Town of Hinesburg

Planning Commission

Meeting Minutes

December 22, 2010

-Approved-

Members Present: Tom Ayer, Tim Clancy, Johanna White, Carrie Fenn, Kyle Bostwick, Bob Linck, Ray Mainer, Jean Isham

Members Absent: Joe Idanza

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Planning/Zoning Director), Mary Seemann (recording secretary), Allen Karnatz, Barry Russell, Bryce Busier, Lenore Budd

Jean I called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. First on the agenda for the night was:

Baldwin Family Conservation Project: Jean I said the Commission had before it a request letter asking for support on this project and introduced Allen Karnatz from Vermont Land Trust who then gave an overview of the project stating he would then answer any questions.

Allen Karnatz handed out a quick locater map and a project map showing the Baldwin property. Alex W put the picture of the property on the overhead screen for all to see. Allen K said VT Land Trust has been working with the Baldwin’s for many years and with this project they will also be talking to the Conservation Commission and the Selectboard asking for a small leverage appropriation or grant from Hinesburg’s Conservation fund to help with this conservation. Allen K showed where the property was located; in the southwest quadrant of Hinesburg, on the corners of Drinkwater and Baldwin Roads.

Allen K using the overhead map said the project is a combination of 170 acres that was once owned by the French family and is now owned by two parties: Peter and Mary Baldwin own 69 acres and Matt and Dan Baldwin own 88 acres. He stated that the Baldwin’s may be interested in conserving more land in the future but for now they are focusing on the Lewis Creek corridor. As they will not be able to riprap the banks he said they will be putting in some riparian protection where the river meanders, this will let the river runs its course naturally within that corridor. They will set aside a 50’ (foot) riparian buffer corridor that will be a “no touch” buffer that will have to be intact to protect water quality as well. Allen K said the Baldwin’s also agreed to have some public access, basically fishing access, along the river corridor so the public can walk and access the river. He said the Baldwin’s did have another request; a spot on each piece of property where they can build a house. He went on to show an area referred to as an STA (special treatment area), this is a pretty rare and diverse patch of forest which basically prevents clear-cutting in that area.

Ray M asked Allen K to show where Raven Ridge was in connection to this project.

Carrie F asked if the public access along the creek meant one could literally walk along the creek and not just to go fishing. Allen K said yes.

Allen K said he didn’t think the Hinesburg Land Trust had anything else in the works and VT Land Trust is very excited about getting this Baldwin project going and perhaps this will be the start of other Baldwin projects down the road, if funding allows.

Alex W asked Allen K to explain for all present who may not be familiar with this project what’s actually happening with this land. Allen K said the Baldwin family is seeking to essentially sell a conservation easement. Allen K went on to say that the Baldwin’s intent is to protect the land in the future through a conservation easement, which is an attachment to the Deed that prohibits them or any future owner from doing any further subdivision, any further residential or any further commercial development on the property, beyond what one sees today.

Alex W said the ultimate purpose is to ensure that the property is used for agricultural use in the future. Allen K said this easement does not necessarily restrict the agriculture uses, the Baldwin’s can still crop it and farm it; they can pasture animals, and they can still do land improvements. He handed out copies of a map (soils map) the Land Trust uses to determine whether property would make good project for them and gave a brief explanation on how it is used in their final determination.

Jean I asked if there were any other Board or Committee members in the audience who would like to ask a question.

Lenore Budd from the Trails Committee asked for more information on the buffer and the river corridor; what’s allowed and what is prohibited in these areas.

Allen K said the VT Land Trust has worked in partnership with the Department of Environmental Conservation, and Agency of Natural Resources, all actually providing some funding for this which makes it a unique partnership. He stated there are two things going on along Lewis Creek; first is a 50’ riparian buffer that hugs the bank and basically is a “no touch” riparian buffer which means they have to let it grow up naturally. He said the Land Trust is trying to get the Baldwin’s enrolled in a program through USDA called “CREP” which could help with funding for plants along the banks to help stabilize it. The second piece is the river corridor. The Land Trust basically outlined it as a contour, and had a geomorphic assessment done by Christian Underwood who said this was a pretty important reach of the river; as the river moves over time the corridor will move with it on both sides and the land owners won’t be able touch any part of the newly created corridor.

Lenore Budd asked how this will affect the Baldwin’s farming the land. Allen K said there would not be a real impact on them, they can continue to farm, or hay it, but keeping in mind if the river moves into that hay field the 50’ buffer moves as well.

Lenore Budd said another thing she wanted to understand better was the “access” that is designated on the map; in one place it is called public access to the creek and in another place is says public access along creek. Allen K said the public has a right for a footpath or if they canoe the creek they will be able to park along the bank, and have a picnic within that area. Lenore B said she would like to secure something stronger in the wording about pedestrian access to it.

Jean I said she would entertain a motion from the Planning Commission to fully support this application and to authorize the chair to sign the letter. Ray M made the motion and Johanna W seconded. A vote was taken 7-0. Bob L abstained stating he works for VT Land Trust.

Official Map and Hannaford’s proposal on Commerce Street: Jean I directed everyone’s attention to the proposed draft for the Selectboard and Development Review Board. She said she had received an email from Tom A with some suggestions and asked Tom A if he would like to discuss them.

Tom A said he really didn’t consider them suggestions more like concerns. He said he didn’t want to make Lantman’s mad as he considers them his friends but he said something is wrong. Looking at the Official Map, out of five spots designated as commercial the town has chosen the one in the commercial district to build a park. He said the town wants to now take that land which could support much needed commerce and provide jobs, buy it up and build a park. Tom A asked why? He said taxes will go up if the town doesn’t get businesses to come in. There will also not be the jobs that were anticipated when this Official Map was drawn up. He said he would just like an explanation why people feel that this is the necessary action needed now, and to date he has not gotten an answer.

Jean I said she would try to explain. When the Official Map was drawn up and lot 15 was put on the map in the commercial district some of the discussion was not just around a park but community facilities. The town needs to look to the future. It might be that the area might not build out for some time yet the town will continue to grow and this lot is in the center of the Village Growth Area, so the decision has to be made: do we want to try to preserve?

Kyle B said there seems to be an overwhelming desire for lot 15 because of its geographic purposes in the center of the town. He said he is not for or against Hannaford’s coming in. He considers lot 15 as an asset but it seems like all the talk is about taking it away. He said what he would like to propose is an opportunity for the town to look at another piece of property on the Official Map, replicate what we’ve got on lot 15 and say okay and buy that parcel for community facilities. This way the town will be able to keep a business who wants to come to Hinesburg and that will help the tax base, why do we have to take this asset off the table?

Ray M asked Alex W if lot 15, which is zoned commercial, has so many tens of thousands of feet allowed for building.

Alex W said it is about a 4 ½ acre parcel, minus some take outs due to the canal and the buffer associated with it. The town allows for commercial development to be 60% of the lot to be covered with impervious surface. The town doesn’t dictate how many square feet the building is. The town just says the parking, the access drives, and the building in sum can’t occupy more than 60% of the parcel. So lot 15 can accommodate a fairly large footprint because it is a fairly large parcel.

Ray M said to the south of the Shelburne Falls Rd and to the west of 116 that is also zoned commercial and that has a 20,000sf limit on building size or is it the same? Alex W said that is the Village Northwest District and that is zoned for both commercial and residential, light industrial, municipal, and so on; it is a mixed used district. The difference is that more uses are allowed in this area then in the commercial district but retail uses are capped at 20,000sf. Ray M asked why there is no cap on Commerce Park?

Alex W said that was before his time so he could not answer what the rational was at the time it was accepted. He said there were discussions about the Village Northwest District as well as the Village District as a whole when this large rezoning effort happened in 2005-2009. The discussion was about should there be a cap on retail of 20,000sf in this new expanded area. Should the town replicate what the current village zoning said in terms of a cap or not, and the ultimate answer was yes we will just continue to have that same restriction. Alex W said he thought that discussion revolved around what the people wanted to see in the new area. Not a mirror image of what the town has along the main street section of the town, but a close approximation. People liked how the village worked, they liked size and scale of building, they liked how they related to each other, streetscapes and the like and they wanted to see it in the new district rather than seeing very large retail uses surrounded by parking. Lot 15 is in a commercial district not a mixed use district.

Jean I said the Commission had spent a considerable amount of time on the Village Growth Zoning effort and there had been numerous meetings with a tremendous amount of public input. It wasn’t just the Planning Commission and the Selectboard making that decision, we heard loud and clear from the public that they did not want to see retail over the 20,000sf limit.

Alex W said what he heard from the public in the last two meeting he had attended within the last two weeks (the Planning Commission and the Selectboard meeting) it sounded like the public’s rational for why this parcel (lot 15) is so important has to do with the geographic location, the fact that it sits right in the middle of this overall Village Growth Area.

Tom A said when he looked at the design from the Steering Committee he saw a basketball court with a rink, a band shell, and green space. He said when he looked behind the school he already sees that stuff. He said it’s already there and asked if the town wants a park and green space is this town in any kind of financial position to buy another piece of property, in a commercial district, to add or build another set of what the town already has. He said behind the school is the most underutilized area in the town. There is a beautiful pavilion there, there is a playground already there, tennis courts, basketball courts, ice hockey rink in the winter time. What’s different? Is it because it is a little bit farther away? Tom A said another question - if the green space goes in, where would one park? It’s one thing if you live in the village but if you don’t and want to take advantage of the park where would you park? He said behind the Town Hall, (he said he didn’t know what percentage of that property is not buildable) why can’t that be used as a park and that would not eliminate the commerce potential in the village. It really is a concern and he said he thinks it is falling on deaf ears but the taxes keep spiking in this town. He said it doesn’t concern him if it is a Hannaford or not but at the end of the day we need businesses in the commerce part of this town of which at present there is not much. He asked about Lot 1 that Carrie F has been working on. He asked Carrie F how much money the town has spent on this already. Carrie F said they have a contract for about $7,000.00. Tom A asked what happens to Lot 1 if lot 15 gets purchased will the town now have two potential parks?

Kyle B said he didn’t know if most of this conversation was because the plans for lot 15 call for a behemoth 34,000sf building. He said he gets the underlying sense that that is the concern but to him that is not the concern, what is, is the revenue. He said he doesn’t know if the town is far enough into the game to say they can change the restrictions and turn lot 15 into two separate lots, but if the solution is to turn it into two restricted use smaller lots, but still allowing the town to get that tax base that is what he would be in favor of. He said he would hate to see the town buy this parcel of land, put the band shell on it just to have the residents of Thistle Hill come in droves and say there is no way they want to support a band shell to disturb their quiet. Now the town is stuck with a piece of property they can’t do anything with.

Jean I said she didn’t think they could make any changes at this point and impact the Hannaford application.

Bob L said what he is seeing is a lot of good points being brought up. When he sees the Commissions responsibilities he sees the Official Map, he sees the elements that the Commission has designated as important, and we have a situation where use will essentially preclude any meaningful community facility on that lot. The Planning Commission has an application that is about to go to the DRB and he thinks they need to carefully analyze the implications of preclusion of future community use of that property. The fact is that the use that is being proposed is precluding something that the Planning Commission felt was important enough to put on the Official Map, to reserve the right to do something with it as a community. He said he doesn’t think the Commission can change the reality of that right now, they just have to be able respond to it. If this piece of land is gone completely from that equation he thinks the town will regret it down the road.

Ray M stated the town does not have to use all 5 acres, it can be decided that 3 acres would be fine and could have 2 acres of commercial development.

Alex W said it was important to speak to Kyle’s point. He said the Official Map does not commit the town to anything. It is the development proposal that is the catalyst for the conversation. If a development proposal can accommodate a community use (the reason the town put it on the map), then that project can go forward and the DRB can approve it. He said he thought the reason this proposal has stirred as much interest as it has is because: a) the Lantman’s issue and b) it is an important decision point.

Jean I said one thing that has happened here is that the developer did not choose to discuss this with the town prior to filing their application, so all of a sudden there is an application and the town needs to react. She thinks what the Commission is asking the Selectboard to do is take a hard look at this application and make some determination. She said what she heard from the public at the last meeting was they really want to see this as a central point in the village, to keep it preserved for community facilities.

Johanna W asked Alex W how the mechanics of dividing the parcel works. Would the town buy the whole parcel, and wasn’t there a question as to whether they could even subdivide and sell again?

Alex W said there are two possible scenarios that could play out. If a development proposal comes in with a smaller footprint and it was clear that there was an opportunity to have a community facility on a portion of the property the DRB would review the project, make a determination that the Official Map was accommodated and approve the application. At that point the land is still in private ownership and the town could work with the land owner or the developer to subdivide the property and acquire the portion the town is looking for. If it is a public/private partnership it would remain in private ownership but the town actually has some sort of easement on the property, and can do improvements on the property.

A second scenario is where the DRB denies the project, then the town is on the hook to either acquire it or essentially let the development proposal be reviewed again. If the town were to buy the whole property it would then be up to the town to decide on how to develop that property, whether it was to develop a piece of it or all of it. If the town were to buy the property and then later decide to sell an acre and a half for commercial development that would be something the voters would have to approve and the town would have to go through the subdivision process.

Jean I asked if all the Commissioners had a chance to read the draft letter to the Selectboard and Development Review Board with respect to the recommendation.

Tom A said he would like to ask his question again because the reasoning was still not clear to him. What makes lot 15 more important and special than the land behind the town offices? Other than being centrally located, but then they are both centrally located. Lot 15 may be 200 yards closer. Is the town ready to give up the commercial space? Will the town be gaining enough back to take lot 15 off the tax rolls. Would the townspeople not get the same features from a park, storm water, band shell being off the road if it were behind the Town Offices. Ray M thought Tom A made a good point. Tom A said it is all going to come down to Hannaford.

Bob L said the town has certain locations on the Official Map that were developed for a reason. They were chosen because the town has multiple community facility needs and if the Commission starts subtracting large chunks of them then the needs that were expressed on the Official Map will not be met.

Tom A said when that map was made the ideas were not. It seems that the town just decided to covet parts of peoples land.

Bob L said the Commission has garnered a long history on how the Village Growth Area developed. The landowners who are in the Village Growth Area both gained economic opportunities and lost certain things in the process. It is the responsibility of the Commission to implement, the best we can, the Official Map and make sure the town doesn’t lose opportunities because we decide, oh well, we don’t think we are going to need it. There seems to be a community interest in seeing this lot and other community facility areas preserved.

Ray M asked Alex W if the Lyman’s got increased density at the same time their property was selected as a parcel of interest?

Alex W said that property was in the Agricultural District, it’s not even in the Growth Area. The economic advantage that that portion of town received was huge. Alex W said Tom A is right to some extent. The community had its own footprint on some properties and said within that framework the town is looking at putting future roads, and future community facility locations. All of these will have to be accounted for.

Tom A said until somebody can convince him that a commercial 4 ½ acre lot is better for a park than 5-5 ½ acres which already includes parking, and is limited by wetlands and a stream buffer then great. He said behind the Town Offices is so close to being centrally located and it is an area that is already being used with soccer fields for the kids. It has it all: and he just can’t understand why this town would want to take that valuable piece of property (lot 15) and all the pluses that go with it for something we might want to do within a couple of years.

Bob L said it is not just within a couple of years. This is a longer term plan and there are other things people value besides the tax revenue from it. The community through public process so far has expressed that and he said he feels the Commission should respect it.

Tim C said that the Commission heard from a few of the people who showed up at the meeting expressing their concerns and they as a Commission should not ignore their wishes. Tim C said he can only think of one person who spoke in favor of keeping lot 15 commercial.

Tom A said before the Official Map was created that area was created as a commercial district, that is why it is call Commerce Park which is in the middle of the Village Growth District. Tom A said there are a lot of people having a hard time paying their taxes because there are no business opportunities and now the town is thinking of taking another commercial lot off the map.

Tim C said over a period of time the town has a certain amount of space set aside for commercial endeavors, whether it’s Lantman’s, or Hannaford’s, the town will be taking a pretty big swath of space away from commercial endeavors over the long-term. Over time the town will see things close and see other things pop-up. He summarized what Tom A was saying is they will be taking a pretty broad swath of the commercial arena that could help the tax roles by taking it off the table for a park.

Bob L said when the town chose lot 15 to be put on the Official Map, effectively we set that process in motion. The Commission looked at that whole piece as something that might be significant in the future.

Johanna W asked how much complaining went into this when NRG could not build on lot 15 because the land wouldn’t support what they wanted to build. How much of that failure to develop it as a commercial piece at that time made the Commission say that the lot might be better used as a community area. How many other failures were there on lot 15?

Alex W said there had been a number of failures and he remembers Randy Volk at the Selectboard meeting made that point. Randy remembers part of the reason lot 15 appears on the Official Map is because of its location, the need for community facilities and also because of the site limitations and the fact that there had been many failed efforts to develop it. Alex W gave a brief history on the creation of the Village Growth District, showing where it went from 250 acres to encompass 500 acres. He stated that the Commission was taking a very bold step forward with their thinking and plan. He said at the time it was extremely controversial and the public thought the Commission was overstepping their boundaries. The public was thinking that Hinesburg was going to be turned into something it wasn’t. The Village Growth Area proposal passed the Selectboard on a 3-2 vote. One of the reasons it passed at all was because the Official Map was a part of the proposal. Alex W said the Commission sent the rezoning proposal to the Selectboard in 2008 and the Selectboard sent it back saying they would not adopt it unless they were given an Official Map that shows us how future community facilities will help tie all the new development together. The proposal added hundreds of acres of land available for commercial use that were not available before 2009. The tax base will grow in a big way. Another thing Alex W wanted to point out was that this did not preclude a commercial use on lot 15. The Official Map was never intended to keep away progress on the selected sites it is intended to say that there is a community interest in the site so please work with us (the town) to accommodate that as they develop the site.

Alex W pointed out that it might come down to the Selectboard and the public deciding they don’t want to purchase lot 15 for whatever reason, the Hannaford proposal could fall apart like so many before and the Commission could be back in three years talking about a new use that maybe could accommodate some of these features and would retain a tax base. Right now the Commission is deciding whether or not this proposal comports with the regulations or not, at least the DRB will decide that the Commission just needs to decide whether to give them input.

Jean I said with respect to the property behind the Town Offices she asked Alex W if the town has the town wells in close proximity. Alex W said yes and showed on the overhead map where they were located. He said that property is also on the Official Map as land of interest to the town. Right now the property is privately owned by the Russell family.

Jean I said the Commissioners should take a minute and read the draft memorandum, which they did. She reminded all that theirs was just a recommendation going to the Selectboard and DRB they have no decision making authority.

After the Commissioners read the draft there was a discussion on the coverage of the lot. Alex W explained that before 2009 the percentage was at 80% and since has come down to 60%. He stated that Hannaford has proposed 61+ and they would be eligible for a density bonus to allow for the overage because they are proposing a LEED certified building.

Kyle B asked if the town buys the land is there a chance the town could develop it at a future date. He said he is afraid that this is the vision but once they buy the land and start to create the vision it won’t work because it is too wet, the neighbors don’t want a band shell that close to them etc.

Alex W said he and Jean I tried to work his concern into the letter about the need for an evaluation of the site and its potential for the community facilities that the town wants. Randy Volk, at the Selectboard meeting, echoed the same thought. Alex W said there is no certainty as to what could/might happen there or how it could be further subdivided.

Tom A asked Alex W what the smallest community facility that lot 15 could accommodate. Is it a park that takes 4 ½ acres, 2 bench seats by the canal, or perhaps a shade tree.

Alex W said the Official Map has a list of possibilities and gave Tom A a couple of answers; 1. It is incumbent on the applicant to demonstrate that they can accommodate the Official Map and the community facilities envisioned. 2. When one looks at the list of community facilities, they all appear to have a fairly large footprint. We are encouraging the applicant to think creatively and get back to us with ideas and at the same time they are being cautioned that all of the listed uses are substantial footprints and where would they place them. Part of the Hannaford proposal, to their credit, is the preservation of wetlands, to minimize their impact on the wetlands.

Tom A stated he is not a lawyer but stated that this is a big company the town is dealing with and the potential for a lawsuit against the Town of Hinesburg is huge. He pointed to the statement: “facilities for the area shown include, but are not limited to..”. What if Hannaford comes in and says the community facility that they are offering is the wetlands, taking the wetlands out. He said he isn’t saying they will or that they should he is just stating it is a possibility and the town needs to keep in the back of their minds is, what happens if the town gets sued. Is it worth that price? Tom A said there are a lot of variables that are not being taken into account.

Alex W said Tom’s concerns are real and he felt it important to clarify a few factual points. Hannaford has put the town on notice that they feel the Official Map lacks the specificity needed and that they don’t feel like it will legally hold up in court. They also advised the town to get legal consul to explore that possibility and we did. Both the town attorney and the attorney who was consulted, who is a bit of an expert on such matters, reviewed it and got back to Alex W saying they disagree with Hannaford. Alex W said he felt Tom A is absolutely right it is very likely the town will end up in court over this. Probably environmental court if the DRB renders a decision that Hannaford’s doesn’t agree with, whether it is an approval with conditions they don’t like or a denial.

Jean I said they can speculate all they want but until somebody actually does an evaluation it won’t be a known factor. She asked if the Selectboard was going to appoint a committee to look into this and Alex W said they were and the committee was not going to explore but to move forward on evaluating the site and figure out a way the town can acquire it.

Bob L made a motion to approve and submit the letter of recommendation to the Selectboard and the DRB. Tim C seconded. A vote was taken. 6-2. Tom A and Kyle B voting against.

Zoning regulations revisions: Saputo rezoning: Alex W reiterated that Doug Nedde had expressed some concern about the sentence in the Purpose Statement that stated “shall relate well to the surrounding mix”. Tim C expressed his concerns too and he was volunteered to write something different for that section. What Tim C wrote in its place is: “any development in this district shall adhere to the Performance Standards outlined in Section 5.12. A balance between the concerns of light industrial activity and development and nearby residential village districts is intended”. Alex W said his only suggestion would be to add, where it says “and nearby residential village districts”, to add nearby residential areas in the village district, because the village district is not a residential district but it’s a mixed use district that has residential areas that the zoning is trying to accommodate.

Alex W displayed Section 5.12 on the screen, the Performance Standards. In Section 5.12.3 which speaks of “no odors shall be discernable at the outer boundaries of the parcel”. Doug Nedde said that is pretty black and white, you aren’t supposed to smell a dirty shoe, a waft of pizza, or anything but how can that be achieved. This led to a discussion on how Saputo had been in violation of this up to the night of the fire. Alex W said that was the concern that this is very black and white and potentially fatal to any redevelopment on that site if it created any odor at all. Alex W said it’s not just any odor it is an odor “that creates a dangerous, injurious, noxious or objectionable hazard”.

This led the Commissioners into a discussion of noxious vs dangerous and could vibration and noise be considered dangerous as well.

Tim C said having the level of “no vibration” or “no odors” is jut to high a bar for an industrial section. Tom A said he liked the wording “objectionable to the general public”. So one or two people can’t get upset by the smell of pepperoni on a pizza and come over to complain, it may take 45 complaints. This would give Peter E, the zoning administrator, a little bit of leeway to say that he doesn’t think 75% of the people are going to object to this odor.

Jean I stated she was not at the December 8th meeting and asked if there is more review of this meeting or are they at the end point. Alex W said this was it. Jean I said there needed to be a motion to have Alex W make the necessary revisions and then submit this to the Selectboard. Carrie F made the motion, Ray M seconded. A vote was taken. 8-0.

Minutes from December 8th: Ray M made a motion to accept as amended, Tim C seconded. A vote was taken. 7-0 with Jean I abstaining.

Ray M made a motion to adjourn, Kyle B seconded.

The meeting closed at 9:30 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Mary Seemann

(Recording Secretary)