TOWN OF HINESBURG
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 10, 2010
- DRAFT -
Commission Members Present: Tom Ayer, Carrie Fenn, Joe Iadanza, Tim Clancy, Will Patten, Johanna White
Commission Members Absent: Jean Isham, Fred Haulenbeek
Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Mary Seemann (Recording Secretary), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Andrea Morgante, Denise Guttler, Kelley Lucia, Elinor Lucia, Frances Emmons, Russell Spies, Janice Osgood, James Roberge, Ray Mariner, Raymond & Ruth Ayer, Darlene Ruggles, Abbi Kiley, Jay Kiley, Larry Lindelor, Bob Linck, Lydia Fuller, Shannon Emmons
Joe called the meeting to order at 7:35pm.
The first order of business was a public hearing on changes to Zoning Bylaws to accommodate changes in the flood insurance program. Joe asked Alex Weinhagen if he would like to present some information regarding the changes. Alex gave a brief overview of the high points for the audience.
Alex introduced himself as the Hinesburg Town Planner. He stated he had sent a mailing out to all who lived in the flood hazard area and the fluvial erosion hazard area as this meeting could affect them. He started that Hinesburg, as a community, is enrolled in the National Flood Insurance Program which is a program that the Federal Government offers through FEMA (Federal Emergencies Management Agency) and by being a participant in the program this gives the residents access to much more affordable flood insurance. He explained that this will help if you seek a mortgage or refinancing in case the bank tells you that you need flood insurance. Alex said that Hinesburg has been enrolled in the Flood Insurance Program for 30+ years and one of the requirements for being enrolled is that we have regulations to govern development in those flood hazard areas in order to mitigate and minimize the amount of risk that both private and public property are exposed to by having a development in the flood hazard area. The way it has been done in Hinesburg for a long time is our Article 6 in the Zoning Regulations.
Article 6 has been in place for many years and it lays out special provisions for development in a flood hazard area for resident who want to build or renovate property in that area. Last year FEMA decided to update all of the maps for Chittenden County and said the reason for doing the map update is to make the maps more accurate to the on-the-ground conditions. FEMA is requiring all Chittenden County communities to get their flood regulations in line with the minimum FEMA standards.
Alex said what the Commission has been working on over the past several months is to take a look at our regulations in order to update them to meet the minimum FEMA standards to remain eligible for the program. Another discussion the Commission has been having is two basic policy changes; first to actually minimize risk by not allowing new development in the flood hazard area especially if it would require fill to elevate it out of the flood hazard area. Doing this may cause ramifications to neighbors by pushing flood waters in directions it has never gone before. The Planning Commission talked about putting an end to that by saying if you have something in the flood hazard area you can make reasonable additions and accommodations but you will not be able to develop something brand new in the area.
The second policy change is to recognize that there are two different risks having to do with flooding. One is the traditional inundation risk, which FEMA regulates and which they develop their maps around – the rising and lowering inundation areas. Alex said that in Vermont most of the actual damage and dollars that have gone towards mitigating and repairing from flood events doesn’t have to do with rising and lowering waters it has to do with powerful erosion around streams, where streams will actually carve a new course and readjust their alignment based on a big storm event. Alex stated that these regulation changes seek to recognize this additional hazard area and try to limit new development in that fluvial erosion area around the LaPlatt and Lewis Creek as these are the two primary water bodies that have these erosion hazard area mapped for them.
Alex said if you were mapped to be in it the “AE” or “A” (An “AE” area is one which they have done a detailed study and they know the elevation that the flood waters will come up to. A zone “A” is an area which is considered in the flood hazard area but they do not know exactly what the flood elevation is.) section the only way to get out of it is to file what is called a “Letter of Map Amendment” with FEMA and that would require you to get an engineer to come out to your property and tell you what the elevation of your property is and what the elevation of the flood hazard area is. All of the processes that the Town is doing doesn’t really impact that process which is separate and happens between a private party and FEMA. FEMA is trying to get the maps to be more reflective of where the flood areas actually are and they recognize there are areas in Hinesburg where no detailed engineering studies have been done.
Joe thanked Alex and opened the discussion to the public for any questions.
Shannon Emmons asked how long this process was going to take. She wanted to know what part of her property was considered in the flood hazard area and if that can be changed, would she need a LOAM (Letter of Map Amendment). She believes one of her neighbors had done a LOMA and they sit lower on her road. Shannon asked if she waited for the LOMA but went ahead and did some development this summer what that would mean.
Alex said the time frame for the new maps is summertime and if she were to go ahead with a development before the new maps come out she will be under the regulations that stand in place now. He stated that having someone in the neighborhood get a LOMA could be beneficial for her LOMA application as the elevations have been studied already.
Denise Scutler said she knows that FEMA did not check the elevations because her property is one of them and she is doing the elevations right now to change that. She said she knew that new maps would possibly be out in the fall and asked if she did the LOMA now whose information would the use? FEMA or the LOMA’s as to what information to go by because there is a questionable man-made stream that goes through the property that has been marked as a flood plain. Denise asked what impact is this going to have on us agriculturally. She stated that there seems to be a lot more language now like: don’t fix the culvert across the river (which would give her access to 80 acres of woods,) you can’t fix the height or the river when they are crossing the stream. She said there seems to be a lot of language that is making it inaccessible for use.
Alex pointed out a couple of sections she may want to pay particular attention to and agreed that there is more language and more pages than in the old regulations. He said this is basically a function of FEMA tightening up their standards. He doesn’t really know what the updated maps are going to look like, the preliminary draft had errors in it but they will be addressing property such as hers.
Russell Spies said he was curious about the engineering origin of the maps and asked if Alex knew who FEMA gets the information for the maps. Alex said he didn’t. Russell asked if this information would be in the historical information. Russell said that there are sections by streams that are gullies and if the house is close to the gully and on the map it shows as being in the flood plain.
Andrea Morgante said the origin of the problem was the USGS map identified the canal as Patrick Brook because indeed Patrick Brook had been diverted and it was a canal so on that map it was labeled Patrick Brook and it wasn’t until the damn started to deteriorate, not being kept up that Patrick Brook reestablished its natural channel.
Carrie said for the people living next to the gully, they might be in danger of fluvial erosion hazard and that might be why they are in one of those zones.
James Kiley said they had just recently purchased a house and Patrick Brook runs through the lower part of his property. He noticed in Section 1.4 they are talking about Patrick Brook 100’ feet on either side and he asked if he would need a LOMA. Abbi Kiley about the 100 foot on either side, are they looking at the distance to where your house is from the stream to determine whether or not you are in a flood zone or is it just based on whether or not your property itself is in that flood zone? James asked if they were in an “A” or “AE”.
Alex told the Kiley’s that they are not in the FEMA flood hazard area mapping at all but what passed through it is the new fluvial erosion hazard area. He explained the State went through and identified which streams had the potential to change course and erode their banks and this stream is one of them. Alex explained if they wanted to develop the property by the house it would not trigger the regulations, but if they wanted to build by the stream it would trigger the regulations because that portion of your property is in the flood hazard area.
Andrea said the map defines the areas to which you can do rip-rap. The goal is to allow some natural erosion that’s going to create some stability in the stream, some natural meandering in order to slow the water down and let the sediment drop out. So what the State has done is said we don’t want you to rip-rap right on the current edge, we would like there to be a little bit of curve put back into the river and then you can RR on those edges.
Darlene Ruggles asked about allowing VAST to go through her property stating they put a bridge at the bottom of her property across the stream. She wondered if that will affect them at all. Alex said yes. Darlene asked if the bridge would stay where they put it and others in the audience said yes as they have one too.
Alex pointed out that the regulations, like most zoning regulations are going forward so any existing structures we don’t require people to go get a permit for them. If on the other hand VAST was interested in enlarging a bridge or relocating it they would trigger the regulations and they would have to come in and get the appropriate approval.
With no other questions from the audience Alex stated the Recreation Commission has been working hard to try and find a new place for a recreational field or a complex of recreation fields, one of the areas they have been looking at is the western side of the Lyman Property, it is outside the area zoned for dense development and it is in agriculture use now. The developer had some wetland delineations done and there are very few wetlands so it seems like a prime candidate for recreational field but under the regulations that were drafted new fill is only allowed for public road projects.
Alex’s question to Joe was do they want to have a similar provision for other public projects like a recreational field so the Town can make a conscience decision as whether it is worth investing money in areas that are going to get inundated water levels or whether they just want to shut the door and say to the Recreation Commission find a high and dry spot, don’t put it in the flood hazard area. Alex expressed that he felt they should be out of the fluvial erosion hazard area and the flood way and expressed concern as to whether or not the Town should invest in a slightly raised recreational field.
Will said the danger would be if you were doing something down-stream to your neighbors’ property by doing the fill. Joe said one of the newer provisions in the set of regulations is a stipulation that if you do fill you need to be able to prove that you are not raising the water level elsewhere. Alex pointed out in the regulations (Section 6.12) those standards apply to any project that in the these hazard areas.
Tim said he would very much like to see the Commission write an exception for that. His read would be an exception in the hazard area but would still have to go through the same proof that the development would not raise the flood elevation level. Alex said that it wouldn’t matter if it were a private landowner seeking to add fill or whether it was the Town. Tim said that the Commission had talked about Mixed Use capability in the Town and athletic fields are key to drawing people into the Town and having a place for recreational sports. Tim said he voted for exploring it, that writing something in as an exemption means that you can do anything you would still have to adhere to the regulations. Alex said the reason public projects are different is because the community
actually has a say in those projects. Carrie stated that before she said yes or no she would like to see a detailed map.
Will reiterated, there is no plan filling in for recreational fields and the only issue is whether or not we should generically carve out a process for filling for public lands anywhere in the Town. The issue is should we write into this regulations provision for the Town filling for public use and if we wanted to use that exemption there would be public hearings and everybody would have to be comfortable that there was not going to be any flooding of anybodies property.
Darlene asked about the new bridge going in this summer asking if the damn on the other side was going to be taken out. Andrea said it was slated for 2011 and yeas the damn would be removed. Alex agreed with Andrea stating that the plans he has seen show a temporary bridge being installed to the current bridge in order to make repairs.
Alex addressed Joe stating that he was looking along the canal and there has been contact with the State helpers and River Management experts about the waterway and currently the State maps show a pretty wide erosion hazard area around the canal and they expressed some flexibility for the Town to narrow that up a bit if we chose. Alex said he was throwing that out to see if Joe wanted to explore that idea any further. Carrie asked how wide it was and Alex said it was about 150’ feet; about 75 feet on either side. Andrea said she also had talked with the State people and she suggested the area behind Nestech to Rte 116 to narrow that to 25 feet.
Alex reminded the Commission that when they did the Village Growth Area rezoning last year and the few years leading up to that they did change the stream setback and buffer provisions within the Village Growth Area along the canal. They narrowed it down to be 25 feet on either side recognizing that it is a developed waterway and that it will have development around it. Bringing the fluvial erosion hazard area down to that same number would be consistent with the stream setbacks that the Select Board adopted last year.
Andrea suggested that it be taken off the fluvial erosion hazard area as they do want to manage the canal.
Joe closed the meeting. Alex told the audience if anyone was interested and wanted to keep up to date they could go to the website, or read the Record.
Alex asked Joe what he wanted changed or investigated further before this issue moves forward. Joe said Talk about the canal, what do we need to do to get the numbers back, and 2. He thought the Commission needed to talk amongst themselves as to whether or not they want to cut themselves some slack for fill in a field or not. After some discussion Alex read regulations regarding fill in Section 6.6 stating that the regulations give a list of prohibitive uses in the fluvial erosion hazard area and the special flood hazard area. Alex said “do we want to draw a line in the sand and say we are not going to build public facilities in the flood areas.”
Joe asked if that happened would that make the exception a Conditional Use. Alex said it would and it would have to go through all the conditional uses standards.
Carrie said she thought the difference from building a road in the common area and building a complex of fields is that you cannot put enough culverts under a playing field to allow the flow of water, naturally, that would be going downstream, you are going to have some backup and you are going to have some constriction and it is going to change the flow, whereas a road you can build it with enough culverts so you are not going to have that kind of damning effect.
Will said instead of focusing on one road and one specific field there are 360 degrees of options in between them. One suggestion was that the Town may want to do some fill just to protect the public facility. Will said he thinks that adding that the Town has the right to fill to create or protect public facilities, such as roads and open lands is not a bad thing at all. Joe asked if they want to give themselves the leeway to build a new structure that is public and then have to fill or berm around it to protect it. Alex said that was a good point and that they should all be clear that the technical fix would allow for fill in these flood hazard areas, which we don’t normally allow. It would allow for fill for new public facilities like a road or a field but the prohibition on new structures wouldn’t be waived. That would still be there so if the Town wanted to build a recreational field and elevate it a foot to allow for the right kind of drainage, one might be able to get it in under the conditional use. That wouldn’t open the door to a bathroom facility in a building or a storage facility that incorporated some restrooms. The structural prohibition would still stand and would probably be part of the evaluation the Select Board would have to make.
Will said that even though it is down the road a bit he felt that the Commission should leave a little latitude for the “greater good” however that would be defined, and one would still have to prove that it wouldn’t flood out somewhere down the line. Johanna agreed that you couldn’t do it if it were going to endanger another persons’ property.
Tom said that the whole idea of two different sets of rules bothers him a bit. Tim said that there seems to be a desire to create a Town that has “Mixed Uses”, a Town where people could walk to a field to play ball. Carrie totally agrees with the concept. Will said he is comfortable in giving the Town the right to make decisions on behalf of the greater good.
Will said that in Section 6.6 adding a “C” or an extension to “B” that says “improvement of existing roads, driveways, and public facilities…” The idea being that everyone, Town, private or otherwise should be able to add fill to improve existing roads and driveways and needs to be protected. The Town also gets the option of deeming new roads necessary. Alex pointed out that it does not say the creation of new public roads deemed necessary by the Town of Hinesburg, it states the creation of new roads deemed necessary by the Town of Hinesburg. An example Alex gave was if a private landowner said he wanted to build a new road for the greater good of everyone then the Town could deem it necessary and then allow there to be fill in a portion of the flood hazard area.
Joe asked Alex with that wording does the Village need to expand sewage lagoon? Alex said that the lagoon is an existing structure or development and additions to it would probably be covered under the Non-Complying Structure section but even if it wasn’t in each of the areas there is a conditional use that says bridges, culverts, channel management activities or other public projects which are functionally dependent on stream access are part of conditional use. Alex said he thought one could argue that the sewage lagoons are functionally dependent on stream access because that is where they discharge waste water to. He said he didn’t think the Commission would be closing the door but it would be a conditional use and would have to go through the Development Review Board and they would have to demonstrate that whatever they wanted to do wasn’t going to harm adjacent landowners or the public interest.
Tom had a question on Section 6.12 14 Development Standards. It states that subdivisions and PUD must be accessible by dry land and he asked if that meant no culverts, or bridges. He said that didn’t seem fair if the landowner was on the other side of the brook but said it made sense if there was another way to get access to the property. Tom didn’t want to put in wording in case somebody did have such property he didn’t want them to get stuck by some language that can clearly be detrimental.
Joe asked if this was something the Commission needed to go back and get clarity on to see if it is permissible changes. Alex said that the Planning Commission will get the clarity or the Select Board will as he is in contact with Ned at the State, that he would forward to him whatever the Commission came out with tonight and give Ned a chance to look it over. Ned will then give the Town some feedback before it moves forward. Alex reminded the Commission that the Select Board has the power to make additional fine-tuning after it is delivered to them and before they hold their public hearing.
There was more discussion on there being two different public greater goods and is one better or more important than the other. Alex said that one thing to make absolutely certain of is that unlike roads, which have to cross features if they’re going to run a certain course recreational fields don’t have to cross water features, they don’t have to be close to water features so they absolutely shouldn’t be allowed within the floodway and they absolutely shouldn’t be allowed in the fluvial erosion hazard area where the stream is going to come and eat it away. Alex said at the very least they would want to avoid those sensitive areas and the only question remains is about the inundation areas.
Alex made a recommendation that either the Planning Commission or the Select Board tweak the development standards in Section 6.12 just to make it clear that this is in fact a review standard.
Will made a motion to direct Alex to make a subsection “C” that give the Town flexibility to use fill to create or improve public facilities, Tim seconded the motion. Vote take 5-1
---
Will asked if the Commission wanted to do something with Section 14- The Subdivision Dry Land access. Carrie said she felt that was going to be necessary language.
Carrie made a motion to have Alex look into that and write something that would address that problem. Will asked if the State has that ability to mandate language. Alex said FEMA does if we want to be part of the National Flood Insurance Program. Will asked how the Commission would amend it if it wasn’t mandatory. Carrie said she didn’t want to make it easy for people to develop where they shouldn’t be developing, but she realizes that it could be a hardship. Alex said the question isn’t whether you can build in one of these flood hazard areas, clearly one cannot, the question is can someone do a development whose only access is across a hazard area. This would say that if this is the only way you can get to your development you can’t do that development you have to find a dry land access.
Will said he didn’t understand the intent of that, why could you not bridge fluvial/flood area. He said he understands that encouragement for developing in those areas shouldn’t happen but prohibiting them seems really stark. If there was a way to get to the property by dry land, even if it was expensive you should be required to do that. Carrie said or via right-of-way by a neighbor etc.
Joe reiterated that the present motion was to have Alex go and research this, Tom seconded the motion. Vote taken 5-0 Tim abstained
---
Tom said he noticed one thing that clashed was in Section 10.1, regarding development; then go to definitions and it states “as used in Article 6 only. Alex explained that he and Peter Erb proposed to Ned from the State to use the existing definition of development but Ned said no, FEMA was going to shoot you down if you don’t use the FEMA definition of development, so that is when it was decided to have two definitions of development in the regulations one will be specific to Article 6 only. It was after that we realized we needed to have some language in 4.1.1. Tom suggested taking out “as used in Article 6 only”. Alex said he thought they needed to keep that special flood hazard area development specific to Article 6 but maybe in 4.1.1 we should reference that definition. Alex apologized for the confusion, he said in the definition section there are two; one under “D” for development and one under “L” for land development and everything under our zoning regulations is land development is defined under the definition under “L”. Any development in Article 6 is defined by the definition for development that says as used in Article 6 only. Joe asked if they wanted to still say 6 only or do they want to say 4.1 and 6.
Carrie asked why they have to say land development and Alex said that was the way development is referred to in the current zoning regulations and has been for the last 30+ years.
Joe brought up 25 feet versus 75 feet on the canal. Alex asked if the Commission had a disposition they wanted to have communicated to the State to help them improve their fluvial erosion hazard area maps. Carrie said she wants them to recognize that it is a waterway; there should be some kind of protection there. Alex said by bringing the setback down to zero the Town is saying we are going to invest resources in keeping it where it is, it will not move. Will asked if they could manage the water with the damn there. Carrie said that it was not the Towns it was Saputo’s. Joe said to be able to manage the movement of that thing to zero is not possible.
Andrea said it means you can do management there; you don’t have to go 25 feet from the edge to manage it. Alex said if you put the fluvial erosion hazard area border on it your ability to manage within those 25 feet on either side is limited. Andrea said we can ask that they take the fluvial erosion hazard area line off, and the Commission agreed. Alex said he didn’t need a motion on that if that was the consensus. He said he will work with Andrea to talk to the State.
SAPUTO
Will stated that the whole purpose in the Saputo deal is to represent the Town’s interest in what happens with Saputo so we are not just innocent bystanders. He said the Committee has been working with best outcomes for the property and have spent most of the time talking to financiers, State, money people and business people to line up the options and see what is doable. The property is on the market through June. When the sign went up it created a lot of interest, showing went up and so did the price. There was hope that it would be given to the Town. Will said there are a lot of businesses who would like to move their current business in but not develop the entire property. That is not in the best interest for the Town. Will said the Commission needs to create permanent zoning that reflects the vision that this subcommittee has been working on for some time. The Select Board is increasingly concerned about the ultimate development of that property. We are interested in getting at least a purpose statement for permanent zoning that lays out the goals of the Town. Will gave a statement of what the committee wants as permitted uses; in terms of priority: #1 We want green pedestrian friendly space that appreciates the historic value of the canal in Hinesburg industrial past. We want the canal and have people be able to walk by it. We want landscaping benches, parks, bike rakes somewhere on the property, and if that green space could be connected to additional green space down behind the church or the Town Hall. #2 We want retail/commercial development that attracts pedestrians and shoppers, such as restaurants, cafes, bookstores, specialty shops, green markets, and transportation centers. #3 We want light industry; and if that light industry can maintain the connection to the working landscape that would be ideal because that is the history of the place. Also light industry that is in keeping with Village northeast, the NRG that is light industry, renewable energy, high technology or carbon solutions that would be great. #4 is housing, that is limited housing, and maybe we could put something on there in terms of total coverage. We don’t see a lot of it going to housing but a lot of people in town are looking for land for affordable housing. The committee has talked with Housing Vermont and they would love to get some land there and put up 24-units of affordable rental housing, which would be in keeping with the Village. That is what we basically handed off and if we can write that into zoning we will be directing and sending a message to any potential buyer and developers that these are your permitted uses and you will have a struggle bringing in a giant single use industry that trucks and missions.
Tim suggested the Town buy the property. He pointed out that the interest rates are low. Will said the Board will consider Bonding to buy it. Alex said that there is no better way to have control of the property then to own it. Johanna said it is the cheese factory all over again if we don’t do something drastic.
Will said the other thing they want in master planning. They don’t want someone to come in and subdivide it. Carrie said the first step is to crack the zoning language. She said we can pursue the Town buying the land but we have to guarantee ourselves that the zoning is right. Tim said that now is the time to put the wheels in motion. Will said the push for the zoning is that it has to be in place by January. Which means we have to zoning approved by this commission and then by the Select Board and public hearings so in terms of actually having this we have to start. In terms of negotiating with buyers and developers we need to have some draft language to show them. Carrie said that if they buy that property before we have zoning in place anything new won’t apply. Will said some interim zoning makes everything conditional, needs the DRB and Select Board approval, but there is single manufacturing space when there is interim zoning so if they were able to sell it to a single manufacturer right now we would have a hard time regulating against them. Will said they have walked through the property with lots of developers who are saying that a lot of the buildings are trashed and the retro-fit dollars are really high. Will said Champlain Chocolates is the only one so far to show using all of it. Johanna asked if Champlain Chocolates really wanted the whole thing and Will said they did but not anymore.
Will said that the Commission needs to start working on the zoning language within the next 6 weeks. Alex said that he has to get draft permit language to Wills committee by next week and the Will will share it with the Select Board the week after and then based on that it will come to this commission to go through the real wringer.
Minutes of February 10th
Carrie had one thing and that was on the first page in reference to 10 cubic feet, it should read yards.
Joe made a motion to accept the minutes and Carrie seconded. Vote taken, 6-0
---
The meeting ended at 10pm
Respectfully Submitted by
Mary Seemann
Recording Secretary