May 20, 2003
Town Hall 9:00 AM
Dana Farley (Village Resident), Chair Charles Russell
(Selectboard)
Bill Lockwood (Economic Development Committee) John Owen (Affordable Housing Committee)
Members absent:
Jesse
Bradley (Recreation Committee) Jim
Donovan (Planning Commission)
Al Moraska (Planning Commission) Dee Pierce (Conservation
Commission)
Moe Harvey (Citizen at large)
Others
present:
Ellie
Russell Martha Perkins Robin Pierce Debbie Ramsdell
Dan
Senecal-Albrecht Nick Wates Dean Bloch
The meeting convened at 9:00 AM.
The meeting was dedicated to a discussion with Nick
Wates, who is a consultant and author from England and was in Vermont at the
invitation of the Preservation Trust of Vermont.
Dana introduced Nick, and indicated that a packet of
information had been sent to him including a) the draft Burns Planning Process,
b) the Memorandum of Agreement between Charlotte, the Vermont Land Trust and
the Preservation Trust of Vermont, and c) the draft West Charlotte Village
Plan.
Nick was asked what he thought of the West Charlotte
Village Plan. Nick said that he thought
it lacked a clear “design statement”.
Nick provided a pamphlet entitled “Town Design Statements” by The Countryside
Agency. He also said he would try to
send examples of design statements done by towns he has worked with. The Countryside Agency has a website with
links at www.countryside.gov.uk.
In short, town or village design statements are
visual (eg: photographic) and written descriptions of the current design
of a town or village created by local residents. The theory is that the process should “start from where you are”
in order to determine “where you want to go.”
The “design statement” is then used—either as voluntary guideline or in
regulatory framework. The design
statement can be used as a written standard if a local decision is
challenged in court.
Nick also said that it seemingly would be difficult
to look at the site (ie: Burns property or southeast quadrant) in isolation
from the rest of the village and surrounding area.
The issue of using a facilitator was posed to Nick;
he said that a facilitator is “not a magician”, but it could be helpful to have
someone from outside the community to keep an objective perspective.
Nick also described a process that was used with the
community of “White Rock Gardens”, which included a survey distributed in a
magazine handout and involved the public through community design days. The importance of providing status reports
and obtaining public feedback throughout the process was discussed; it
was noted that this may have contributed to the failure of the West Charlotte
Village Plan.
Nick also suggested the possibility of putting one
or several options out to the public as a way to engender interest.
There was discussion about whether the constraints
(eg: septic, wetland, funding) are absolute.
The meeting recessed for a site visit, with
transportation provided by Charles’ haywagon.
(There were no casualties).
Perhaps the site visit reinforced the interrelation of the site with the
rest of the village.
Upon returning, Nick provided feedback on the draft
Burns Planning Process. Nick felt that
in general the outlined process is very good.
He did say that in communications with the public, the process should be
simplified. For planning purposes,
however, each step could be broken down into several sub-steps. He felt that having a timetable and tangible
goals is important, although these may change during the course of the project.
Next Meeting
The next meeting was scheduled for June 18th
at 7:00 PM.
Action items:
C
No
action items were noted.
The meeting adjourned at 12:00 PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dean Bloch