Town of Hinesburg
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes
November 24, 2010
- Approved December 8, 2010 -
Members Present: Kyle Bostwick (Kyle B), Jean Isham (Jean I), Bob Linck (Bob L), Tom Ayer (Tom A), Johanna White (Johanna W), Joe Iadanza (Joe I), Ray Mainer (Ray M), Carrie Fenn (Carrie F)
Members Absent: Tim Clancy (Tim C)
Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Planning/Zoning Director), Michael Bissonette, Frank Koss, Bill Lippert, Stephanie Hainley, Kane Smart, Gianetta Bertin, Jennifer Dunn, Suzanne Richard, David and Barbara Lyman, Nathan Ayer, Dorothy Pellett, John Roos, Bryce Busier, Kathy Busier, Brian Busier, Steve Giroux, John Bethune, Lynn Motschma, Maggie Gordon, Patti Drew, Janice Osgood, Russell Spies, Lisa Carlson, John and Jean Kiedaisch, James Donegan (**Note - more attended than signed in - room had 25 chairs for audience; these were full, with additional audience members sitting on floor and standing.)
Jean Isham called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Official Map and Hannaford Proposal on Commerce Street: Alex Weinhagen (Alex W) explained that on November 11, 2010, Hannaford submitted an application to the Development Review Board for a 36,000 square foot supermarket on an undeveloped 4.6-acre lot on Commerce Street. This parcel is lot 15 from the Commerce Park commercial subdivision. Hannaford has an option to purchase the lot from the Giroux family, who currently own the land. Alex W explained that the bulk of lot 15 is also shown on the Town’s Official Map as a location for a future community facility. He explained the intent of the Official Map as both a planning and regulatory tool to help ensure there are adequate spaces for community infrastructure and facilities that will be necessary as the village growth area develops. He explained that the Official Map was adopted in May 2009 as part of a comprehensive package of village growth area rezoning. He said this area was recommended for inclusion on the Official Map by the Village Steering Committee, and was chosen for 3 reasons:
1) It’s central location that is within easy walking distance for the entire village growth area (both existing core and expansion areas).
2) Hinesburg’s need for multiple areas in the village suitable for future community facilities – examples given on the map include, but are not limited to, Town Green, Community Center, Farmers Market Venue, Parks and Recreation Areas, Library Relocation.
3) This site’s apparent limitations for extensive development (e.g., wetlands and low-stability soils) as evidenced by prior project proposals that did not materialize. This appeared to make some or all of this property a good candidate for low-intensity park and green space municipal uses – e.g., town green, outdoor community concert venue, park, etc.
Alex W explained that Hannaford must demonstrate that its application will accommodate the future community facilities shown on the Official Map. If it can’t accommodate the Official Map elements, then the DRB will be forced to deny the project. If the DRB issues a denial based on the Official Map, the Town is then on the hook to initiate a purchase of the property. If the Town does not initiate proceedings to purchase the property within 120 days of the DRB denial, then the DRB must review the application again without regard to the Official Map issue. Alex indicated that greater clarity is needed on what sort of future community facilities are envisioned for lot 15, so that the DRB can make this determination. He said that ultimately, the Selectboard will need to weigh in on this Official Map issue ahead of the DRB review; however, the Selectboard will be looking for feedback from the community, the Village Steering Committee, and the Planning Commission. Hence the reason for this agenda item at tonight’s meeting.
Jean I opened up the meeting for any questions and comments. Janice Osgood wondered if it is a good idea to put municipal/community uses in close proximity to commercial uses (i.e., in Commerce Park). She wondered if perhaps this was counterproductive. John Roos asked how much land would the Town have to buy should the DRB deny the project – i.e., all of lot 15 or just a portion. Alex said he was unsure given that the case law on this is relatively sparse – due to the fact that only a handful of communities in Vermont have adopted Official Maps. Alex W said he thought the Town would be responsible for purchasing that portion of the property (or the necessary easements) needed for the proposed community facility. Lisa Carlson asked what community members can do to stop the Hannaford proposal if they don’t support it. Jean said that approving or denying the Hannaford project is not the purview of the Planning Commission. John Bethune noted that the Official Map mentions the possible relocation of the Library as a potential use for this and other areas identified as future community facilities. He wondered if this was really a possibility and where it might be relocated to. Jean I and Carrie F answered that a number of community members have expressed interest in relocating the Library back to the center of the village in order to make it more accessible. However, she said that the Planning Commission has talked to the Library Trustees, and they are quite satisfied with their current facility, and are not interested in relocating at this time.
Bill Lippert asked whether the Town has to know specifically what the future community facility will be in order to pursue the purchase option. Alex W said this was not necessary, but would be ideal so that everyone involved in the process had a clearer understanding. Bill said that the Hannaford application uses so much of the site that one could conclude that it precludes any community use. Nate Ayer suggested putting the Hannaford application up on the Town website so that people could get a better idea of what is actually proposed. Alex indicated that he would consider this. He said the Planning & Zoning Office prefers to make application material available via direct request rather than on the website because applications can and do change quite rapidly.
John Kiedaisch asked who will make the final decision on this Official Map issue. Alex W said that ultimately the DRB will have to decide whether the Hannaford proposal does or does not accommodate the future community facility. He said the DRB isn’t the right board to decide what community facility should be, and that they will likely take their direction on this front from the Selectboard. Kyle B noted that the Planning Commission is here to discuss potential community facilities and not to review the Hannaford application. Joe I said that this is a tough discussion, but that the Planning Commission has an obligation to provide guidance on the Official Map, or else it isn’t doing justice to the Town.
Lisa Carlson said this location would be a good location for the library. James Donegan asked if the Hannaford couldn’t simply move to another location in Hinesburg if this location didn’t work out. Carrie F explained that outside of the Commercial zoning district (e.g., in the Village and Village NW expansion areas) the size of retail establishments is capped at 20,000 square feet. Alex W said that due to this provision, this lot is the only parcel large enough for a supermarket of this size without the removal or redevelopment of already occupied properties in the Commercial district. John Kiedaisch asked for a clarification of the time line. Alex W said that if the Planning Commission was able to make recommendations tonight, that the Selectboard might discuss the matter as early as their 12/6 meeting. He said that the DRB review of the Hannaford application has not yet been scheduled because Planning and Zoning staff are still working with Hannaford on other technical issues. He said it could be scheduled for the 12/21 DRB meeting if these issues are resolved and Selectboard input on the Official Map issue is received. Alex W said that a project of this size would certainly take at least 2 DRB meetings to complete the review. Given that, the DRB is unlikely to begin its deliberations or issue a decision prior to late January or early February.
Jean Kiedaisch and John Roos both said that the scheduling of such an important discussion on the night before the Thanksgiving holiday was unfortunate as many people are traveling. They indicated that if the Planning Commission really wants community input, this discussion should be extended or delayed, with some thought also given to the December holidays. Alex W sympathized with this sentiment, but also said that the DRB’s agenda is largely applicant-driven based on the scheduling of complete applications on a first come, first served basis. He said that right now, there are no other development applications on the DRB docket; therefore, it is important to get Planning Commission feedback as soon as possible.
Ray M said he supports a substantial community park use/facility that would occupy all of lot 15 or nearly all of it. Carrie F agreed that she was also leaning in this direction. Carrie F asked if the Town could buy the parcel and at a later date subdivide it. Alex W said that this would be possible. Jean I said there could be issues with further subdivision if the Official Map was not amended. John Bethune asked for information on what sort of site constraints proved difficult for previous development proposals to overcome on lot 15. Alex W said that these primarily had to do with substantial wetland areas (impact on which is limited by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the State Act 250 process) and unstable soils. He explained that when NRG was considering locating their new headquarters on this site, they determined that the soils would not support their large, industrial structure without a very expensive investment in site preparation and foundation work. Patty Drew asked if it was fair for the Town to deny a commercial use of this property given that no specific community facility was indicated on the Official Map.
Janice Osgood thought that perhaps the Hannaford store could go further south – closer to the Starksboro town line to get it out of Hinesburg’s most congested area. Ray M asked about the State Act 250 review time line. Alex W said that he didn’t believe this project had put in their Act 250 application yet, and that they were probably waiting a bit to see how the local level review went. Bill Lippert asked if the applicant approached the Town to discuss the Official Map issue prior to submitting their application. Alex W said no. He said the applicant had done a lot of preliminary research about the site, and was apparently aware of the Official Map, but did not disclose the nature of the potential project until the application was submitted on November 11.
Jean I reviewed the schedule for the December Planning Commission meetings, which include a public hearing on the Saputo rezoning on 12/8 and an open meeting on 12/22. There was consensus that neither of these meetings were appropriate for a continuation of this discussion (not enough time on 12/8 and too close to holiday travel time on 12/22). The Commission instructed Alex W to notice a special Planning Commission meeting on 12/15 to continue the discussion on the Official Map.
Flood Hazard Regulation Revisions (cont’d from 11/10 meeting): Jean I asked if Commissioners had any comments on the materials Alex W had distributed previously regarding the no adverse impact principle for review of proposed development in flood hazard areas. Ray M said one message he gleaned was that the Town can’t deny all use. He said there was talk at previous meetings about making the hazard zones natural areas, and this wouldn’t be advisable. Bob L said he didn’t recall anyone advocating for zero use of these flood hazard areas, but rather that development and fill be discouraged. Kyle B said that he would like landowners to have the opportunity to prove whether or not there would be an adverse impact, rather than have an outright prohibition of development in the flood hazard regulations. Bob L said he reviewed the no adverse impact case studies from the Association of State Floodplain Managers website (www.floods.org), but those communities were typically much larger than Hinesburg and/or coastal in nature. Bob L said he was still not clear on what mitigation techniques could be used to offset or compensate for development in the hazard area. He said that he is not comfortable with the concept of compensatory storage areas (i.e., additional fill offset by new areas for flood storage). Carrie F agreed that this technique may not be effective enough to ensure no adverse impact.
Alex W distributed a revised version of the flood hazard regulations (Article 6 from Zoning Regulations) in which he included language to allow development and fill in the hazard area if the applicant can demonstrate there will be no undue adverse impacts. He reviewed the new development standard (section 6.12.1 #5), which requires a demonstration of no adverse impact on: 1) upstream and downstream properties; 2) upstream and downstream infrastructure (e.g., roads, driveways, culverts, etc.); 3) water quality. He noted that the proposed language requires an assessment based on objective data, and that the scope and intensity of the assessment relates to the amount of development or fill proposed within the hazard area. In other words, a relatively small amount of fill and/or development may only require a simple certification from an engineer, while a large amount of fill and/or development may require the submission of a more formal engineering and hydrologic assessment.
David Lyman noted that the DRB made him do a master plan for a 12-lot subdivision of his 50-acre parcel that was recently approved. His master plan shows some development and fill in the flood hazard area pursuant to the current zoning regulations. He said that the Planning Commission’s previous proposal to the Selectboard would have completely prohibited new structures and fill in the flood hazard area. This would have required him to revise the master plan for his property. Jean I clarified that the Selectboard returned the PC’s previous proposal for revisions, and that what is now being discussed is the establishment of review standards for development proposed in the flood hazard areas.
Mike Bissonette asked if the Planning Commission was considering allowances and review standards town-wide or just within the village growth area. Tom A said that the allowances should be town-wide. He is also concerned that the proposed no adverse impact language will have the effect of prohibiting any development in the hazard areas. He said that requiring evidence that there will be no adverse impact on specific water quality measures (e.g., biological integrity, temperature, etc.) is ridiculous and will make it impossible for anyone to get an approval. Bob L said that there is lots of evidence that indicates that there are impacts when development happens in flood prone areas. Janice Osgood wondered why the Planning Commission is interested in going beyond the minimum FEMA requirements. Carrie F explained that the minimum FEMA requirements were designed as a nation-wide compromise to implement an insurance program. She said that the State flood experts, that came to talk to the Planning Commission, explained that the FEMA requirements were not designed as an avoidance strategy. She said that avoiding flood damage is the recommended strategy rather than trying to mitigate for development in hazard areas, and then having to pay out insurance claims when flooding occurs. Russell Spies gave an example of a friend’s house that was clearly built well above the base flood elevation but was still mapped in the hazard area by FEMA. Ray said that sort of situation is a separate issue that can be corrected directly with FEMA through the Letter of Map Amendment process.
Mike Bissonette reiterated his question about whether the allowances and review standards being discussed would be applied town-wide or only in the village growth area. Several Commissioners said that the standards should be applied town-wide. They indicated that if the review standards were adequate for the village growth area, then they should also be good enough for the review of flood hazard area development town-wide. Mike Bissonette reiterated Janice’s point about the wisdom and rationale behind exceeding the minimum FEMA requirements. He suggested that the Planning Commission have some information available at any future meetings/hearings to explain the rationale to go beyond the minimum FEMA requirements.
The Commission discussed scheduling for a public hearing to get additional public input on the proposal. Alex W suggested holding off until February so that the next issue of the Hinesburg Record could be used for the legal notice (less costly than running a notice in the Burlington Free Press). Jean I instructed Alex W to schedule a public hearing accordingly and do the necessary legal notices.
Minutes from October 29 & November 10, 2010: Johanna W MOVED to approve the minutes of October 29 and November 10 as amended. Carrie F SECONDED the motion. THE MOTION PASSED. 7-0 with Tom A abstaining.
Other Business:
Jean I reminded everyone that there will be a public hearing at the next meeting (12/8) on the Planning Commission’s proposed Saputo rezoning. This is likely to be the only agenda item for that meeting. Both Jean I and Kyle B said they would not be able to make this meeting.
Alex W reported on the Statewide housing conference he attended last week in Burlington. He said the keynote speakers were excellent. He attended workshops to learn about the new LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) for Neighborhoods designation. He said this program is more comprehensive than the LEED for buildings designation, but that at this time it is not well suited to rural areas due to certain minimum requirements for number of intersections, development density, etc. He said that Vermont’s most urban neighborhoods (e.g., downtown Burlington) might be able to qualify. He said there are certain review criteria in the program that might have value if/when we do further fine tuning to the village growth area zoning. He said his big take aways from the conference were: 1) we need to allow for greater development density in the village growth area in order to address our housing issues (overall quantity and affordability); 2) we should consider requiring minimum development densities; 3) we should consider 2-story construction in the village growth area – perhaps with single-story construction only after conditional use review.
The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Alex Weinhagen
Director of Planning & Zoning