Town of Hinesburg
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes
November 10, 2010
Approved November 24, 2010
Members Present: Kyle Bostwick, Jean Isham, Bob Linck, Tim Clancy, Johanna White, Joe Idanza, Ray Mainer, Carrie Fenn
Members Absent: Tom Ayer
Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Planning/Zoning Director), Mary Seemann (Recording Secretary), Kate Bissonette, Michael Bissonette, George Bedard, David Lyman, Barbara Lyman, Jim Collins
Jean Isham called the meeting to order at 7:29pm
Flood Hazard Regulation Revisions: Changes
Pursuant to the Selectboard’s feedback, Jean I recapped the Commission had sent changes to the Selectboard in April which they reviewed in August and were not completely happy with what the Commission had sent. The Selectboard has sent it back to the Commission looking for some revisions.
Jean I asked if each member had received the memo from Jeanne Wilson outlining the Selectboard’s areas of concern. Jean I said the Commissioners need to address these concerns to see if they can come up with something that will satisfy both the Commissioners and the Selectboard.
Alex W gave the Commissioners a handout from the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFM) titled “No Adverse Impact Floodplain Management.” He said the impression he got from the public hearing and the Commissioners discussions were they did not want one property owner adversely impacting another property owner by placing fill in the Flood Hazard Area thus shifting the flood waters into ways it didn’t already flood.
Alex W said there is a concept that is talked about in flood management circles about this no impact philosophy. It is a way to go beyond the National Flood Insurance programs minimum requirements. He stated it is important to understand that the National Flood Insurance minimum requirements are not designed to necessarily protect property owner’s rights or minimize flood damage, it is to decide on how to provide insurance to properties that are in a Flood Hazard Area.
This led to discussions on “No Adverse Impact”:
• Legal ramification to town if there are not appropriate regulations to eliminate “causing harm from one landowner to another”
• Town liability was not considered in the past. Example: if the town were to permit a development with significant fill which then impacted an adjacent property owner and having that property owner not sue the developer but actually sue the town.
• Selectboard stated there is a vision in the town plan, especially in the Village Growth Area and if the flood hazard regulations were going to undermine important pieces of that vision they will not adopt them. They want more flexibility and to be able to review projects on a case by case basis.
• One important sentence in the NAI (National floodplain management) handout: “Any adverse impact caused by a project must be mitigated, preferably as provided for in the community or watershed based plan”. If we are going to allow fill for anything we need to plan how the mitigation is going to incur, what is going to be required.
• Two approaches to this “no adverse impact” program. One being no net fill the other is an assessment based approach. Mitigation may depend on what approach is taken.
• Historically there has been little to no understanding on the way rivers work and the damage they have done because of development close to them. The regulations need to take full advantage of this science and pay close attention to what the state has provided. Use all the information on how rivers move so there will not be down-stream landowners taking the brunt whereby their land is impacted because we have ignored what we now know about rivers.
• In current regulations there is no mention of impact on adjacent properties or an analysis to demonstrate whether there would be an impact. Most of the standards have to do with the safety of the structures that are placed in the Flood Hazard Area; making sure they are elevated and making sure they are hydrologically stable. Will have to come up with some type of assessment tool that an applicant and the DRB can use to determine if there are any impacts and what types of mitigation might be needed, if any.
• Different flood hazard areas in town: La Platte river, and Patrick Brook wide flood hazard areas with fairly defined floodways and a very large fringe. Lewis Creek and Hollow Brook flood hazard areas are very narrow.
• Range of what current minimum standards for the National Flood Insurance program talk about with regard to impacts. No development allowed unless it is demonstrated the cumulative effect will not increase the base flood elevation more than 1(one) foot at any point within the community.
• New structures in the inundation or floodway- the town should think where they want the balance to be between 0 and 1 foot; outside the floodway. The town can’t play with the floodway only outside of it.
• Relationship between the floodway and FEMA 100 year flood plan
• Hinesburg is blessed with very little development in the flood hazard area and not a lot next to it either. Can public be given some flexibility to make an assessment of the potential impacts and whether the impact would be on a natural property or a building, or whether the impact would be on an agriculture field, wetland area, or properties downstream that are not in Hinesburg.
As the time was getting late, the Commissioners decided to continue this discussion at the next meeting, November 24th, and to create language for the “No Adverse Impact” regulation before sending them to the Selectboard once again.
Minutes from October 27, 2010:
The minutes from the October 27, 2010 meeting were approved with minor grammatical corrections.
Other Business:
Alex reported on his observations from the Vermont Planners Association fall conference, which focused on farming in the 21st century. He also provided an update on local development projects, both recently approved and pending projects.
Carrie F made a motion to adjourn Joe I seconded.
The meeting adjourned at 10:00pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mary Seemann (Recording Secretary)