Town of Hinesburg

Planning Commission

Meeting Minutes

December 8, 2010

-DRAFT-

Members Present: Bob Linck (Bob L), Tom Ayer (Tom A), Johanna White (Johanna W), Joe Iadanza (Joe I), Ray Mainer (Ray M), Carrie Fenn (Carrie F), Tim Clancy (Tim C)

Members Absent: Jean Isham, Kyle Bostwick

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Planning/Zoning Director), Mary Seemann (Recording Secretary), Doug Nedde (Redstone Group), Dorothy Pellett, Michele Carson, Steve & Cindy Blumen, Roger Kohn, Ken Brown, Paul Wieczoreck, Bill Lippert

Joe I called the meeting to order at 7:31pm.

Draft Zoning Regulation Revisions (Saputo Rezoning):

Alex W gave a brief review of the changes the Commission had discussed previously. He displayed a map showing the zoning districts changes and explained they were talking about an area that is in the middle of the village. He pointed out landmarks and roads so the everyone present could get a better idea of what will be the area of discussion. Alex explained once the town knew Saputo would not be coming back and would be putting the property up for sale, the Selectboard adopted interim zoning for the entire 15.4 acres. It was interim zoning that replaced the Industrial 3 district zoning and the Village district zoning for this specific area.

Ever since that time the Commissioners have been working to figure out what division for this area should be and what the permanent zoning should look like; whether it should just revert back to the original Industrial 3 and Village zoning or whether it should be something different. The proposal that has been put together for the night’s meeting is a shrinking of the Industrial 3 district in order to put the frontage portion of the property in with the surrounding Village district or have it revert back to the Village zoning district.

Alex W explained the Purpose Statement and the allowed uses in the Industrial 3 district have changed. There is an entirely new and much more extensive Purpose Statement for the Industrial 3 district and there is an expansion in the types of uses that are proposed to be allowed there. Formally it was zoned for industrial uses only and this proposal opens up quite a few additional uses including: restaurant space, office uses, exclusive warehousing with some limits and even health clubs and dance studios.

There are also some new definitions and some revised definitions to clarify certain terms like: non-retail business, incubation facility and health club.

Joe I opened up the meeting for any questions or comments.

Ray M said he had a question in Section 3.5.6 #3 where it says “restaurant and tavern” yet in another section it says “restaurants and taverns”. He wanted to know which one was correct, was it restricted to a restaurant with a tavern? Alex W said he could understand the confusion and they can clarify the meaning with the word “or” instead of “and”. It is not the intention that all the restaurants in town would have to have taverns or that any taverns would now have to start serving meals. After some discussion it was decided to change “and” to “or” in only this section.

Johanna W said in Section 3.8.4 (d): it states private clubs and indoor recreational facilities. Her questions was should the word indoor be applied to private clubs as well. Alex W said Peter Erb, our Zoning Administrator had looked at this section and thought they should reverse the order of the wording to clarify that private clubs are indoor recreational facilities. Alex W said that could be accommodated simply by putting indoor recreational facilities first and then saying: “such as private clubs, dance studios, etc”.

Roger Kohn stated he wasn’t sure if one would consider a private club as a recreational facility. Maybe state indoor recreational facilities such as --- and private clubs, or indoor recreational facilities and private clubs. After some discussion it was decided to leave the section as is.

Joe I asked the audience if there were any questions.

Doug Nedde from Redstone read in the Village District Area where it talks about total acreage as being 6.88 acres. He said he would like clarification if 6.88 acres has a total density of 21 units whether they would be required to do 4 units on the parcel on Rte 116 and 17 units on the parcel down behind the church, or can they have all the density in one location. Alex W said they could move the density to be all in one location but they couldn’t shift the residential into the Industrial 3 area as that would not be allowed.

Doug Nedde said his second question was in the Purpose Statement for the Industrial 3 District. He read what was of concern “any development in this district shall enhance the overall Village Growth Area and shall relate well to the surrounding mix of residential and non-residential”. He asked for clarification of what this sentence really means. He stressed inherently a creamery or food manufacturing and some of the businesses the Commissioners say they might want in this building really don’t relate well with a 3 bedroom house next door. He said he is a bit concerned about having some wording in the statement that doesn’t support what they are trying to do.

Bob L said at one point the Commission discussed having it say “shall be compatible with”. Ray M stated he felt if it met the zoning regulations then it would be compatible with or relate to the village.

Joe I said this went back to the discussion a few meeting ago on what the Performance Standards were going to be. There were times when Saputo Cheese was in conflict with the residential area, but overall what he felt they would want are businesses that, if possible, would relate to the agricultural history and try to help the agricultural base in that building.

Alex W said a lot of the conversation around this issue went down the road as saying; well the Performance Standards are applicable regardless of what language you put in the Purpose Section. As long as the use is in compliance with the Performance Standards, i.e. the neighbors aren’t smelling awful smells, you aren’t shaking their homes, and it is not reasonably noisy, that will define relating well.

Doug Nedde said he was just wondering if they could make it talk about the uses adhering to the Performance Standards and not talk about “well, adverse” or whatever.

Joe I stated he is open to other wordings but he really feels that this is a village area, and they have to be cognizant that they have gone through a lot of trouble to increase the density residential uses and they want to have both residential and business. Joe I stated he is not clear on the perfect wording that will protect businesses wanting to go in there and also protect the neighbors. He said perhaps they should not try to describe whether the relationship should be well, positive or adverse.

Ray M said they could say “shall meet the Performance Standards”. Tim C felt this was a better option because it is more objective.

Bob L asked if it would change the meaning if they agreed they want to do something about “shall relate well” or eliminate it. What if it just said “any development in this district shall enhance the overall Village Growth Area and the surrounding mix of residential …”. Just take out “shall relate well to”. Doug N said that the subjective word is “enhance” and some people think a business will enhance the tax base with jobs and other people don’t want businesses next to them. Bob L said what it says is “shall enhance by adhering to” so they would be clarifying what enhance means by saying “by adhering to”.

Alex W said it was important to note that there are two different desire lines going on. The desire to enhance the overall Village Growth Area is somewhat separate from the desire of mixing in with the surrounding uses and being a good neighbor by adhering to the Performance Standards. Alex W said he felt Doug’s concerns could be taken up a level in that the DRB could be asking the question: does this really fit in with Hinesburg.

Doug N said in his opinion, the most effective zoning is zoning that is less subjective. Everyone is going to have a different opinion on what’s enhanced and what’s allowed. Doug stated he felt clarity is the best solution.

Bob L said he would like to see something perhaps in the Purpose Statement, which would give the neighbors something to go on if they saw something happening in the facility that was going to really affect their family or the neighborhood.

Ken Brown asked what is the purpose of the Purpose Statement in the Zoning Regulations. Alex W explained the Purpose Statement is designed to inform everyone what the town’s desire lines are for development in that part of town. Alex W said looking at the list of allowed uses it tends to be quite broad and it doesn’t provide a lot of “flavor” to what really is the desire line.

Ken B gave an example of having a business application in front of the DRB where it would fall into a category that is outlined, maybe not specifically but a nuance of it (not specifically, but kind of fits). Maybe it fits the Performance Standards that are there, but the DRB would like more information on it to see if it would really fit in with what the town really wants going on there. He said the reason for a Purpose Statement is to guide that information.

Alex W said that is a good point and the Commissioners are seeing a developer and a landowner’s standpoint of “just tell me what you want, clearly and then I know my ground rules”. They also are seeing the community saying they need to have some ability to think on our feet and don’t have all the answers to provide 100% clarity. That is why we have a citizen based and public development review process.

Joe I said he would like to look at situations and then provide guidance to the DRB that the uses really do not have undo adverse impact to residential areas next door, so that safety is preserved and the ability to develop the area is preserved.

Alex W brought up do they need to refine the standards or create new standards that are specific to this Industrial 3 Area, the same way they honed in on the PUD open space requirements for industrial districts.

Paul W asked about the admitted agricultural uses. He said it sounded like most of what the Commissioners were talking about could be considered agricultural uses. Smoking meat on someone’s farm would be considered agricultural, but if you are taking it and putting it in industrial context then all of a sudden it is not a permitted use. He said he was trying to think of things that are associated with agricultural that does not produce a smell/odor. He thought perhaps a brewery but all agreed that would create a smell.

Alex W said that was an interesting thought and maybe this provision simply needs to be amended to allow for those either smells or discernable signs that are related to Hinesburg heritage on the agricultural side. Using the wording “noxious odors” was discussed. Alex W displayed a dictionary definition of the word noxious for all to read. Alex read the preface to the Performance Standards which says: “no land or building shall be used or occupied in any manner so as to create a dangerous, injurious, noxious or objectionable hazard by nature of smoke, noise, dust as per the following restrictions”. He suggested they fine tune the preface statement, or insert additional language within the Performance Standards themselves.

Ray M asked Alex W if they could change Section 5 without going through a public hearing. Alex W said yes they can, the Commission is in a unique position where they can make any changes to the document unlike the Selectboard. After the Commissioners make the changes it will be forwarded to the Selectboard, they would have to hold a public hearing so the public will be informed before it is adopted.

Joe I said this fact should not be taken lightly as right now this is applying to everything in the town. He stated they are trying to craft something for uses in the village to be both compatible with the village and insure that somebody can actually use that piece of property.

Doug N said the hurdle that he sees is in the sentence that says “there shall be no objectionable odor”. That is subjective because some people will be offended by any smell or odor and some people won’t. He said in 5.12.3 it says “no odor shall be discernable at the outer boundaries of the parcel”. He said that is pretty black and white.

Joe I said it was not subjective and asked if Doug N would want the sentence with “non-objectionable?” Doug N said he felt it needed some work otherwise he should stop talking to all the food businesses he has talked to. He said if there would be a neighbor who didn’t want that type of business near them this would be their permission slip to have it be denied.

Ray M asked who gets to decide whether there is an odor or not. Alex W said it is the Zoning Administrator who decides and it can’t be just an odor it has to be dangerous, injurious, noxious or objectionable. The Zoning Administrator is the person in town who gets to make those calls, and his decisions can be appealed to the DRB.

Doug N said he is in negations with a couple of food companies, Smoke n’ Cure being one of them, which would probably be a 2 million dollar set up for them to come into this building. He gave a scenario: if we sign a lease, get permits, gets all set up and six months into the operation someone moves in and doesn’t like the sweet smell of bacon smoking, what happens then?

Alex W said they would have to lodge a protest to the Zoning Administrator, the Zoning Administrator would determine whether in fact it does violate the standard: if the Zoning Administrator said yes it does, he would work with the business to remedy the situation, if he doesn’t agree with the neighbor then he would say never mind and the neighbor would have to appeal that decision to the DRB, which would then make the final determination.

Alex W said maybe this is a unique situation and the Commission should have a “carve out” for the Industrial 3 District in the Performance Standards, something specifically to do with odors that refers back to the Purpose Statement. Perhaps include a proviso in the odor section.

Roger K reminded all that there once was an odor problem at the site and they certainly don’t want a business that will stink up the town. If there is a business who wants to come in and that will create a substantial smell then we probably don’t want them in that area. He cautioned to be careful with odors in this small area where there is mostly residential housing. If there is a business that wants to come in and knows they will create an odor, they should be willing to take whatever measures they need to avoid odors.

Doug N said no company is going to invest money into moving a business into the building with a question mark attached to the odor issue. He said he didn’t know if this could be dealt with and he didn’t know what the cost of dealing with eliminating an order is. Doug said he is looking for something that is predictable.

Tim C said for people living next to an industrial zone area they must realize they are going to have to accept some level, not a noxious level, but some level of industrial activity. This could be traffic or some level of smoke, not at a noxious level though. Tim said he would hate to have it so stringent that Smoke n’ Cure would not be able to come in.

Ray M asked if they could add the word “noxious” to 5.12.3 so it would read: “no noxious odors shall be discernable”.

Tom A said he would personally like to have the Performance Standards not give a person the ability to nit-pick somebody to death over whether it fits well or doesn’t fit well. This seems to happen every time there is a meeting. Tom A said he is not saying people shouldn’t have a say but their say should be somewhat limited by what the rest of the town boards lay out.

Bob L said it seems to be okay as is, with the addition of the word, in the Performance Standards of “noxious”. Roger K suggested a statement like “any development in this district shall utilize all reasonable efforts to enhance the overall village growth and relate well to the surrounding mix”.

Joe I said it seemed the Commissioners now had a better understanding of the issues on the Performance Standards and asked if there were any more questions or comments. With no response he suggested they move on.

Doug N asked about future roads networks going through the Saputo property. He said he just wanted to share once again that these public roads are placed on the Saputo property an he thinks it negatively affects the circulation, parking, and the ability to develop the parcel. He said in terms of affecting the neighbors, the north/south roads, bringing trucks in the neighborhood doesn’t seem to make sense.

There was a discussion of having a One-Way off Rte 116 through the property, using the lagoons as sewer or storm water treatment facilities. No decisions were made.

Bob L made a motion to close the public hearing. All agreed.

Joe I closed the meeting at 10pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

Mary Seemann (Recording Secretary)