Town of Hinesburg
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes
May 25, 2011
- Approved June 8, 2011 -
Members Present: Kyle Bostwick , Tim Clancy, Bob Linck, Jean Isham, Joe Iadanza, Carrie Fenn, Johanna White, Tom Ayer
Members Absent: Ray Mainer
Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Planning Director), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Mary Seemann (Recording Secretary), Bill Marks, Wayne Bissonette, Lloyd Seemann, John Kiedaisch, Jean Kiedaisch, Maggie Gordon, Ken Brown, George Bedard, Chris Nielson
Jean I called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m.
Rural Area Regulation Revisions – Development Design Standards: Alex W gave a short overview of what the Commissioners had discussed to date. He said at the last meeting the discussion was on agricultural soils and the August 2009 document the Commissioners have been reviewing. The discussion ended with a call for review of the design standards.
Application of Draft: “Conservation Subdivision” design standards to an actual parcel – subdividing Geprags Park (based on PC work from summer 2008; Alex presents)
Alex W talked about mapping some of the primary areas and showed a variety of maps that were used on the Geprags property. He said a couple of years ago the town did a hypothetical map; they looked at the Geprags property. He showed if they were to work it through, how the mapping would be constructed. He then discussed the Bissonette Conservation map.
Bill Marks (Conservation Committee) made the remark that conservation zoning is not cluster zoning.
Peter E said using the Bissonette property was a good example. The town plan stresses clustering and the Commissioners shouldn’t be afraid of clustering, only be afraid of “BAD clustering. This led to a discussion by the Commissioners about clustering and protecting resources.
John Kiedaisch (Hinesburg Land Trust) said there were 3 locations on the Bissonette land that were actually visualized as clusters.
Peter E said he thought the real weakness is starting out saying “minimize impact”. He wishes the Planning Commission would clearly define what it is they will be protecting.
This led to a discussion on taking away/protecting a percentage of agricultural soils and perhaps this could be done through the design standards.
John K agreed saying they should make the developer show what he can do within the limits.
Bill Marks said the way some other towns have handled this issue is they have put the burden on the developer. There are set requirements.
Tom A asked what exactly aren’t we going to protect. George Bedard said the landowner. Then Tom A asked how much is it going to cost the landowners to protect these things.
Jean I opened up the next topic.
Review draft “Conservation Subdivision Design Standards”: Jean I asked the commissioners what their feelings are about this. Is starting out with the standards the right approach? It was discussed that the standards need to refer to the maps.
The Commissioners discussed how they need to be as specific as they can be and to clarify the definitions for the standards. There was a discussion on how using the maps would help the developer.
Lloyd Seemann read an article from Vermont law “Town doesn’t have any right to tell the farmer how to use his land.”
Jean I said she is getting the idea that the starting point should be defining resources. The Planning Commission should look at these very carefully before making any changes. The Commissioners agreed.
Other Topics of Discussion:
- Examples from other municipalities - Alex said he will look into this
- Improvements to current standards/process, and what should be retained
Goals and issues to address from previous public feedback:
- Simplicity, flexibility, predictability
- Ecological context – looking at the larger context beyond the parcel
- Functional context – connecting neighborhoods in sparsely settled areas
- Specificity – clear standards tied to maps, data, etc. (remember JAM Golf ruling) The clearer these things are made the better.
Next steps on the next meeting agenda: talk about wildlife habitat and corridors.
Chris N said to remember what they do in other towns will make a difference in our town.
Bill Marks said Dave Hirth should address this issue. John K said perhaps they can get someone from the Lewis Creek Association to attend the next meeting that could help make the decision for the town.
Jean I asked if there was a definition for Historic Structures. She said the first step is to look at existing regulations and after that they should dig deeper and figure out how do they (Commissioners) make it better, who could we bring in to help. It was decided to divide the topics up amongst the commissioners.
At the next meeting, June 8th, they will discuss wildlife.
Minutes of the April 13 and April 27, 2011 Meetings:
- April 13: Bob L made a motion to accept as amended, Johanna W seconded. A vote was taken. 8-0. THE MOTION PASSED
- April 27: Joe I made a motion to approve as amended, Johanna W seconded. A vote was taken. 8-0. THE MOTION PASSED
Other Business & Announcements:
Alex passed out a letter from Ann Van Dusen regarding Hannaford.
Economic Development Commission created
Solar Tracker - Public Service Board application notice (5/28 comment deadline) – for 432 O’Neil Road – Matthew Bourgault and Mary Elizabeth Foster property
Town of Shelburne Zoning Regulation Revisions (May 26 hearing)
- Continuing care retirement community – allowance, definition, signs
- Setback definition clarification
- Expansion of non-complying structures in lakeshore district
Town of St. George Town Plan Revisions (June 16 hearing)
Johanna White made a motion to adjourn, Bob I seconded
Meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mary Seemann (Recording Secretary)