Town of Hinesburg

Planning Commission

Meeting Minutes

October 27, 2010

Approved - November 10, 2010

Members Present: Jean Isham (Jean I), Johanna White (Johanna W), Bob Linck (Bob L), Carrie Fenn (Carrie F), Tim Clancy (Tim C), Tom Ayer (Tom A), Kyle Bostwick (Kyle B), Ray Mainer (Ray M), Joe Idanza (Joe I)

Members Absent: None

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Planning/Zoning Director), Mary Seemann (Recording Secretary), Doug Nedde from Redstone arrived late to the meeting.

Jean I called the meeting to order at 7:30pm. Her first item on the agenda was to introduce and welcome Kyle Bostwick as a new member to the Commission.

Saputo Area Rezoning: Finalizing draft for public hearing.

Carrie F said in the Industrial 3 District- Purpose section she had no problem using “to a lesser degree” but the word “compatible” had been changed to respect and she felt it should be changed to “relates well”. Ray M agreed “relates well” sounds better but it all ties in with “by adhering to the performance standards”.

Alex W stated Doug Nedde was running late but would be here to join in the discussion.

Joe I said he thought Redstone could come up with a business that adheres to all the performance standards yet may not be the right business for the Village District. He stated the performance standards are written to generally apply across the town which could be argued whether or not they are appropriate for a higher density area.

Jean asked if the changing of the word “compatible” was a suggestion from Redstone. Tim C said Doug Nedde didn’t like it because he could not predict what it meant. Tim C said Doug N didn’t want to waste his time courting tenants who aren’t going to be happy with the standards, Doug N just wants some clarity. Alex W stated Doug N is afraid of neighbors potentiality raising a challenge because there isn’t a standard to go by so it could be anybody’s interpretation. Jean went on to say perhaps the Commissioners should take a look at the performance standards. Doug Nedde arrived around 7:50 and joined the discussion.

Carrie F asked if there should be an added section related to storm water control? Alex said the state permits or Act 250 would cover that. Alex W asked Carrie F if next year she would revise the storm water regulations more globally because the way they talk about storm water in the subdivision and zoning regulations it is now very archaic. He went on to say that instead of doing it now in a piecemeal fashion it should get a more comprehensive look. Carrie F agreed.

Jean I asked Joe I what he had in mind as an example of what might not be compatible for this area. Joe I gave some suggestions which led to discussions.

There were discussions on noise, smog, storm water, and traffic. Jean asked if the traffic issue needed to be addressed. Joe I said the things that would limit or impair mixed use. Ray M said if Redstone is planning on having residential somewhere on the property they can not have a lot of idling trucks nearby because of the noise and smog. There was a discussion on the Ringleman Smoke Chart for figuring out the smoke output on businesses.

Joe I said this was all in the interpretation of the DRB and he didn’t think one word would make that much difference. He said he thinks it is all going to come down to the performance standards, and the only thing he would caution is that the performance standards are town-wide standards and they may not give the Commission what it is looking for in order to still promote higher density development in areas adjacent to the property.

Joe I said there are quite a few businesses that could fit into the performance standards that they would not want in the center of the village.

It was decided to change compatible with to relates too.

Bob L asked about the first sentence in the Purpose Statement. He suggested to make it clearer they use: “light industrial and light manufacturing (and to a lesser degree other commercial businesses.) Alex W agreed it would make it clearer.

Doug N said he had been talking with Vermont Smoke & Cure who are located in the Barre/Montpelier area and they are looking to relocate to a bigger location. They might be interested in buying part of the property. Doug N said what the Commission is suggesting is stricter than what the state regulates with Act 250. There was a discussion on the Ringleman Smoke Chart and how they determine smoke output.

Alex W said what they didn’t have is what the state requirements are. He asked Ray M if he would be interested in checking with the Agency of Agriculture, or with the Agency of Natural Resources/Dept of Environmental Conservation to see if they have an air quality section. Ray said they did and Alex asked if he could find out what would be the standard through the Act 250 review process, that way the Commission would know if their standards are the same. Ray M said he would.

Tom A said that perhaps this is one situation where the performance standards might be amended for this site because it will have to go through Act 250. He asked why they would want to trump Act 250 and double up everything.

Carrie F asked if the Act 250 says the smoke level is okay, can they then say it is not? Alex W said yes.

Doug N showed where on the property Redstone is looking at putting residential and asked in terms of density, this being a PUD, does he take advantage of the village district in the density calculations.

There was a discussion on the Conditional Use section regarding office space. Bob L said he felt they were trying to water down this section. Alex W pointed out that this verbiage was the compromise that the Commission had come to. Originally the Industrial District didn’t allow offices period. Now this zoning totally opens that up and says you can have offices but you can have them as a secondary use to a primary use or you can have them as a “stand alone” and take up as much of the footage as needed, but that’s conditional.

Alex W brought up there was no definition for what a restaurant is. He stated Hinesburg does not have an ordinance regarding food vendors. He said that Peter Erb, our Zoning Administrator has been approached by someone who wants to set up a hot dog stand on a piece of property with picnic tables. The cart he would use would be taken off the property when not in use.

Carrie F said she wasn’t sure if she would like to see a food cart in town. She said to her it felt like a drive-up window restaurant, and it would also be competition to the restaurants we already have here in town.

Jean I asked Alex W if this was to be regulated would it be better regulated by an ordinance than through zoning.

Kyle B asked when it comes to the primary or principle use is the preparation and sales of food to the public, how is that determined? Is it determined on gross receipts? Kyle suggested the Commission make it clear; is it by gross receipts, by menu offerings, or what.

Doug N asked if he would get a “Brew Pub” to come into the site, he was told there is in place a restriction of hours, would they have to close at the now stated 10 p.m.? If this is so, he would not be able to get a restaurant of brew pub’s interest. Alex W said you can operate after 10 p.m. but it will take a Conditional Use review from the DRB.

Jean I asked if the Commissioners had any more questions and should Alex draft language to be ready for a public hearing on December 8th. Alex W said after the meeting, once they had heard from the public, it would be easier to draft some language then send it on to the Selectboard for approval.

Minutes from October 13th.

Carrie F made a motion to accept as amended. Ray M seconded. A vote was taken. 8-0. Kyle B abstained. - THE MOTION PASSED

Other Business:

It was decided to hold a special meeting on Friday October 29th to waive the 45day warning for 25 new NRG trackers.

Meeting closed at 10:15 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Mary Seemann (Recording Secretary)