other community
members and interested parties. She also
attended the annual meeting for the Lewis Creek Association where the issue of phosphorus
and how it relates to erosion (its transfer into larger bodies of water is
being accelerated as it can be attached to
eroded particles in water, not only as a component of the running water
itself).
Alex discussed an idea for a Planning Fair
event, whether something could be planned for a Wednesday evening in place of
the regular Commission meeting (Wed, 12/9) or in conjunction with the December
Farmers Market at Town Hall, (Sat, 12/12), or to wait until January. Ideas included having a speaker, showing a
screening of the Bear Farmer (a movie about development made by Hinesburg
residents), a fair environment with a table set up at the Market. He said the adoption of the Town Plan this
time around would be more of a technical update to the document. The PC will be required to have a formal
public hearing beyond any Planning event.
Will saw the event as a way to build consensus and engage people in the
process. The group discussed the PC
calendar in general, noting meetings in November and December that were close
to the holidays.
Fred said the energy district idea was
presented to the Select Board at a recent meeting. He said he had talked with Merchants Bank
about the idea and plans to put more information together for the SB for their
review.
Will raised the topic of interim zoning for
Saputo which expires February 2011. Alex
said the Saputo Redevelopment Committee has been encouraged to give suggestions
for zoning in that district; he clarified that if interim zoning is in place
when the property is purchased, any allowed use within the interim zoning will
still be allowed as a future use as it would be grandfathered. He said the SB has to approve anything not
listed under allowed uses; the DRB has to approve any conditional use that is
listed.
The October 14th meeting minutes were approved as amended, by a vote of 4-0, with Fred not voting and Tom and Will abstaining.
A PUBLIC FORUM on Rural Planning is scheduled for November
11, 2009 in place of the regular meeting. The meeting adjourned at approximately
9:10pm.
Respectfully Submitted:
Karen Cornish
Recording Secretary