Town of Hinesburg
Planning Commission Meeting
June 9, 2010
Approved 6/23/10
Members Present: Joe Iadanza, Carrie Fenn, Bob Linck, Jean Isham, Tim Clancy, Ray Mainer, Tom Ayer, Johanna White
Members Absent: Will Patten
Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Planning/Zoning), Mary Seemann (Recording Secretary), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Jim & Sam Collins, David & Barbara Lyman, George Bedard
Jean I opened the meeting at 7:35 pm.
Village Growth Area Rezoning:
Alex Weinhagen went over the zoning regulation changes and comments the public made at the 5/26 public hearing. He said the height limitation will stay at 35’ rather than increasing to 45’ for industrial buildings in the Village NE district as originally proposed. He said that “Theater” is now in the definition section (instead of “Community Theater”) with the verbiage “for the benefit of Hinesburg Community” taken out.
Master Planning:
Jean I said she didn’t find anything in this section that stood out that should be changed. Bob L, Carrie F, and Joe I agreed.
Joe I suggested bulleted items in the section to explain what is expected as well as what is not expected in a Master Plan. He stated we need a general picture where everything lies and the percentage of how the land would be broken down in terms of use percentages and how those areas would relate to existing infrastructures.
Alex said right now it talks about what is expected and putting in what is not expected is an interesting way to help put some boundaries on it.
Carrie F stated requiring a traffic study may be trouble as a developer may not know enough to do a study. She also stated a Master Plan is good planning, for the common good. The plan needs to address future development.
Alex said typically the traffic study happens when the actual proposed development has some sort of implications that require professional expertise. He stated it was not so much that a Master Plan would drive the need for a traffic study, more that the Master Plan would help inform the developer that a traffic study might be needed for the immediate project.
Jean said if this is part of a Master Plan then it has to address what is being thought of for future development.
Joe I said he thought a Master Plan is important: in guaranteeing the land will be used as zoned, and will show mixed use.
Tom A said there should be a standard in place that states what is needed to be done, don’t keep having the developer go back to the DRB as it takes way too long and is cumbersome.
George Bedard suggested this information be put in form of a map. He stressed that the Commission needs to set parameters and by putting information on the map the public will know what the Commission was thinking about for the districts. He stressed whatever clarity can be made for the Commissions intentions is useful.
Peter E said when these districts were made he felt there was a certain commitment made by the Planning Commission that in large new areas there would be coherent planning for development. He said a master plan is needed so that as the property goes from owner, to owner, to owner each with a different developer the Town will get a coherent build out.
Tim C said he liked George’s proposal that the Commission lay out a vision and developers came in to say how they fit into it or don’t fit into it.
Joe I said the one thing that troubles him about the Town being the responsible party to put down the Master Plan is what if we forget something, are we legally saying it is not required?
Carrie F said maybe the problem is with the word “conceptual” as people differ on what that word means. To what degree of detail should a Master Plan have?
Bob L suggested continuing this matter at the next meeting. Jean agreed and asked Alex to put it on the agenda for the next meeting to be held in two weeks.
Munson Request:
George Munson made a request that his property be taken out of the Residential 2 zoning district. There was a discussion that this property was envisioned as the “gateway” to the village area. After some debate and discussion it was decided the bulk of the property is not visible to travelers heading north on RT 116. The discussion moved to the Norris property, which is across the street from the Munson property, and it was decided that was the better property to be labeled as the “gateway” as it is visible to traffic heading north on 116.
Ray M made a motion to take the Munson property out of the Residential 2 zoning district. Tim C seconded the motion. A vote was taken: 7-1. Joe I opposed. THE MOTION PASSED.
Mixed Use Definition:
Tom A brought up the fact the definition for “Mixed Use” is confusing. It was decided after some discussion Alex takes out “single site”.
Town Plan Review:
As time was running late into the evening the discussion for this was postponed until the next meeting, along with the Top 10 Implementation lists the members had made.
Minutes from 5/26/10:
After some changes/corrections Bob L made a motion to accept the minutes as amended. Tom A seconded. A vote was taken. 8-0. THE MOTION PASSED.
Jean brought up to the Commission that Peter Erb’s (Zoning Administrator) appointment will end in August and asked if the Planning Commission would like to make a recommendation to the Selectboard to appoint Peter as Zoning Administrator for another three years. Bob L made the motion and Carrie F seconded. A vote was taken 8-0. THE MOTION PASSED.
Tom A made a motion to close the meeting, Ray M seconded. A vote was taken. 8-0. THE MOTION PASSED. The meeting closed at 10:05pm
Next Scheduled meeting June 23, 2010.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Seemann
(Recording Secretary)