TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes - December 9, 2009

Approved January 13, 2010

Commission Members Present: Tom Ayer, Carrie Fenn, Fred Haulenbeek, Joe Iadanza, Ashley Orgain, Will Patten.

Commission Members Absent: Tim Clancy, Jean Isham, Johanna White.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Bill Marks, Melissa Levy, Mark Ames, John Veilleux, George Bedard, Dave Hirth, Chris and Vikki Nielsen, Joseph Bissonette, Ben Miner, Jean Miner, Matt Baldwin, Kate Schubart, Peter Erb.

Rural Area Planning – Discussion of Nov. 11th Public Forum

Chris Nielson said he thought a map displayed at the Forum was misleading, that it depicted an unrealistic build out of density under Option 3, particularly because it did not include water features. He said he did some work on density calculations looking at 4 issues - development, wildlife, social, agricultural. He said his own numbers were much lower than those that had been expressed for Option 3 (the study based on leaving the rural districts alone). He commented on those issues and said he was worried about property values and people being able to afford homes in Hinesburg. He does not want the PC to “preserve a picture of the past” but to have a more rounded approach that takes businesses and jobs, property-owner's rights and wildlife into consideration.

Jean Miner said she thought all options for development should be left open and that people should not be forced to live in clustered developments. She thought all landowners did not want to develop their land and none wanted to be told what to do with their land. She said her understanding now was that there were no regulations in place that allowed her to understand the development potential for her property. Carrie clarified there were subdivision regulations but they did not provide certainty as to a build-out number.

Mark Ames said he did not want to see land conserved on the backs of the people who owned and worked the land. He said he thought rules were being changed within a movement to conserve land and questioned whether that conservation effort should be done by edict or by purchase (the Town buying the land). He also asked about forest land that is labeled as prime ag land. He thought many development review boards are made up of people who are not native to their towns and by nature want to change regulations, not leave them as-is. He also thought it was unfair to allow more village development and not the same village densities to landowners in rural areas.

Matt Baldwin said the sliding scale option (#2) did not treat large landowners fairly. He said the large parcels should be compared to other large parcels that have been developed (and allowed the same densities). As for option #1, Matt said a take-out of 50% of agricultural soils would not be fair to any landowners but especially large landowners. He said while a landowner is not necessarily going to build in all of his/her fields, they should be able to use that acreage towards their development density, allowing for a larger number of homes built outside of the fields. He said fields are a farmers most valuable land, cleared and kept open by the farmer, not the town. He said his family is not farming for the town and would like to maintain their land value.

Tom Ayer said Commissioners were not targeting landowners and that the options were very preliminary. Fred agreed, explaining changes would add certainty to the development potential of a lot. He explained the minimum lot size misconception, that regulations stipulate a minimum lot size and people extrapolate that number out into a parcel's density for lack of any other stated method to calculate density. He addressed whether build-out maps should be used to depict different scenarios, stating he thought they may only be useful to present the relativity of the different options.

Will Patten said the Commission was trying to add clarity and predictability to people who want to invest. Chris Nielson agreed that although the options would clarify the density for a parcel, many subjective features still have to be negotiated during the review process, resulting in further loss of development opportunity. He asked what the difference on wildlife, for instance, would be between the new options and leaving it alone. Joe I. suggested looking at the historical density that developers have received from the DRB as a better indicator of what would be different. Alex said in the last 15 years (1990 to present) - for projects that represented the full build-out of the parcel – the following was true:

1) projects that were denied tended to have proposed densities of 1 house per 4 acres;

2) projects that were approved had proposed densities of 1 house per 8 acres.

He said those historical density numbers were used to develop the options and their formulas.

Chris asked if the PC discussed the difference between wildlife or ag impact between the two methods (old and new). He questioned whether farming was viable in Hinesburg going forward, as Burlington creeps out. Fred suggested that if all large, workable forest and ag tracts were developed in our region, there would were be no land left to create a local economy later. Mark Ames said although he agreed those tracts should be kept open, it should not be done at landowners’ expense. He described that approach the conservation through regulation as socialism and asked that the approach be modified. Joe Iadanza stressed that the PC wants ultimately to preserve the same value a landowner had before, just within a different review process.

Fred said one of the views the PC has is that landowners know their land better than anyone else – the land speaks for itself as far as its development potential. He hoped that a formula could be created to match the reasonable build-outs that most landowners have. Fred said right now landowners and developers are using minimum lot size to determine density for their lots and that is not how the DRB handles density nor is it even realistic.

Matt Baldwin said once the regulations are set there would be no option to negotiate a different build-out number. Will P. described a trio of participants in any review process – the landowner, the DRB (“rule setter”) and the land itself. Parcels would be approved for different build-outs due to their specific features.

Bill Marks liked the idea of letting the land can speak for itself, using natural features maps and human resources to assess the land. He said the DRB does that now (uses those maps and testimony) – the change in regulations would bring that step to the front of the process.

John Veillieux said he is concerned about densities, that numbers reflected in the options are too low. He expressed concerns about infrastructure costs (particularly in difficult terrain) and the need for higher densities to cover those flat expenses. He also thought there was often too much emphasis placed on wildlife during public meetings. He asked if there was a downward trend in Hinesburg's wildlife population, noting he had talked to a biologist that said wildlife actually increases with development. Dave Hirth said that the build out map discussed earlier is not that un-realistic and that we only need to look at Williston's development as an example of that. As for impacts on wildlife, he suggested comparing the wildlife in Hinesburg with that in Williston. He said in terms of numbers, breaking up the landscape will get you more numbers of individual animals (rabbits, sparrows, starlings, white-tailed deer) across far fewer species (those that cannot live in fragmented landscapes).

George Bedard said Williston's growth was only possible due to soils and the highway. He said the uncertainty is not in reading our rules, it is what we face when we are trying to ask for something under those rules and how it is applied from the Board's side. He said people are nervous that land values will go down and that most could not assess their own properties to understand development potential. He also cautioned that townspeople would become divided over this issue.

Joe I. asked George why he was asking that the process be left alone, noting the numerous applications in which George himself has been involved. George said he wanted the numbers to be left alone, not the process. George said people build out to the septic capacity they have. Fred said that was just another indicator that using minimum lot size divided into parcel acreage was not a good way to determine density. There was a discussion about what points within the DRB application process were challenging. Fred said he wanted to eliminate those challenges, not make landowners feel like something was taken away. Will P. said the concept would change from “the town gave me eight lots” to “the land I own is capable of supporting eight lots”.

Mark Ames suggested that the town buy development rights rather than restrict development. He noted a denied subdivision application that he said had the right spirit, just not the right design. Fred noted in that application, the developer had proposed the maximum number of homes as determined under minimum lot size extrapolated into acreage, which the neighbors felt, and the DRB determined, to be an unreasonable number.

Will P. said the Planning Commission takes their direction from the Town Plan. Peter Erb described the development of the Town Plan as a democratic process, one town officials and residents now rely on the PC to use. He said it is not an option for the PC to stray from that document which is based on an increase that the town becomes approx. 1/3 larger mainly by way of development in the newly-established Village Growth Center. He said it also takes into consideration town services, a major expense and concern for all residents.

Chris Nielson said he would like to see a comparison of how restricting development would affect landowners, in dollar figures, i.e. what is the value of their land as a real-estate investment (selling land) and the value of their land as an investment in its natural resources (agricultural and in wildlife preservation). He said the Town Plan uses the word “encourage” in its statements, and not the word “take”.

Alex said the PC's intention is not to lower the density, but to use a formula that arrived at a reasonable number everyone could predict for their parcel, before and/or outside the development process. He said it could be argued that a landowner could realize a gain in the value of their property using a more standard set of regulations in which density could not be negotiated down by neighbors within a review process. Chris asked what the historical average build-out numbers for rural areas were and said he wanted clarity on whether the number for a property under new regulations would go up or down from those averages. Alex said it could be the same or more.

Alex said the stated objectives of the Town Plan describe the preservation of a working agricultural landscape. He said he agreed with George that most people don't have a density number in mind, but have a good idea of what parts of their land are the most productive and important for the land to function as it currently is used. He said the new options consider what parts of the parcel need to stay in tact and functional, with a dual goal of helping landowners realize the economic gain of their property (as a real estate investment) without losing the whole point of why you own the land in the first place (as a natural resource).

Peter Erb raised the issue of a development's intensity – the impact on its surroundings. He noted the expense of developing in outlying areas and also costs to all residents in terms of town services. He also said he did not like the idea of promising people they will be allowed to keep the same density, just within a different process.

The concept of clustering was discussed, as a way to maintain the historical density average, just within a different development pattern. Joe said clustering allowed for cheaper infrastructure costs, more affordable homes (making them saleable to a wider range of potential buyers) and the ability to maintain a bigger piece of land for future use. He said the configurations with a particular development can be flexible, to suit a mix of large and small lots.

Fred explained the rezoning process in steps:

-The Town Plan initiates the process

-The PC meets to develop ideas and draft language

-A public forum introduces these ideas

-A public hearing is held to help finalize ideas/language

-Recommended language goes to the Select Board

-A public hearing is held

-The Select Board votes to adopt regulations

The group discussed various motivations of voters in town, with many people stating they felt non-large-landowners (a majority number) did not have a right to vote out large landowners (a minority number). Ben Miner said when people come down their road they verbalize how they enjoy the open space without having an appreciation for how much effort and taxes it takes to keep that land open. Fred recalled hearing similar comments from residents at a DRB application. Matt Baldwin stated the proposed regulations unfairly affected only a very limited number of landowners.

Alex clarified that the PC is a 9-member board appointed by the Select Board who develop a set of regulations that are then sent to the Select Board for a vote, i.e. the general population does not vote on the passage of regulation changes (unless by special petition). He said he did not want to see an “us and them” mentality based on land ownership develop in this conversation. He said PC members represented a diversity of Hinesburg residents and that the same is true for the Select Board.

Bill M. noted the 5 take-out areas in Option 1, stating he had seen all those in other town's regulations except for the prime ag take-out. He suggested that there are other ways to protect these lands other than factoring it as a matter of density, using design standards. He said clustering does not have to be done as one house on top of another, and suggested there could be an option to protect those ag lands by moving houses rather than allowing fewer. He thought dirt roads were a very good way for gauging density.

Will P. said he thought society was at a point in time where the land's greatest value is to subdivide it, but only a few generations ago landowners would not think of dividing as the land's value was as a farming resource. He said many people think it will return to that – that a land's value will be held in its ability to produce food and fuel. He said one goal of the PC was to try to bridge those two eras. Jean Miner raised the practical issues all farmers face in terms of being able to keep land open and pay taxes on it. She suggested that the town offer a different tax structure to landowners to keep their land open and working.

The discussions concluded with PC members and residents talking about definitions for “prime ag soils” and agreeing using those as a take-out may be a key point of contention. PC members said they would reconsider the formulas without that take-out.

Alex clarified that the proposals all include a two step process – first to determine density, then to determine house sites. The existing regulations already state that impacts on ag soils should be limited in terms of where houses are sited, in other words, soils may be removed from formulas but the design of the development would still try to minimize impact on them.

The Board continued discussion about the November forum. Alex said he heard three main points at the forum:

-Figure out how to factor wildlife into the equation

-A preference for option 1, that option 2 was unfair to larger landowners

-Resulting density numbers are too low

Will said he was dismayed that people's perception tonight was that their land (via a withholding of development potential) was being taken away, rather than an attempt to change the DRB process. The group discussed the current use program and what parcels would qualify (they have to be worked either by the owner or as part of a lease agreement). They discussed bonus densities and the idea of taking ag soils out of the up-front density equation, and also concerns over clustering. Joe suggested incentivizing clustering; Fred said the perception is that the end market would not perceive those lots as valuable. Alex noted a letter from Michelle Fischer who commented on her positive experience living in Orchard Commons. Alex suggested maybe it did not matter if all developments offered clustering, as long as there was a mix of offerings across town. Alex recommended that PC members read all submitted correspondence, feedback from the Forum largely stating arguments different from what was expressed tonight.

Other Business:

Alex gave an update on the town plan update efforts and the group agreed to set deadlines in place to stay on top of the overall deadline of adoption date of June 13, 2010

Minutes of the October 28 and November 11 Meetings:

The October 28th meeting minutes were approved as written, by a vote of 5-0, with Ashley abstaining.

The November 11th meeting minutes were approved as amended, by a vote of 5-0, with Ashley abstaining.

The next Planning Commission is scheduled for January 13, 2010. The forum ended at approximately 10:10pm.

Respectfully Submitted:

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary

Hinesburg PC Minutes – December 9, 2009