Town of Hinesburg
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes
May 26, 2010
- Approved June 9, 2010 -
Members Present: Joe Iadanza, Carrie Fenn, Bob Linck, Jean Isham, Will Patten, Tim Clancy, Ray Mainer, Tom Ayer, Johanna White
Members Absent: None
Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Planning/Zoning), Mary Seemann (Recording Secretary), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Russell Spies, Jim Collins, Bill Marks, David & Barbara Lyman, Wayne Bissonette, George Bedard, Michael Bissonette, Martha Keenan, David Hunter, Susan Barden, Lenore Budd, Alan Norris
Jean I opened the meeting at 7:35 p.m.
The Commission started the evening with discussions on the revisions to the Village Growth Area and Town Plan. Some of the topics that were discussed were:
Village Growth Area Rezoning: (cont’d from April 28, 2010): Jean opened the public hearing on the Village Growth Area revisions to the Zoning Regulations and the Subdivision Regulations. She noted that this hearing was continued from the April 28 meeting. Alex presented a slide presentation with the major revisions the Commission talked about a year ago. He reminded them that most of the changes stem from suggestions and public feedback from 2009 when the Selectboard was in the process of adopting the original Village Growth Area regulation revisions. Alex stated that the proposal is to modify the Zoning Regulations (many sections), the Subdivision Regulations (just a few sections), and the Zoning District Map for the Village Growth Area. He displayed the Village Growth Area Map indicating where the Commission had made significant changes; such as the expansion of the Village Northeast District and the expansion of the Residential 2 District. Alex stated the Residential 2 District was new last year and it was meant to be a higher density residential district that would provide a gateway into the Village proper. He gave the reason why that district was expanded on the east side of Route 116, on the Munson property and said George Munson had contacted both himself and Jean asking that his property be taken out of the Residential 2 District. Right now the dividing line splits his property in two.
Tim C asked what would be the argument for saying no; we want that to be part of the Village Growth District. Why wouldn’t they agree with the Munson’s request? Alex said he didn’t see why they wouldn’t agree. On the other hand, the purpose of that district was to allow there to be denser residential development as you enter from the south for a sense of arrival, so an argument could be made for denser development on the Munson portion of the Route 116, Buck Hill Road intersection.
Carrie F said to the north of Buck Hill Road wouldn’t change either because it has been developed out.
Jean I asked if there were any more questions or comments on this parcel. She stated they could make a decision later on this. Alex agreed.
Zoning Changes
Alex stated there were only a few changes to the Subdivision Regulations. He displayed the digital copy on the overhead screen. Jean asked if any member had any particular questions or issues on the proposed changes to the Zoning or Subdivision Regulations.
Carrie F had a question regarding the flood hazard area redo that they just sent to the Selectboard. Alex said that set of regulation revisions was a stand alone proposal, and there was no interplay between it and the revision proposals being discussed tonight.
Jean found duplications for “art studio and/or exhibition space”. There was a discussion as to where is the best place to put that. Alex said he could delete it from one section if that is what she wanted.
Will P asked if Alex was sure that the interim zoning supersedes a piece of zoning bylaw that will be adopted later and Alex said he was sure it did and that being a legal question he will ask League of Cities and Towns just to insure that is the case. Jean said to make sure they are not doing anything to disrupt the interim zoning that is in place now.
The Commission went through the proposed changes in each section and had discussion on what they felt needed better clarification, rewording or what needed to be deleted.
Jean asked if there were any questions from the audience. George Bedard asked about home occupation and cottage industry in the Residential 1 & 2 areas. Mike Bissonette asked if they had a clear definition of what a larger home occupation is versus a smaller home occupation. Alex gave the definitions and examples.
Building Height
After the questions from the audience Alex and Peter brought up some points they were concerned about. The first was that earlier regulations adopted around 2002 included an Industrial 5 zoning district (where NRG is located), and in that district the height of industrial buildings could be taller than the standard 35’ height limit; these earlier regulations allowed industrial buildings with peaked roofs up to 45’ in height. Alex said the 2009 Village Growth Area regulation revision eliminated the Industrial 5 district; it is now a part of the Village NE district. He explained that since the Industrial 5 district was eliminated, the special height allowance (formally in section 2.7, Height Limitations) has gone away too. Alex showed where in the regulations he tried to put the height allowance back in. He said that previously the height provision was specific to a very small area (just the 10 acres of the old I-5 district) and if they reinstate this allowance, it will apply across the entire Village NE district.
Peter E stated whatever the Commission decides to put in the regulations they need to make it clear and precise.
Tom A brought up the height of buildings and the fire departments ability to get to the roof in case of fire. He pointed out if the height gets to be too tall the fire department may not have the equipment to handle fires at that facility. Tom said he felt they should keep the lower height limit.
Alex said they could make the proposed revision which says “Industrial buildings in the Village NE zoning district can go up to 45’”, they can take it out and just leave it the way it currently is, which is the 35’ limit unless waived as part of a Planned Unit Development or unless a variance is granted. Alex said they could also do what Will P suggested which is to leave it in but take out the reference to the Village NE zoning district and have it apply to any and all industrial buildings in any part of the Town.
Tim C said it didn’t make any sense to him to allow greater height for industrial buildings and not residential buildings. If the fire department can do fire protection on industrial buildings at 45’ why would the Commission be making the determination between industrial and residential.
Will P said he thought they should take that out of the regulations and make it conditional use everywhere.
Carrie F made a motion to take it out. Alex stated that would make 35’ the cap on height unless one would get a Variance or go through a PUD and get a Waiver. Will P seconded the motion. A vote was taken. 9-0 - THE MOTION PASSED.
Small Scale Productions
Alex said another point Peter E had brought up was the “new use” that the Commission added last year: “Community theater for small scale productions”. Jean asked if this was in reference to the Munson barn and Alex said it was. Alex said when he went through the changes that were adopted he noticed there was not a definition for Community Theater and as a technical correction they needed to put one in. He said Peter brought up the fact that they were defining Community Theater but were not defining Small Scale Productions. Alex suggested they get rid of that wording altogether and insert in its place the wording they used for indoor recreational facilities in the Village and Commercial Districts which refers to theaters.
Will P asked if they aren’t already defining small scale by limiting it to existing buildings. Jean said she didn’t think it was the size of the production but the capacity of the building to accommodate patrons who would be there to see the production.
Alex said he wanted to clarify that it is a Conditional Use in the Village, the indoor recreational facilities such as theaters. In the Commercial District it is a permitted use and in the Residential 2 District it is a Conditional Use.
Jean read the definition of Community Theatre as: ‘a facility used for cultural arts performances e.g. motion pictures, dramas, dance, and musicals that are open to the public and for the benefit of the Hinesburg community”. She suggested they eliminate “and for the benefit of the Hinesburg community”. She said it continued to say “incidental uses for private meetings, exhibits and presentations are also allowed”.
Bob L said he is not familiar with the Munson barn and asked if they were creating any kind of automatic problem because on that site you couldn’t possibly have adequate parking for the cars, or is it not a problem and you could set up public parking.
Alex said it sounded like the Commission wanted to take out the words “for small scale productions” and in the definitions take out what Jean mentioned. He cautioned that in doing that they would create a defined use called “Community Theater”. He went on to say this would not apply to the indoor recreational facility that includes theaters in the other districts.
Jean asked if they have to use “Community Theater” or can it just be theater. Will P said there is a big difference between a commercial small movie theater and a community theater. Alex pointed out that the definitions don’t recognize that and that is what Peter is concerned with, the Commission has not mentioned what they differences are. Alex said the only difference now is the word “community” and that is not defined. He suggested the word be taken out altogether, just call it a theater and then make the change “to the benefit of the Hinesburg community”, then there will be a definition of theater that will apply across the whole zoning regulations.
Master Plan
Barbara Lyman asked about the Master Plan requirement. She stated that people were being required to do that now but it is not part of the regulations. She would like to know why. Secondly, she said she could not find a definition for Master Plan under definitions. Alex pointed out where the general definition was located and said the actual requirement of what a Master Plan needs to do in the Village Growth Area is in the same section.
Barbara asked why they are requiring it now. Alex said the members felt it was necessary because the vision for those districts was “mixed use” and in her project and the Bissonette’s project the initial proposal was for commercial use only. The DRB said they couldn’t approve it due to the fact it did not conform to the requirements in that district.
Jean said the other discussions on that were in reference to concerns about drainage, utilities and infrastructure and how they tie in from one parcel to the next.
Barb said she understood, but having to hire engineers to fulfill this requirement is hurting people who want to develop their land. She said she did not think that was the intention.
Wayne Bissonette stated he felt this did encourage development.
George Bedard stated this issue has hit two people in this district. This is an expensive burden on landowners who want to attract developers. What about single use?
Peter E asked if it were not true that someone would have to pay an engineer eventually. It is going to take an investment no matter what. Peter said he thought the regulations said that these districts have a vision which is mixed use and the Board just wants developers to commit to the Commission how they are going to achieve this vision. This would be the Master Plan.
Jean asked the members if they had any changes they wanted to make to the Master Plan section or any other sections then decide if they want to have Alex finalize the changes, forward them to the Selectboard, or to continue this discussion at the next meeting.
Alex said the members could take time to think about some of the comments they heard and discuss language changes at the next meeting. Tim C thought that was a good idea because this was a little unsettling. Will P agreed saying he felt each should go home, sit down and jot down what they feel should be in the Master Plan. Think about a reasonable balance.
Jean closed the public hearing on the Village Growth Area revisions to the Zoning Regulations and the Subdivision Regulations. She said the Commission will take up this discussion again at the next meeting and asked the members to email all their proposed language on this to each other before the next meeting.
Town Plan
Jean opened the public hearing on the Town Plan revisions. She noted that this hearing was continued from the April 28 meeting. Jean asked the audience if they wanted to go through changes in the Town Plan.
George Bedard said he would as he was not at the last meeting. Alex went through the Plan and pointed out the highlights and changes.
Jean asked about the new Town Plan Maps. Alex showed the new version of Map 13 “Trail Network Vision”.
Jim Collins said the bike trails have taken over the Hayden Hill Road Town Forest, and now there is no wildlife in the forests.
Lenore Budd, Trails Committee, said she did not have any comment on this issue but said having the Legend on front of the map was a good idea. She said the Committee is trying to make connections to other trails.
There was discussion on what the definition of Habitat is.
Jim Collins said he was disappointed that under “Scenic Area” there was no comment on the history of the canal that runs through the Saputo property. He felt this should be in the Town Plan.
The Board had discussions on transportation, and child care. Jean said at the next meeting she would like to go over the Top 10 Implements and asked the members to have their top 10 ready for discussion. Jean closed the public hearing on the Town Plan revisions.
Minutes from May 12th: After some amendments Will P made a motion to accept the minutes as amended, Ray M seconded the motion. A vote was taken. 9-0 - The Motion Passed.
Will P made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Ray M seconded the motion. A vote was taken. 9-0 - The Motion Passed.
The meeting closed at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Seemann
(Recording Secretary)