CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION
7:00 P.M. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1998
TOWN OFFICES
425-3533
UNAPPROVED
Zoning Board of
Adjustment Members
Present:Chairman Jonathan Fisher
Harley P. Allen
Wallace Smith
Louis Laberge
Wade Weathers
Planning Commission
Members Present:Ed Melby, Acting Chairman
David Allen
Jim Donovan
Dave Brown
Planner Charlie Burnham
Gloria Warden
Members Absent:Peter Kunin
Al Moraska
Jeff McDonald
Guests Signed In:Justine Dee
Michael C. Dee
Francis Sullivan, Architect
Sylvia Sprigg, CCC
Harvey Sharrow
Sandy Mayo
Janice Heilmann
Laurence Hamilton
Linda Radimer, CCC
David Wulfson
Louise Brown
John Martin
Zoning Board of Adjustment
1. Michael and Justine Dee, 16 Sutton Place, request for variances from dimensional requirements: The
applicants were sworn in, along with Architect Francis Sullivan. The application is for a sun–room and screened
porch addition on the west side of the existing home.
The triangular porch encroaches further than the existing house, and the entire house encroaches into the
current setbacks because of its configuration on the corner with two front lawns. The major topographical feature
is the ledge in back and the hillside. It is wooded all around.
Mr. Sullivan said it appears the house was built in its present position to allow the rain water to go around
the house on both sides from the ledge. It is his opinion that disturbing either one of the swales in back would
create a very serious water problem for the house. He has discussed the situation with Charlie Burnham before
coming in with this application for a variance.
The topography of the site is the main reason for this application; to place the addition anywhere in the
back, he said, would create a water problem. This was built in 1968.
Neighbor John Martin came up to the table to view the proposed plans. There are perhaps four homes
above the ledge, Mr. Martin said. But these are in a private, wooded area on their own driveway.
Mr. Sullivan said there are some other improvements and conversions within the interior of the home, but in
his conversation with Charlie Burnham these do not need a variance. These are: going down to 3 bedrooms,
making the garage into a family room, etc.
John Martin said that he supports this application.
Harley Allen asked which floor plan Mr. Dee is planning to build to. There are two floor plans, the house is
built into a hillside so one says "ground floor" and the other says "first floor."
Jonathan asked if this is the minimum amount of space needed. He said, "I'm sure you've worked every
side." Mr. Sullivan said any addition would still be the same number of square feet, and given the ledge and
wooded area, would require a variance because it would be zoning encroachment.
Mr. Dee added that the building would still be consistent with other homes in the area, many of which
appear to be larger than this.
They discussed the approved 1968 plan for the location of the leach field. Harley suggested that they make
a site visit. Mr. Dee produced some photographs taken from different angles of the house, some of which will be
left with the application files. Everyone looked at the photographs and Jonathan said they may not have to have a
site visit. Wade noted that they don't appear to be crowding the side setback.
Because it's a corner lot, the 100–ft. setback on the side of the house is actually 54–ft., 6–inches.
Jonathan Fisher moved to close the hearing on the Dee application and take it up in deliberative
session. Harley Allen seconded the motion and it was approved, 4–0 with one member absent. (Louis Laberge
had not yet arrived.)
Joint Meeting of Zoning Board and Planning Commission
2. Request of Harvey Sharrow for approval to expand a non–complying structure on 2069 Mt. Philo Rd:
Mr. Sharrow said he'd like to put an 18'X45' shed roof on a cold–storage building in the back. He explained
that they've lost the shredder that they used to use in Ferrisburgh and now have to ship the tires to New York.
They need a place to protect them from the rain until they are picked up. They want to pour a slab floor
behind the building, 4–to–6 inches thick, use pressure treated poles and a metal roof. On the gables, he would try
to blend it in with cedar shingles and stain.
A sketch was displayed showing the main garage and he wants to set it off so that he can't see it from his
home. There is a nice large lilac bush nearby that he doesn't want to hide from view.
Jonathan Fisher noted that, from a zoning viewpoint, it's no more non–conforming than the existing garage,
and there is 300' in the back; but because it is a commercial use, both Boards must review it. Jonathan invited the
Planning Commission members to add their comments.
Ed Melby said he is familiar with the property. It does not appear that the proposed addition is in anyone's
viewshed. The area slopes down in the back. He believes the building pre–dates zoning. Mr. Sharrow said the
business has been there for about 30 years. Ed added that the place is always need and clean, and well picked up,
and is a pretty good asset to the neighborhood.
Jim Donovan asked whether the lower half needs to be open, and Mr. Sharrow said he gets a rather brisk
"southeaster" there and he may have to close it up. This is mainly for cold storage, he said, to avoid getting the
tires full of water and therefore heavy and messy when they have to move them. In the winter they will carry
them through the garage, and in good weather they may drive around on the back lawn for them.
He described the building's surroundings as having a large cedar tree and a board fence, plus an 8' tall lilac
bush that he doesn't want to exclude from view from inside the shop, so he hates to close it in.
Jim Donovan asked him how he would feel about closing only the side that is showing. Mr. Sharrow said he
wouldn't mind doing that; however if he does that he will put in a window.. Dave Brown thought that was a good
idea as it would appear to be part of the existing building.
Charlie Burnham read a Section 5.4 B. 4. of Chapter V of the Zoning regulations referring to Home Occu
pations:
• No exterior storage of materials or equipment visible from the road or from any adjacent
property shall be permitted.
David Allen said he doesn't see it as a visibility problem or as offending anyone's view from Mt. Philo Rd.
or even the Tonino's lot as long as there's a fence there with the trees there to screen it. Mr. Sharrow said there
is already a screen of trees on the Tonino lot. David added that this appears to be an adequate solution to the
problem of a difficult recycling item. The State of Vermont has a problem with it and they don't see enough of a
volume of tires to justify running a shredder.
Jonathan asked the Planning Commission members how they would vote on this. Ed Melby asked the
members present if they approve the Sharrow application. Each member voted to approve.
Jonathan Fisher moved to close this session on the Harvey Sharrow application and to take it up in
deliberative session. Louis Laberge seconded the motion and it was approved, 5–0.
There was then a brief recess before the next item.
Zoning Board
3. Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's Action or Decision re the property west of the railroad tracks
on Ferry Rd.: Dave Brown, as one of the homeowners in the Limerick Acres group that made the appeal, was
sworn in. "We had concerns with the railroad going in there. None of us is against a soccer field and this is not
about the soccer field. My own four children played sports. But we were concerned that if this soccer field was
not really going to be a soccer field, if it was set up so that the railroad would then come back to us to say that we
allowed Sheldon and Wulfson, or whoever was going to do a soccer field, to go in there without ever having to
have a permit, while they (the railroad) have been struggling with the wetland permits and the wetland studies —
then the State would take the Town to court. Our Association was against it not having to get a permit to change
its use in that it is in an Industrial zone, not an Agriculture zone."
Harley Allen said he believes the Industrial Zone only extends down 359' from the railroad. That's accord-
ing to the Listers' map. Dave said several people have said that if they wanted to make changes on their property
they had to come in and get a permit, so they were concerned that it didn't cost anything for such a permit, or to
come before the Planning Commission to talk over and discuss what they planned to do. They just went ahead
and bulldozed it and put in the drainage ditches. None of the safety issues or wetland concerns have been brought
up. But if they build up the field and plant grass, as they want to do when the weather permits and it drains out
enough, then they say they will come in and get a permit and come before the Planning Commission.
Then, Dave said, at the Planning Commission there will be people coming in that have the wetland concerns
and safety concerns, being right on the edge of the road, F–5, and with the railroad driveway going through there,
the Planning Commission may ask them to put it on the other side of the brook and use the same parking lot as
the railroad. Then everybody's going to be mad at the Planning Commission.. When they came in after they were
called about what they were doing, and talked to Charlie they didn't know whether they'd need a permit or not.
He just told them they didn't have to have one. People in this town who wrote the regulations in this book, he
said, worked very hard for these laws and regulations and they were made for a reason. The procedure is for a
reason; so do we just throw these out? – and let some do anything they want? – I don't think so, and that's what
I'm against. When you go through the Board and you come either to the Planning Commission or to the Zoning
Board of Adjustment, concerns are all brought up before you start into a project and everybody heads in the right
direction. There's no time or money wasted and nobody's mad at each other. This is the way it should go and
this isn't going that way. I would hate to see them go through all the work to make a soccer field and then some-
body turns it down and there's anger because it was turned down. If it was brought forth, Dave said, to begin
with there wouldn't have been a hassle. I'm not against a soccer field; I'm concerned about that particular spot,
for safety, but I'm not against having a soccer field.
Jonathan asked Charlie if he had any comments about his thought process about this. Charlie said we could
talk about this all night, but the only reason we're here, he said, is the appeal. It has to be looked at very care
fully; if you read their appeal, they are appealing the fact that I did nothing. That's the very narrow issue that
this board is considering. I put together some thoughts subsequent to the date of their appeal and issued a written
decision which occurred after the date of their appeal, he said. They had 15 days to appeal my written decision
on the matter, which they did not do.
Charlie said what they did, is to appeal before there was a written decision on the matter, but they did not
appeal the written decision. Jonathan agreed that they had appealed Charlie's lack of action, and asked if he
would care to explain verbally, his decision as to why it didn't require either Zoning Board of Adjustment or
Planning Commission site plan? Charlie replied that he had provided the Planning Commission a written explan-
ation and had provided copies to the Zoning Board. "I can't go around and be a "planting grass" police for this
town; if you would like me to do that, you would need to have the Planning Commission write that in for the
replacement. I did talk about it with Shelly, who is a farmer, who does earn a living with his occupation of
planting and mowing grass. He did come into the office and we did have a chat regarding this situation."
But we didn't come in to talk about that, Charlie said, we came in to hear the appeal that there was no
decision. Louis Laberge disagreed. If the soccer field was being built in that zone, or zones, since it straddled
two zones, .... Charlie said in his conversation with Dr. Sheldon, they were planting grass. If they were going
to consider it for a soccer field they would come in for a permit. It was a pretty good understanding that I had
with them, he said.
Dave Brown said that in the letter that Dr. Sheldon wrote to Charlie, it said "This letter is recording the
decision in early June regarding the soccer field project." It didn't say it was a "hay project," it says, "soccer
field," Dave said. "And when we voted, when Peter Kunin brought it up on the 21st of July, we voted 4–1 that
they needed a permit." Harley Allen asked, under what Bylaws? Dave provided a copy of those minutes to
Jonathan.
Jonathan read the motion: (This was based on a reading in the July 7, 1998 meeting in which Sections 7.1,
and one on Page 5 and 8 pertaining to land development, and Section 6.1 were quoted from Zoning Bylaws.)
Peter Kunin moved: Based on the Planning Commission's understanding, and based on the
landowner's statement that a soccer field is intended for the Barrett / Wulfson property on the
north side of Ferry Road, it is the Planning Commission's belief that a Site Plan Review is
required at this time. Dave Brown seconded the motion, and it passed, 4–1 with 2 members absent.
David Allen stated that he objected only to the part about the statement that a soccer field is intended
for the property, and that the intent would only be if the land would support it. And Dave Brown
reiterated his earlier statement that they were not against having a soccer field, but only wanted the
regulations to be followed.
Jonathan said, to get a little clarity over what happened, he should ask Gloria Warden to talk about what she
investigated. Gloria was sworn in. She brought her letter in which she had gone down to investigate the activity.
"This is dated June 9, 1998, to Charlie from me:
After receiving an inquiry this morning, I went down to the property abutting the freight parcel
on the northwest corner of F–5 and the railroad. The area had been bulldozed. There was a Carl
Laberge in the field setting the stakes. Mr. Laberge told me he was putting in a soccer field for the
school.
After returning to the office I called the school. They said they weren't doing anything. I talked
to Charlie again. Then Marty Illick told me she had talked to Skip Sheldon about a week before that,
who said that they were going to be putting in a soccer field. So Skip was in that afternoon and I
talked to him about it, and he blatantly said, "All we're doing down there is agriculture, and there's
just farm equipment down there."
Jonathan said, that was June 9th, and Charlie's written action was done in July. He asked if others had any
questions of the appellate or of Charlie. Then he asked David Wulfson if he would like to speak. David said he'd
be happy to, so he was sworn in.
"My original intention was to bulldoze the property and plant grass. If it would suffice for a soccer field, we
were going to apply for a permit for recreational use as necessary. My concern with this whole thing, and I also
have concerns because I'm with the railway; and I'm also a property owner, and I also live here in Charlotte. So
I'm wearing 3 hats. My concern with the Browns and their neighborhood is that, no matter what goes on in that
property, they're against it. I believe that, and that's not the issue we are here to talk about.
"My original intent with that piece of property, along with Skip Sheldon, was to bulldoze the property,
which had been left by Francis Knowles 2 years ago, which is the last time he farmed it, left harrowed, but not
smoothed. So prior to us even growing grass whatsoever, so that we could even see if it would make a good
soccer field, we had to bulldoze it. That's when we called the commission. I was the bulldozer operator myself.
I did not put the final grade on, but I did the rough grade, so it is possible that another person had talked to the
person from the office when the final grade was put on."
Louis Laberge asked, as one who'd been around farming for a day or two, if it wasn't usually the method
used to right a rough field is to re–harrow it. David said that was done. "Then why wasn't that adequate to grow
grass?" Louis asked. David Wulfson said, "Skip wanted to do it better, so that he could roll it, and use a high
quality grass seed, which you couldn't use on just a harrowed field. Yes, we hoped to use the field as a soccer
field, subsequent to us going through the permit process. And that is the way it was originally presented at this
office, by me. And I have other concerns, because at another Planning Commission meeting, I specifically asked
if I need a permit to play soccer on a piece of property which I own. And I was told yes. Whether I play soccer
in a poor field with harrowed humps, or whether I play soccer in the middle of my front lawn, where I have this, I
think that's my choice.
"Until I start to do it and either make money, or I invite the public in, but if I want to build a soccer field on
my cornfield, do I need a permit to level that out and grow grass? That was the question that was asked. Until we
started to do something — the statement that it was for the school was totally wrong. That was never the intent.
I am also the soccer coach for the U–10 girls' soccer team in Charlotte and I have been for a couple of years now.
And the original motivation behind this whole thing was that, we have one soccer field behind the school, and it's
a marginal one at best. In baseball season, there are literally conflicts, daily, between the baseball parents and the
soccer parents, and the baseball players and the soccer players, and the baseball coaches and the soccer coaches.
I just got sick of it and I didn't want my team to be subjected to that, so I thought, I've got this level piece of
property down there, and I'm going to go down there and I'm going to make an alternative. If I want to waste my
money and it's my cornfield, it's my choice."
Jonathan said, "The problem is, where the Zoning Regulations overlap with your own private ownership and
if it is in an Industrial zone and if it is in a wetlands, and if it is in a parcel that you are trying to get a train station
on, it seems like you are going about it in the wrong order."
David Wulfson said that it's not in a wetlands, that's on the other side of the road. The wetlands study was
done on the other side of the road. The train station parcel is 2 ½ acres out of 40–acres. "I know what's going
on with the train station, and it's the last thing I want to do is to disturb that piece of property," David said.
This is a flat piece of field, he said, with grass growing on it, and it's agricultural, and it's grass. That's
how I feel about it. And I didn't know until an hour before the Planning Commission meeting, that the Recreation
Committee happened to be meeting there. They invited me in there and asked me what was going on with the
soccer field, and they thought that was a good place for a Town recreational soccer facility. Then the whole thing
changed. So I came before the Planning Commission and said I would hold off on the thing and come up with a
plan to submit a full–blown soccer facility on behalf of the Recreation committee because that's what they wanted
to do. Because, he said, that's all he wanted to do anyway. And so he wants to apologize, and especially to
Charlie. Because if we need a permit to grow grass, in this town, I've got a big problem with that, he said.
Wally Smith wanted to synopsisize this: "What you're basically saying is that the concerns that both the
applicant has made, and that the other people in town have made, are premature." David Wulfson said, "Yes."
"At such time as you actually prepare that to play soccer – there's more to it than just to grow grass — that
is, there are lines to put out and posts to put up, before any of that was to take place, you would go through the
permitting process as we may, or may not deem necessary, is that what you're saying?" David said. He said that
may all change, now that the Recreation Committee is getting involved, and wondered if he should turn it all over
to them. But as the property owner he was reminded that it is still his responsibility.
Wally said what David is saying is that he hasn't changed the use yet, so this is premature. Charlie said that
was his decision, but some people don't agree.
Jonathan said there are people here, and noted that it was a Planning Commission decision that it needed site
plan approval because it was going to be a soccer field. This is just getting some background information, he said
as Charlie was talking about the content of the appeal. Jonathan asked Ed Melby and David Allen about it. He
said he didn't quite understand David Allen's qualifying statement.
Basically, David Allen said he agreed with what is stated here, in that preparing to plant grass, to him does
not constitute a change of use. But Peter Kunin took the view that any excavation requires Site Plan Review.
From a lawyer's standpoint you could interpret our regulations in that manner. But my feeling, he said, was that
since there was no change of use, that, fine, if they wanted to excavate, plant expensive grass seed, but the minute
that they are going to draw a line and put up goal posts, and invite people to come and play soccer there, there's
no change of use. And I would definitely support that they need to come before the Planning Commission if it
gets to that point.
Jonathan asked for more comments. Sandy Mayo asked if there is a sketch plan for the soccer field or any
of the area where the grass is being planted, or the driveway leading to the grass for the proposed soccer field? Is
any of that land in the wetland area? –or in the buffer zone of the wetland area? Charlie said he has a copy of the
federal wetland area and that is not in that wetland area. Sandy asked if he has a copy of Nichols' letter to Cathy
O'Brien at the Wetlands Quality Division in 1996? Charlie said, not that he recalls. Sandy said, –naming that as
a Class II Wetland, and also a couple of letters, one from Linda Radimer and one you wrote as a Zoning Admin-
istrator to Steve Schenker, regarding wanting more information because of the Planning Commission's concerns
of the wetlands? Charlie said he did send a letter to Steve Schenker telling him to do a wetlands delineation per-
taining to a change of use for the railroad station on a different portion of the land. Sandy persisted in asking for
a map, but Charlie said this has nothing to do with this appeal that is being discussed.
Jonathan asked David Wulfson if he had knowledge of any wetland studies that were for this particular piece
of land. David Wulfson said he didn't have any knowledge of it because it's developable land. The zoning admin-
istration at one time must have thought so, he said, because it was industrial. He had bought it on that assumption
thinking that it was industrial. Jonathan asked him whether he had thought it was all industrial. No, David said;
they had done an extensive layout thinking that Prindle Brook was the border line. They asked David to show on
the map where he thought the industrial zone began.
All gathered around, including Conservation Commission chair Linda Radimer. Frink's proper was part of
the border of Wulfson's property and David was describing the area south of the brook. Harley Allen said they
needed to get one of the Listers' maps to see exactly where the industrial zone starts and the agricultural zone
begins. Linda pointed to an area that has all running water.
Harley Allen was comparing a map from the Listers with this one. Harley said there is 395' from the road
r.o.w. that is agricultural. Jonathan asked Harley if he wanted a site visit.
Sylvia Sprigg spoke as a property owner in Charlotte. "As a property owner of agricultural land that has
access on a road. What I'm hearing is that the Town of Charlotte would condone my coming in with bulldozers,
any other kind of heavy equipment or agricultural equipment, and I can do pretty much whatever I want to in the
field, or fields, and then after the fact, come to a Planning Commission, a Zoning Board of Adjustment, a Plan
ning Commissioner, a Conservation Commission or any other group that is authorized to help develop land in the
Town of Charlotte, and that that would be condoned?" Jonathan said he doesn't think she has heard that from the
Zoning Board as a group, but she has heard that from part of the audience. She said that was a decision by the
Zoning Administrator, that it's what was implied, was that it's perfectly acceptable for her as a landowner to
proceed in this manner.
Harley Allen said it is the grains of contention to be separated here, what is agricultural practice, and what
isn't? And until something is done that shows that it is not agricultural, it has to be classified as agricultural. If a
farmer goes out and levels the field across the road from his house, is he developing that land or is he just prepar-
ing it for the next crop? You must prove it one way or the other. That's my idea, he said.
Sylvia asked if it made the difference if they said it was for barley, or that they had said it was to grow grass
for a soccer field. Does that make the difference between agricultural use for a crop she asked or is it still an
agricultural use that hasn't gone through the permitting process yet. "As I understand it," Harley said, "if it
doesn't grow the grasses they want it to grow, they will not put a soccer field there."
Janice: "Then that means that on my piece of property I can see whether I can grow some grasses and see
whether it will grow some golf course grasses long before I come into the community and say I'd like to plan a
golf course there?" Harley said, "Sure."
Jonathan said that's one person's interpretation. Harley said, "They've done enough to discourage farming
in this town, that I think we have to draw the line somewhere. Farmers are going out of business and this town
does not want them to go out of business. They want them to keep that land open, at their own expense, and not
let them sell anything for development — that's horrible They must be rich because they own so much land. They
own the land because nobody will let them do anything with it. Now I've said enough."
Sylvia said she is concerned because there are other parcels in town where they are planning to do something
with their land, and they are following the rules and go before the Planning Commission or the Zoning Board.
And they usually bring forth a plan before they do anything about it. And she is seeing this as a process that is
telling me that we don't have to do that any more. She is concerned that the Administrator for a board seems to
be encouraging that behavior in this particular case.
Wally is using an example. Say a property owner has 200 acres of open meadow. Is there anything in the
regulations that prevent the property owner from digging around and seeing if the property perks? No, Charlie
said. Wally said he sees an analogy in this. There's nothing wrong in seeing what you have. It does not mean
that you are starting the development process, until you come to planning for a subdivision.
Gloria said if there is an intent for a proposed use that is not in compliance with the Bylaws, then it's a
violation. Wally asked, then in digging around the property to see if it perks, to see if it is potentially subdividable
as housing tracts, wouldn't that fall into the same category? Harley said it would.
Charlie said, as Zoning Administrator he has to look at, "Is what's going on there changing its use?" If you
had to go down there in May, you would say, "What is the use of this land here?" Wally made another analogy.
Say you had 45 acres in town, and it's woodlot. Can you go in and clear cut that land? Charlie said that you can.
Jonathan said that when you put a road system in, if it stands out as not being a forest–use road system, then it
typically kicks in as category of development. Harley said Wally should have said, 46 acres because the limit is
45. Dave Brown commented on this property. Someone, 12–to–15 years ago (Bob Wood), dug a big ditch down
there and creating a retention pond, hopefully to make the land where Limerick Acres is, usable. Did he get a
permit to dig that ditch or to make that pond? Folks don't believe he did, but that was probably before these rules.
Linda Radimer said that even the town buildings here are a concern to some folks, and that these buildings
would probably not have been approved for this site because of its physical limitations. Wally agreed that the
same thing would have applied to the school.
Jonathan said that is what they are trying to do now.
Charlie asked that they direct the discussion back to the matter at hand which is a very specific appeal, that
he did not make a decision.
Linda Radimer called attention to the A. Johnson's clear cutting of the property next to Lewis Creek, and
their cutting to prepare the septic field. The septic field digging was deemed acceptable to see if it would perk,
but the clear cutting was deemed in violation because it was done prior to the permit applications, and the drain
age was also found to be in violation. So you really have to understand that agriculture has been given a lot of
waivers simply because, as Harley says, people want to promote the open spaces and want to give the farmers as
much of an opportunity to make a profit if they can. But when we are dealing with issues concerning water
quality etc. it has to be zoned, she said.
Sylvia again spoke. The reason, she said, that most of us are continuing to talk about this, is that it's not a
single isolated incident. We are talking about how development and how planning decisions are made in our total
community, and whether the Planning Commission and the Zoning Board are going to be leading those discus
sions for the community, or whether individuals who may or may not be appointed officials and administrators
are making single–handed decisions. So, she said, this discussion should be continued as long as necessary.
Jonathan said he feels that it's important. The appeal, in one sense, is narrow, however there's no sense in
having a hearing and taking up a lot of volunteer time in this town without coming up with some understanding of
the processes and the problem that created it. So he feels we need information gathered rather than not, rather
than just focusing on the time line. Charlie disagreed; he said to Jonathan that they aren't allowed to do that. This
whole function here is to act on the appeal. Wally said he think its their function to gather as much information
as the Board deems proper. Jonathan said Charlie was mistaken; it's really our decision, Charlie, he said.
Sandy Mayo asked again about a map. How can anyone know where the soccer field, proposed or otherwise
is being put in relation to the wetland? She sees it staked out, and there's an old curb cut there, and there's a new
curb cut there. She has taken pictures of it. No one has seen a map of the new curb cut that was put there, or
where those stakes are or where the proposed soccer field is going to be. Jonathan said the essence of the problem
of it not going before the town review, is that there is no map. That's why we're wasting time here looking at
maps and trying to figure out whether it's in an industrial zone or not.
Larry Hamilton asked to voice his concerns as a citizen. There is a process for these things to be approved or
disapproved and find out in advance how much trouble it would be, and this doesn't seem to be followed. And it
could have been fairly easily have been done if there had been a little bit of communication being the Zoning
Administrator and the Planning Commission. This doesn't seem to be happening. I think we wouldn't be here
tonight if this had happened and if people recognize that when you're close to a wetland you've got to be a little
careful, and you should follow the procedures or there's going to be this kind of brou-ha-ha and we don't need
these kinds of things happening in this town. And any land owner who's on his toes should know this. And town
officials should know this. We need this; it's for the good of the town and it's good for agriculture, too.
Wade said, if Harley's field across the road turns from a pasture to a cornfield, nobody is going to be
concerned. "The issue that I hear, is really the intent, and probably the lack of being forthright in what's really
going to happen. I certainly understand the desire to say, ‘If a soccer field is an appropriate use there (and I'm
not saying if it is or it isn't – there's a whole bunch of issues that require parking and drainage and all that sort of
stuff), but if you can grow grass there that can support a soccer field.' — I'm not sure that I had a problem with
making that experiment. But what the issue really comes down to, is saying, ‘I think we want to have a soccer
field there; I'm not sure that we can have it because of the grass issue;' coming to the Town and kind of saying,
‘Here is our issue.'
"And that, apparently is what they did with you, Charlie, and you made the decision that, ‘No, all you're
doing is growing grass.' And a lot of other people are saying ‘Maybe that really isn't the whole story, maybe that
really is going to be a soccer field, and if we get the soccer field done — drainage, stakes, everything all squared
away, it probably, the process then, already is started towards the soccer field and not just grass.' And it sounds
to me as though, even though I understand the reason for the decision and I understand the reason for the ap
proach and I certainly agree with it, the process may have gotten a little bit narrow. And I certainly agree with
your comments that say, ‘If the end product is going to be a soccer field, then somewhere, through the process we
need to determine (1) Can I grow grass, (2) Is there enough drainage, (3) Do we have a wetlands issue, and all the
other items that finally get together to make a soccer field.' You probably need to not just look at just one, and
have some sort of dialogue between everybody. It sounds to me as though we have gotten a lot of information
tonight."
David Wulfson then spoke again: "It really concerns me that, whatever my piece of property is, be it my flat
front yard, that if I want to play soccer with 10 people in there every afternoon at 3:00, it really concerns me that
I need a permit for that." Dave asked why he would need a permit for that. Dave said, "You could play soccer
but you're not going to bulldoze your front lawn and stake it and grade it and..." Harley said, "He already has!"
Wade agreed; (if he did it on his front lawn) it has gone from Residential to Recreation.
David Wulfson said it didn't matter whose property, whether it's in wetland, whether it's in the middle of
Lake Champlain, "if I want to have 10 people get together to play a game, that I need a permit from any board in
this town." Harley said that's not the case. David said he believes it is. But there's the bulldozer, Harley said.
Anybody can play on their existing fields in their backyard, it's that when it becomes a defined, formal, field, and
also if in an Industrial zone, that it then kicks in 2 Boards — that's the problem here. (I think that was Jonathan.)
David Wulfson asked, if he mowed the grass behind the old Garden Way building and play softball there
tomorrow afternoon? Wally said that if they came and laid the ends for it, probably No, but if it were a company
picnic, probably Yes. Wade said you could probably run any of these two extremes; if I want to make a horse
shoe pit in my back yard and pitch horseshoes, and invite friends.... David Wulfson jumped in again, "Whatever
the purpose of my growing grass on my piece of property which I own, that this thing is blown way out of propor-
tion. Until I start putting up backstops and goalposts and drainage and all that, then I agree. That's going a little
beyond a recreational use or a private use for me; put to level out a piece of pasture and grow grass, I have a
major problem with that. Where I can't go on my own piece of property which I pay taxes on in this town, and
then have ten kids over there to kick a ball around, and not charge a thing and not make any money? I'm just
doing it out of the goodness of my heart, to try and have an alternative thing going here, and all of a sudden it's a
big deal. I've got a problem with that."
Wally asked David if the intent is to make it strictly private. "My intent at the time, when I was all fired up,
like Mr. Allen right there, when I had a confrontation with the soccer field at the school, I said I'm going to do
something different here so I don't have to go through this. If the grass grew and if it could be smooth and if we
didn't have record floods, yep, maybe our soccer ball wouldn't float downstream and we might be able to practice
for an hour a week. That's what my hope was, and it's just gotten way out of proportion."
Louise Brown, from the audience, said, "But inviting, in a hot–headed moment of being irritated by outside
influences, maybe the decision that, ‘Oh, by God, I'm going to create a recreation area on land I own just because
I own it,' without taking into account safety and other kinds of regulations and other influences.." "That's my
choice," David Wulfson jumped in. "That's your choice for you and your family," Louise continued, "it's not
choice for community space and you're already talking about this space being used for community space and that
make it not a single landowner's decision, it makes it a community decision and it means these folks help make
those decision and not just you, the landowner."
"I made that decision when the Recreation Committee took this project on themselves, that they wanted to
support it, however, the very original movement on this whole thing, was strictly private, for my own use, and if
my wife and 3 kids wanted to kick a soccer ball around, it's not really your business," David (W.) Said. Louise
replied that it is, if a soccer ball comes across the road; there's a safety issue there.
Jonathan Fisher said he thinks they are taking this to a philosophical level that they are not going to solve
tonight. Charlie Burnham said he just wanted to remind everybody that we are talking about Zoning Regulations.
The regulations in this town do not define recreation areas. The definition doesn't exist. "The town pays me to
administer these regulations. I have cases coming across my desk literally every 5 minutes all day long. And it's
my job to make these decisions. If somebody doesn't like my decision, the ordinance provides for anybody to take
exception to that and appeal to this Board, and this Board's duty is to only make judgement on whether or not it's
proper or improper, or if so, then what to do about it. But you have to decide whether or not I made the right
decision or a wrong decision. But that's not the case here. You're not deciding that tonight because that's not
what the appeal is. The appeal before you, is that I did not do anything. I subsequently did perform an action,
but that is not what's being appealed here tonight."
Sandy Mayo said, "I'd like to make a comment regarding the letter Charlie had written to Steve Schenker
regarding the rail station in 1997, Charlie talks about inconsistent information regarding ‘over two acres being
impacted in the wetlands district in that area.' He also mentions that the information is inconsistent. He mentions
that no map of the impacted wetlands have been submitted. He mentions an important aquifer of wetland on the
property remain in its natural state to prevent further destruction of an important water recharge area. But once
again, no map. And this is what he's asking the railroad to submit, and that's what really might be taken care of,
if we all had a map to look at."
Jonathan replied that it's the map that would have been required if the permits had been applied for, for
Zoning or for Sketch Plan Review. Jonathan said he thinks we've gathered enough information and as much as
we can absorb tonight.
Louis Laberge said he wished to make a statement that the landowner has his rights and when the intent is
shown that it is going beyond his own private use, "and I don't know that Charlie's wrong in making the decision
that he has, it's just that you have to reach that level before it kicks in the process. And I don't know how you
draw that line." Other members of the Zoning Board agreed, that it's a judgement call.
Jonathan Fisher moved to close this hearing and we will take this up in deliberative session. Wade
Weathers seconded the motion and it was approved, 4–0 with 1 absent (Harley had left the room).