Hinesburg Planning Commission

Meeting Minutes

January 27, 2010
Cont’d from 1-13-10

DRAFT

Commission Members Present: Tom Ayer, Carrie Fenn, Joe Iadanza, Tim Clancy, Johanna White, Jean Isham

Commission Members Absent: Will Patten, Fred Haulenbeek

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Mary Seemann (Recording Secretary), Andrea Morgante

Jean called the meeting to order at 7:37 pm.

First topic on the agenda was a discussion on the Flood Hazard Regulation Revision, Article 6.

• Alex Weinhagen stated that this copy is completely different than the previous one they might have, and what will be seen are strikeouts from the States model language. He stated that he was still waiting for Ned Swansberg’s (VT Environmental Analyst) feedback on this issue, whether what we are suggesting is going to fit into the FEMA program standards.
• Jean stated that this process must be kept moving fairly quickly and stated that by the next meeting hopefully the Board would have any corrections. The Board reviewed the handout.   
• A discussion on what “Arbitrary Line” is. Andrea stated that it is not arbitrary it is a real line. That the State may armor the line, but the river will move; ice jams, beaver dams, etc. may cause the line to move.
• Alex Weinhagen stated that in trying to keep the language easy for the lay-person to understand that they may be creating more problems.    
• Joe pointed out that there is a definition section and this is where this should go.
• Alex Weinhagen said the Summary Table on page 4 had been struck out due to it being confusing when trying to match it to the permitted and conditional uses are. Peter and Alex felt it was best to just do away with it.
• Joe offered that the section on Base Flood Elevations was confusing and he had to read it several times to understand it.
• Carrie suggested that the word floodway be capitalized because it is something separate and distinct. There was discussion under the Special Flood Hazard Area description, Alex saying that these special flood hazard areas are primarily associated with the LaPlatte and Lewis Creek only not all the water bodies about town.    
• Alex talked about the ramifications that has; not being able to go to the Zoning to get a permit for anything inside the area as they are either prohibited or conditional and you would have to go to the DRB Board.    
• There was discussion on parking allowed, parking lots, their environmental effects on the FEH, and what the language used is saying. Jean said we want to be careful of allowing parking in floodways. These should be conditional or prohibited. Alex stated that in the Stream Setbacks there is some mention of parking in those setbacks. In Section 2.5 Point #1 talks about the setbacks, and minimums. Jean asked if this should be brought into these regulations, and Alex said yes if there was a thought that the parking would present a danger in the hazard area. Alex said perhaps putting “parking areas” and define it better would help. Stating not “new” parking.

Critical Facilities, Installing lines, Exempt Activities

The discussion then moved on to what was meant by these terms and Alex pointed to where the definitions were. For Critical Facilities, they mean such things as Police Stations, Fire and Rescue Stations, Hospitals, and the like.

• Jean brought up that there may need to be more definitions.
• Tom pointed out if installing lines- one would have to cross water sometime. Alex said we will definitely think about striking that one. Stating what the intent was.
• Discussion under Exempted Activities: inquiring about the permit needed for a farm structure. Does somebody building a farm structure have to go to the state for a permit? Alex said that the State does not really get involved it is up to the Zoning Administrator to deem a structure exempt from zoning.

Conditional Use Review was discussed and examples were given by Alex as to what would constitute this.

• Alteration of a watercourse Joe said that means outside the FEH. He wondered if we really wanted to play with alteration of a watercourse. Alex explained that there are requirements that you have a State Stream Alteration permit in hand if in fact you are altering a stream. Wanted it mentioned as a conditional use. Joe said he could understand the intent but also understands how someone could twist the meaning.
• Jean asked why they want the creation of a pond there. Alex said that we wouldn’t want it in the FEH but within the area of inundation outside the FEH or floodway. It was just part of the model language.
• Joe offered that it would be longer but do we want to have permitted, prohibited and conditional uses broken out totally separately? Alex stated that that is what Peter wants to do. He asked if the Board thought that would make it clearer. The all agreed that it would. Said that it would be changed as long as it was allowed.

Variances was discussed

• Jean asked if we needed the first statement regarding variance for development. Alex said he thought we would and would check with Ned. He said the it references another federal regulatory section that we have never used before. If you want a variance in the FEH area there is a special variance for that and the Board would have to look at it as well. Alex will ask Ned how much of this section is really needed per FEMA minimum standards, or are we questioning whether we should be giving variances at all.
• Jean said she was asking in what situations would the Town grant a variance. Alex said that they are very hard to get, that the Vermont Supreme Court precedence basically states that the only time you should be issuing a variance is when there is literally no other option for reasonable use of someone’s property because of the regulation that is in place. He gave some examples of when this could be used.

Maps

• Carries asked if a map could be provided in this section. Alex said that there is one in the Town plan but not in the Zoning plan and questioned why it wasn’t. His thought is that because they are based on FEMA maps, instead of including them we just refer to those
• Andrea said that was a good question for Ned and Carrie. That led to a discussion if it would be better to refer to the FEMA maps as opposed to our own. We are going to have to reference something regarding the FEH which is breaking new ground.
• Alex asked the Board if they would just want to see a map attached to the zoning so people would have something to look at or not. He stated that the FEMA maps are available. Johanna asked what would be involved in making a map. Carrie said she was thinking of an 8 ½” X 11” map that would just give a rough guide. Alex said that Article 6 did not apply to this and he would be happy to make such a map to use. Alex said that Peter did not want to be enforcement officer.

With no further discussion Jean moved to go on to the next Agenda item.

Town Plan Revision and Transportation Section

• Joe has rewritten. He referred to the traffic light on Route 116 and Charlotte Roads, as causing traffic back-up.
• Carrie stated that she is doing the energy section she would like to add to the paragraph referring the infra structure and add “adds to excessive energy use, and limits residential and commercial possibilities”.   
• Tom said it should be changed from village to town. Jean agreed. Joe removed Clause B. citing that we are already at 30mph in the village.

Discussion of rural roadways redrafting in rezoning.

• Joe did not want to commit to a specific proposal. It was discussed that the Board was not there yet but it was important to refer to the intent.
• Alex talked about the land use section of the Town Plan the land use section is broken up the village area, commercial, and industrial and rural areas and as a part of the rural areas there is enabling language. He said that Andrea is right we should take a look at section and add some additional clarifying language based on what we have learned over the last year or two just to clarify where we are going with it even if we don’t know where we are going to end up.
• Jean said we could make a reference without implementing something that we don’t have.
• Andrea asked if there was a reference to working with CCTA or public transportation or is it just talking about roads. Joe said just roads.
• Alex stated that there is a group of Hinesburg residents on Rides and perhaps we could kick this over to them and ask if they can help us with a paragraph. All agreed that would be a good idea. Alex said he communicates with them fairly frequently so he will ask.

Discussion about the February 3^rd meeting regarding the upcoming vote on the CCTA.

• Andrea brought up the Right-of-Ways and the Ancient Road Committee. Stating that a paragraph about this would be useful.
• Jean asked if there was a paragraph in there talking about the 4-rod roads and chains; do not have to list every road. More definitions on this subject were agreed upon.    
• Tim and Andrea got into a discussion on acre measurements.

Other Business

• Jean asked if Fred Haulenbeek has resigned. Alex said not yet and he will touch base with Fred for further information.
• Jean said that the definition for “Mixed Use” needs to be clarified.
• Alex stated that there is a plan to clean up revisions and then let the Select Board make the final decision. Right now the definitions are at the opposite ends of the spectrum and there is a need to become cohesive.
• Mix use was described as already being in the town. Lyman Meadows was discussed showing that in one section we have: walking paths, a restaurant, a school, gas station, condos, grocery store, dog grooming, attorney and a church.
• The discussion moved to Lyman/Milot property. Could there be apartments or condos mixed in, maybe on the second floor or over Kinney Drugs, would it be to high rent for the area, etc. Alex mentioned that none of the Board members has enough experience on what constitutes “Mixed Use” there would have to be more research done. Carrie suggested by the Planning Committee.   
• Rezoning to allow residential over Kinney’s but Alex stated that Kinney’s did not want anything over them. Jean brought up that in Derby, VT the Kinney’s store there had a different sign, it was a triangle and so the Kinney’s here should be flexible to what the town is looking for.
• It was pointed out the there is residential over the attorney’s office, the dog grooming salon, and the grocery store now so perhaps Kinney’s will reconsider.
• Johanna brought up the row houses in Montreal using that as an example of what could possibly happen in Hinesburg.

The Board then had a discussion on members missing upcoming meetings, needing to replace missing members because they are losing two. Jean asked the Board members to think of replacements and this will be discussed at the next meeting; February 10, 2010.

Tim motioned to adjourn the meeting and Tom seconded. Vote taken all agreeing.

Meeting ended at 9:55 pm

Respectfully submitted

Mary Seemann

Recording Secretary