Hinesburg Center II project under scrutiny

A major housing and commercial development in the works since at least 2015 is hung up in Vermont Environmental Court over concerns the project will create an increased risk of flooding near Patrick Brook.

Hinesburg Center II would create 21 new lots in the town’s village growth area off Route 116 and would include 73 new homes — 15 single family homes, two nine-unit buildings, one six-unit building and one 34-unit building. More than 14,000 square feet of space for office and retail space is also queued up for the area.

It’s a continuation of development that brought Kinney Drugs, the Parkside Cafe and other housing units to town several years ago. But documents from the project’s Act 250 hearings that began this summer show there are concerns around its location near a floodplain, and whether that risk may increase as climate change continues to intensify.

“Our concern with the currently proposed project is that it creates an increased risk of flooding on the project property before any impacts of climate change may be considered, as well as resulting in the loss of floodplain function in the Patrick Brook and LaPlatte floodplains which impacts the floodplain’s ability to mitigate future flooding,” said Kyle Medash, a floodplain manager with Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources.

Hinesburg’s village area, 40 square miles of land off Route 116 wedged between the LaPlatte River and Patrick Brook, has for decades been targeted by the town for new housing and commercial growth.

At least 400 units of residential housing are set either for approval or construction in the area — including Haystack Crossing, the town’s largest housing development in its history, which will bring 176 housing units to the west side of Route 116 just north of Kinney Drugs.

Hinesburg’s Development Review Board in February gave the Hinesburg Center II project the green light. The 46.2-acre property to be developed is co-owned by the David Lyman Revocable Trust and Brett Grabowski, a developer based in Williston; neither could be reached for comment.

In a letter of support submitted to the Agency of Natural Resources, the Hinesburg Selectboard said that the project has been “rigorously and thoroughly reviewed by the town,” and received unanimous conditional use approval for development in a special flood hazard area, fluvial erosion hazard area and stream setback area from the town’s developmoent review board.

“Although portions of the HCII project are in a flood hazard area,” the selectboard wrote, “the town has extensively reviewed these impacts and found that ... development to the north (in the Village Northwest zoning district) will have limited impacts on the Patrick Brook flood hazard area.”

In addition, the selectboard said the project would “provide critically needed affordable and reasonably priced housing” and provide road and pedestrian connections to the north to one of the town’s major planning goals.

The state held a public hearing on Aug. 23, presided over by Tom Little, chair of the District 4 Commission, which oversees Act 250. The commission on Sept. 6 asked for additional information from various parties, which are due by Oct. 6.

“Presumably the district commission will then deliberate on all this, and issue a decision,” Alex Weinhagen, Hinesburg’s planning and zoning director, said. “Not sure how long that will take.”

The state, in the wake of the devastating July floods that ravaged much of Lamoille, Washington and Windsor counties, is beginning to think of disinvestment or planned retreats from flood-prone areas, according to reporting by Seven Days.

While Hinesburg and the rest of the Champlain Valley was largely spared from the damage brought on by the flooding in July, the village did see some brief flooding in the days following the initial damage.

After heavy rain fell days after the first bout of flooding, Hinesburg’s Route 116 across North Road was left with standing water in the village. Some basements flooded and some driveways washed out, but there was no significant damage to infrastructure damage and the water receded almost as quickly as it came on.

While the Hinesburg Center II project was designed to avoid the state’s mapped river corridor, Medash said in a letter to the commission, Hinesburg’s flood standard differs from the state’s standards, and “has permitted greater floodplain impacts under this standard.”

“The effects of climate change and more intense rainstorms may lead to greater flooding at the site and are not captured in the current FEMA hydraulic modeling,” Medash said.

He said the critical need for housing in Vermont should not outweigh building housing in an area vulnerable to flooding and putting the public at future risk for displacement.

“It’s much easier and cost effective to keep people away from flooding rather than try to keep them safe and sheltered during a flood or go through the traumatic process of recovering after being flooded,” Medash wrote, recommending that the “applicant provide a consistent, comprehensive and transparent hydraulic model that accounts for the suggested higher discharges in Patrick Brook.”