Town of Hinesburg

Planning Commission

Meeting Minutes

January 27, 2010

–Approved February 10, 2010–

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

Commission Members Absent: Will Patten, Fred Haulenbeek, Ashley Orgain

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

Jean called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. 

Flood Hazard Regulation Revision, Article 6: Alex Weinhagen stated that the proposed revisions are completely different than the current regulations in our Zoning and what will be seen are strikeouts from the States model language. He stated that he was still waiting for Ned Swanberg’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.

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. 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).

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.

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 that when someone is installing lines they would have to cross water sometime. Alex said we will definitely think about striking that one. Stating what the intent was.

There was a discussion regarding 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. Joe said he could understand the intent but also understands how someone could twist the meaning. Jean asked why the creation of a pond is allowed.  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 this was a suggestion from Peter as to what he wants to do. He asked if the Board thought that would make it clearer. The all agreed that it would. Alex said that it would be changed as long as it was allowed by FEMA.

Variances were 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 it references another federal regulatory section that we have never used before.  Alex will ask Ned how much of this section is really needed per FEMA minimum standards. He asked if Jean was 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 Courts 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 and instead of including them we just refer to them. Andrea said that was a good question for Ned and Kari Dolan. That led to a discussion if it would be better to refer to the FEMA maps as opposed to our own. Alex asked the Board if they 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 he would be happy to make such a map to use.

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

Town Plan Revision and Transportation Section: Joe has rewritten the transportation section 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 and she would like to add to the paragraph referring the infra structure so the last sentence reads, “This lack of infrastructure…see attached”. Tom said it should be changed from village to town and Joe removed Clause B citing that we are already at 30 mph in the village.

Discussion of rural roadways redrafting in rezoning: It was recommended by Carrie that the transportation section refer to Planning Commissions work on rural area zoning and rural roads. Joe did not want to commit to a specific proposal and after some discussion the Board agreed they were 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 as: the village area, commercial, and industrial and rural areas and as a part of the rural areas there is enabling language. Alex agreed with Andrea stating 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 and Alex stated that there is a group of Hinesburg residents working on this issue and perhaps the Board 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. There was a discussion about the February 3rd 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.

Mixed Use Development Definition: Jean said that the definition for “Mixed Use” needs to be clarified. Alex stated that this could be done as part of the upcoming Village Growth Area Zoning revisions. Mixed use was described as already being in the town.  Main Street along Route 116 was discussed showing that 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. Jean brought up that in Derby, Vermont 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.

Other Business:

Jean asked if Fred Haulenbeek has resigned and Alex said that Fred did submit a letter or resignation but the Select Board hasn’t acted on it yet.

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 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Mary Seemann

Recording Secretary