TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISSION

November 11, 2009

Approved December 9, 2009

Commission Members Present: Tom Ayer, Fred Haulenbeek, Joe Iadanza, Will Patten, Johanna White.

Commission Members Absent: Tim Clancy, Carrie Fenn, Jean Isham, Ashley Orgain.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), John Veilleux, Margery Sharp, Josie Palmer Leavitt, Raymond and Ruth Ayer, Scott Johansen, Terry Harris, George Bedard, Steve Aube, Tom Dillon, Cynthia White, Gill Coates, Tim Casey, Bob Hedden, Bob Linck, Dave Hirth, George Dameron, Bill Lippert, Michelle Fischer, Dan Opton, Laura Killian, Morgan Ryser, Scott and Marianne Brunetto, Colin McNaull, Kristen Sharpless, Robert Kennett, Sue Johnson, Lori Wilson, Steve Hoke, John Berino, Chris and Victoria Nielsen, Gregory LeRoy, Wendi Stein, Charles Kogge, Joseph Bissonette, Kate Bissonette, Tom Miner, Jean Miner, Kathleen LaClair, Jonathan Trefry, Robert Quackenbush, Ellen Foster, Carol Jenkins, Ken Brown, Matt Baldwin, Chuck Reiss.

Rural Area Planning - Public Forum held at Town Hall, main floor

Alex gave a presentation that included basic information about the rural areas in Hinesburg, Planning Commission objectives in re-zoning the rural areas and their research and work done to-date. He presented 2 options for finding a density number, as well as a proposal to change the DRB subdivision review process to a 2-step approach (Finding the Number and Project Design). Alex and PC members took these questions/comments from the audience:

Ellen Foster asked whether the Hinesburg PC had reviewed other towns’ planning models, particularly those using these options, and what experience those towns had with them. Alex said the town of Norwich has had subdivision regulations similar to Option 1 (feature-based) in place for the last 10 years. Their town planner has said that option has worked well for their community. Middlebury is an example of a town that uses Option 2 (sliding-scale) and their community has generally been agreement with its use. Alex noted that both models provide not only a real answer to the maximum build-out question for a particular parcel, but also for the whole town; right now, Hinesburg can’t create such a town build-out scenario. Ellen said she thought Option 1 made the most sense given how variable parcels are town wide.

George Dameron asked what the PC has learned in terms of the negative, unintended consequences or disadvantages of Option 1 and 2. Alex said Middlebury, in having set their density number too high when their method was first adopted, experienced much greater development than they had anticipated or wanted. The town was then forced to enter the painful and divisive Number conversation again. They eventually lowered the number used in the density calculation.

Lenore Budd asked what natural features are included in the take-out calculation found in Option 1, who decides what features are included and what kinds of expertise are used to establish those. Alex listed those features as they are currently written into Option 1 - service waters (ponds, streams) wetlands and any state required wetland buffers, flood hazard areas, slopes of 25% or greater and agricultural soils. He described how ag soil areas were calculated at a different take-out percentage than the other features (50%). Lenore asked if items could be added to the list. Alex said the PC chose these features to include in the take-out formula as they are mapped by state agencies, making the data objective and public. He said it is difficult to work with data that is subjective or has not been vetted by any kind of an agency. He described a provision in Option 1 that allows applicants to submit their own data, stating it would we used in place of state data if it was better.

Kristen Sharpless said there is a lot of mapped information on wildlife that has been done by, and available from, the Fish and Wildlife Department. She noted that the objectives in the Town Plan speak to the preservation of wildlife habitat and suggested adding this to the list of take-out features. Alex agreed that certain wildlife areas (deer wintering, bear habitat, and other rare, threatened and endangered species) are in the Town Plan. He said the Commission talked about those locations but that they tend to be mapped as point locations (not areas) making it difficult to find a rationale way to take out acreage. He said they would be accounted for in the Project Design phase of a DRB review, but added that the Option 1 take-out section (and what natural features are included) is open for discussion.

Marge Sharp asked the Commissioners to introduce themselves and give their opinions on the two options. Commissioners all stated they did not yet have a preference and were interested to hear citizen feedback.

Bob Hedden asked whether bird populations in the rural areas of town would be considered, and noted what he thought to be a lack of emphasis on wildlife in the options. Alex said the Conservation Commission has been helping in this process; he introduced Dave Hirth who gave comments about how the CC has considered bird populations, particularly how to identify habitat based on tree species.

Dave Hirth asked if Options 1 & 2 could be combined, stating he like the take-out method found in 1 and the sliding-scale density method found in 2. Alex said nothing has been set in stone; elements from the 2 options as they are written can be used in a new blended option. He noted some challenges to making technical aspects of the formulas work and asked for specific suggestions. Dave said he also agreed with differentiating between the quality or volume of road traffic as a sensible approach.

John Veilleux said he had concerns as a property owner that the densities appeared to be too small. He agreed with Fred’s comment about being stewards of the land that know every square foot of their property and better assess how many houses were suitable for their parcel. He described the numerous dimensional and infrastructure take-outs that occur (in addition to considerations of natural features) when considering a parcel, stating a property’s acreage can be reduced by those by as much as 25%. Alex asked him if he had a particular number in his mind for his own property of 40 acres. John said about 8 houses, stating soil samples taken recently supported that. He said he has owned the property for 26 years and has put off development as long as he could. He said he is concerned about wildlife and natural areas and also agreed with the proposals to change the approach to rural zoning – he just felt the density number was too low.

Scott Johansen said land often loses stewardship when subdivided into parcels too small (with too few resources left on them) to manage effectively. He said the word conservation, to him, meant “managed”. He said one advantage of the old style was that everyone got their piece of land and was responsible for it. Joe Iadanza said land would not go “un-owned”. He clarified that there was no provision forcing the creation of exclusively small lots. He said a number of small lots could be combined with one large, privately owned lot that would retain (and maintain) a large open space going forward.

Maryanne Brunetto asked about access rights over a large privately-owned parcel with a single owner. Joe clarified that a large parcel with a single owner could be created with or without access rights to the adjacent lot owners. In other words, one large parcel did not have to go into common ownership (as is sometimes the case with PUD’s) – it just depended on how the subdivision was designed. Alex said eliminating the minimum lot size would now give the flexibility to do as Joe described - smaller lots with one big lot. It had the advantage of allowing traditional residential use on small lots combined with keeping farm or forested land in tact, making the concept of stewardship work.

Josie Palmer-Leavitt asked about the increase in the percentage of land that would be required to be set aside for open space. Alex clarified that only PUD subdivisions – those projects that are pursuing more innovative development – will be affected by the change in the percentage of open space (from 25% to 75%). He described the difference between a conventional subdivision (following regular subdivision standards) and the PUD option that gives bonus density for increased open space. Josie added that wildlife concerns were already being addressed at the state level.

Gill Coates asked about current subdivision regulations. Alex described elements of the Zoning and Subdivision regs and how they are used within the subdivision review process. He said a key elements missing from the documents is that they don’t specify how much development can happen on a parcel. They only specify planning standards by which development is reviewed, as they relate to design standards, but not to how much development is viable or appropriate for the parcel. He added that the rezoning process for the Village Growth area did establish fixed densities for those village districts.

Ken Brown asked to see how the different options affected the whole town (noting Will’s comment about similar outcomes in applying Options 1 and 2 to one sample parcel). Alex reviewed maps – the current build out of dwellings; build-outs under both options; and a hypothetical build-out if nothing was done to change the regulations. He said sewer capacity (the availability of suitable soils) had not been taken into consideration under any of the options and also noted changes in state wastewater regulations that allow more development based on new technologies now acceptable for use. He quoted the following build-out numbers represented in the maps:

Current – total dwellings in these 2 districts = 690 (all districts = 1600)

Option 1 – 1000 new dwellings represented

a) does NOT include dwellings created with PUD bonus incentives

b) does NOT include small lot exemption activity, i.e. numbers could be substantially higher with that provision

Option 2 – about 1500

Option 3 (status quo or “doing nothing”) – 6600

Chris Nielson asked why wetlands were not taken out in Option 3 as (he thought) they had been accounted for in Options 1 and 2. Alex said right now (as represented by Option 3), wetlands are NOT accounted for in any formula going into the DRB review process; a parcel’s total acreage is considered, and considered without a density number. While Option 1, yes, considers wetlands within a formula, Option 2 DOES NOT – it uses only a sliding-scale density number applied to a parcel’s acreage. Options 1 and 2 have similar build-outs (1000 and 1500 - closer to each other than to the 6600 expressed in Option 3) because they are using density number and Option 3 is not.

George Bedard noted the chart that described the distribution of lot ownership (that showed most rural parcels are between 4 and 12 acres). He stated that those parcels came from larger parcels originally. He then spoke to development trends, stating Hinesburg had been growing at a rate of 15-20 units per year but is not doing that currently. He expressed support for large lot owners that have continued to pay taxes be allowed to develop their property if and when they need a revenue stream. He spoke to new state wastewater regulations, stating before those changes, about 80% of the land in Hinesburg was undevelopable due to poor soils; with those changes, that number had changed to about 60%. Because of this, he advocated developing a parcel to its full potential. He did not agree with a cap on development and strongly advocated for leaving the regulations as-is (doing nothing). He said most landowners did not want to sell but would like to be able to see a return on their land if they needed it.

Matt Baldwin felt the density numbers were too low, particularly for large landowners. He suggested the PC meet with different landowners to get feedback before setting a number. He said he thought Option 1 was a good approach but wanted to see that the density number was not made inherently unfair to the large landowners.

Chuck Reiss said leaving the regulations as-is was equal to doing no planning at all. He asked PC members what time frame of the proposed regulations was meant to address. He also asked about how prime ag soils would be identified. Alex clarified the ag soil calculations (their acreage would be assessed at 50%, then included in the take-out formula). Chuck said he thought farmland should be looked at very carefully in terms of sustainability. He said the town needed to look down the road 50-60-70 years, noting that Planning was a good thing, that we should be doing that.

Fred gave some closing comments, inviting members of the public to stay involved in the process. Will said he did not want participants to think that the intention of the PC’s efforts was to cap growth in Hinesburg. They were trying to plan intelligent growth in Hinesburg. He said the devil is in the number assigned within the rationale of the two (or another) options and that all they are focused on right now is that rationale – how to go about the process of rural subdivision, not necessarily deciding how much development there should be. Fred stressed the importance of taking the burden of that process out of the realm of the DRB, as it can be a long, expensive, difficult process.

Maryanne Brunetto said these options ultimately would cap build-out numbers and questioned whether new regulations would provide flexibility to landowners. Scott Brunetto asked the PC to focus on landowners that have kept land open to the point where it is today.

The next Planning Commission is scheduled for December 9, 2009. The forum ended at approximately 9:10pm.

Respectfully Submitted:

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary