Charlotte Planning
Commission
Minutes of Meeting of
Charlotte Town Hall – 159 Ferry Road
Town Office – (802) 425-3533
Al
Moraska Gene
Diou
Jim
Donovan Linda
Radimer
Members Absent: Dave Brown
Officials Present: Dean Bloch
Public Present: Bill Kellner Clark
W. Hinsdale, Jr.
Ellie
Russell Linda Hamilton
Larry
Hamilton Peter Nobes
Sylvia
Sprigg Libby James
Jonathan
Fisher Linda Sparks
Jack
Wallace Marty Illick
Stephen
C. Brooks Charlie Lemieux
Chair
Jeff McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
Mr. McDonald asked
for any changes or amendments to the agenda.
Mr. Bloch said that the PC had an item that was submitted today which involved
a letter from Kathleen Mushkat requesting a 60-day extension for mylar
submission. It was added to the
agenda.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. McDonald asked
for any comments. Clark Hinsdale, Jr.
noted that on the agenda Josie Leavitt’s name should come off and Linda
Radimer’s be put on. Mr. McDonald
welcomed Linda Radimer, the PC’s new member as of December 30, 2002.
WRITTEN DECISION: KELLNER ET AL., BEAN/MARTIN
SKETCH PLAN LETTER: WALLACE/GECEWICZ
MINUTES:
DECEMBER 19
Kellner
Al Moraska had a
question relative to Item 7 in the Findings regarding wetlands. Mr. Bloch
explained that, in Condition No. 3, no development is being proposed and no
lots are being created, but since there are wetlands on the property, there
would be an opportunity to say “prior to any development in the future,
wetlands on the property would be delineated or field delineated by a
professional.” Mr. Donovan asked if the
Charlotte wetlands map did show wetlands on the property and Mr. Bloch said it
did. Mr. Troy asked if the building
envelope was identified. No lots are
being created; Mr. Bloch said that whatever was pre-existing is what they have;
i.e. if there was a building envelope, it is still there and if there wasn’t one,
then the PC did not create one. Mr. McDonald
asked the PC if they wished to deliberate on this matter now. After discussion and deliberation, No. 7
of the Findings indicates that there may be wetlands on the property and
Condition No. 3 should say that “prior to any further development…”. Mr. McDonald then asked for any other
changes. There were none; therefore,
this document is available for signature.
BEAN/MARTIN
Mr. Donovan
indicated that, in Finding No. 4, he would like to take out the second
“any.” Everyone agreed. Mr. McDonald
asked for any other proposed changes.
Mr. Troy noted that the use of the word “restore” in 1B should be
changed to “included”. Mr. McDonald asked again for any other changes. Mr. Troy noted that the hearing date was
December 19 and should reflect that.
It will be available for signature with changes as noted.
DECEMBER 19
MINUTES
Mr. McDonald
proposed to pass on the minutes of December 19 due to the fact that the
Commission members had just recently received them. Everyone agreed.
LETTER FROM KATHLEEN
MUSHKAT
Mr. McDonald noted
that the letter received from Kathleen Mushkat indicated a surveyor
problem. Mr. McDonald asked Mr. Bloch
for any issues. Mr. Bloch said that
that person called and said that the other party has threatened to file a complaint
against the surveyor if they submit the mylar as part of that application. He asked the town attorney if the PC should
be involved and he said it is a civil matter between the two parties so the
town shouldn’t be involved, except for acting on the extension. Mr. McDonald asked for any reason not to
grant this extension and Mr. Bloch said no.
Mr. Troy moved to extend the 60-day period to submit the mylar in
PC02-18 by an additional 90 days. Mr.
Diou seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was unanimously
approved.
RODNEY AND DONNA STEARNS: CONTINUATION OF RECONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL
PLAT DECISION. PROPERTY LOCATED ON
SPEAR STREET EXTENSION IN THE RURAL DISTRICT
Mr. McDonald read
the planner’s notes noting that the hearing was continued until today to 1)
allow the Stearns time to consult with their attorney regarding the roadway and
2) read the proposed open space agreement from the Conservation Commission and
make comments. Donna Stearns said
that, on the roadway issue, they think that it should stay the way it is; they
want to give an easement and they will keep ownership. Mr. Stearns said that after the project is
completed, they will turn it over to the association. Discussion centered around the time period. Mr. Troy suggested at any time after 5
years and within one year thereafter of the project completion. Everyone agreed with this suggestion.
As for the open
space agreement issue, Donna Stearns said that they don’t want to leave 50 feet
on either side of their brookway; it leaves a lot of their land to be brush
instead of being mowed.
Linda Hamilton
made a comment that she did not understand that there would be no possible
input from the public tonight. The PC
said that the motion clearly stated that there were only 2 issues that needed
input from the Stearns from the last meeting. Mr. Donovan read the motion from the last meeting to clarify
this issue. Mr. Troy moved to close the
hearing and Mr. Donovan seconded the motion. Mr. McDonald asked for
discussion. There was none. All
were in favor and the motion was unanimously approved. Mr. Donovan explained that at the last
meeting, the PC asked for any further comments from the public and no one
responded; therefore, they were ready to close the hearing at the last meeting,
but they decided to give the Stearns a chance to respond to these two items.
Mr. Troy said that
PC should get together with the Town attorney and the Charlotte Conservation
Committee on the draft proposed open space agreement that they give to
applicants; it is a much broader and there are new issues that need to be
addressed.
Mr. Hinsdale asked
the PC if they made a decision and Mr. McDonald explained that they only closed
the hearing and they still have to deliberate.
NEXTEL WIP LEASE CORPS (applicant), JAMES AND
HELEN BROWN (property-owner):
RECONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN REVIEW DECISION (PC-02-21) FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF 12 PCS ANTENNAS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT ON A FARM SILO, AT THE
REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT. PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1783 GREENBUSH ROAD IN THE RURAL DISTRICT.
Steve Elsberee, on
behalf of Nextel, addressed the PC.
The PC is reopening the hearing at this meeting. Mr. McDonald asked him to go through
Nextel’s motion to reconsider (the substance).
Mr. Elsberee said that he sent copies to adjoining landowners at the
same time he submitted to the PC. The
mitigated items are aesthetic issues that the PC raised in its denial and also
the utilities, making clear that all utilities will be underground as per the
ordinance. It was left out of the
decision, he said. They are mitigating
visibility; they propose to enclose antennas in a fiberglass cap; making them
not visible. Mr. Diou said that he
thought that was unfeasible; Mr. Elsberee said that as there was no discussion
of that possibility during the original hearing(s). He said that if the PC would approve the application at the
existing height, they propose the height increase; they are now coming back to
the PC to mitigate visual concerns, aesthetic concerns and leaving the existing
height as is and trying to mitigate the concerns of the project. With those mitigations, they will have some
technological difficulties with the site with the existing height (e.g. less
coverage than as originally proposed).
Mr. Diou asked how they will overcome those. Mr. Elsberee said Nextel will have to adapt somehow. Mr. Troy recalled that the PC had
questioned Nextel on height, enclosure within the existing dome or replacement
dome and the issue pertaining to the fact that the silo is not in use presently
and putting the equipment inside the existing silo or structure. Mr. Elsberee said that most of the
discussions were how to handle the height increase. Mr. Donovan said that while that may have happened, the PC is now
looking at what Nextel is proposing and because they have proposed that as
their site plan, PC’s hearing is to react to their site plan and not to discuss
previous actions. Mr. Diou said that
his point is that if Nextel has to lower their antenna, the trade off would be
not as much coverage and he asked if that happened, to compensate for that,
would Nextel have to increase output.
Mr. Elsberee said no. Mr. Troy
thinks that it should be a new application.
Linda Hamilton asked if they had a lower service area, would this bring
about an additional site development someplace else in the area and Mr.
Elsberee said no. He went on to say
that Nextel had submitted a letter at the August 15 hearing stating that they
would comply with the 12-foot height requirement for the shed (referring to the
accessory equipment building); if it was too commercial, then they would
enclose the entire shelter into the existing barn. It would be a separate concrete equipment structure slid into
the existing barn to house their equipment.
He went on to
state that the applicant is willing to accept the limiting height to the height
of the silo. The other issue is the
setback requirements which the PC had conditioned receiving zoning approval and
he would not change that.
Shirley Reid said
she had a letter that she would like to read explaining the evidence she had
researched regarding the adverse health effects of radiation of cell
towers. Mr. Troy said that the 1500
setback limitation, in order to place any telecommunication facility in this
town in less than 1500 feet from the designated spot requires a variance and
variances are issued by the Zoning Board, not the PC. The PC’s jurisdiction over this matter is to find in Chapter 9 of
the Bylaws to look at the site plan review which deals with aesthetic aspects;
in a separate set of hearings, it involves the zoning board where they look at
the 1,500 ft. limitation. Ms. Reid said
that she was under the impression that it would not go to the zoning board if
the PC did not pass it. Mr. Troy explained that this was not correct; the
Planning Commission has independent parallel jurisdiction. Mr. Troy explained that this is a very
complicated issue; with telecommunications situations, the Telecommunication
Act of 1996 is looked at and basically preempts local jurisdiction (the town,
county and state) on a whole wide range of issues that previous to that, local
jurisdiction had because the Telecommunications Act of 1996 basically opened up
the door (Congress, Federal Law) to competition and said that competition is a
good thing; it is current federal law another Constitutional provision says
that federal preemption takes precedence over what state, county and local
levels can do in this area. Therefore,
Mr. Troy continued, the Town’s jurisdiction of (i.e. power) is limited and the
federal government has put in the FCC hands the power to determine what is safe
as far as the amount that can be radiated from an antenna or telecommunications
installation. He also said that this is
the wrong forum for this discussion.
The PC thanked Ms.
Reid for her letter and accompanying research and letters. Mr. McDonald asked for any other questions.
Peter Rosenfeld
read a statement which he later gave to the PC to add to the minutes of this
meeting expressing his desire not to have this application approved.
Jim Donovan asked
if that 1) since the reconsideration, can we look at the previous material as
well as include new things added at this time?
Mr. McDonald said it is not “de novo.”
Mr. Troy said that
if there is no need for additional testimony, he suggested closing the hearing
and tabling the deliberation for another day.
Mr. McDonald asked for anything additional and Mr. Elsberee said no; he
just wants copies of Ms. Reid’s documents.
Mr. Donovan asked about the connection between the equipment and the
antenna and if it was proposed to be above the ground or underground. Mr. Elsberee said there would be a cable
tray to the barn, but it can be put underground. Mr. Troy asked if there had been a resubmission to the Zoning
Board on this matter and Mr. Elsberee said no.
Mr. Elsbere said they have preserved their rights by filing with Federal
Court but have not served the Town.
Mr. Troy moved to close the hearing and deliberate. Mr. Diou seconded the motion. Mr.
Donovan votes no at the moment because he is not sure whether it was made
absolutely clear that no one in the audience had no further comment. Mr.
Troy retracted his motion temporarily. Ms. Reid asked what kind of application
this was (revised, new, etc.) and Mr. McDonald said that it is a
reconsideration. Ms. Reid suggested that it may be a new application. Mr. McDonald said that the PC already
decided that it was a reconsideration and Mr. Donovan noted that the PC cannot
arbitrarily change its mind. Ms. Reid
did not see the balloons when the test was being performed. Mr. McDonald said that there was a
scheduled site visit at 5:00 p.m. that day.
Mr. Elsberee said the balloons were there from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
but with reconsideration it is a moot point because there is no increase in
height. Ms. Reid asked about antennas
and their location and Mr. McDonald said they would be inside with a fiberglass
cover. Ms. Reid asked if it would be
reasonable to say that Nextel could have originally filed this proposal and
were shooting for the moon and now they’re compromising and in retrospect were
they not in good faith? Mr. Troy
answered by saying that, as the planning process and Board roles in the Town
go, he looks at a system failure if an applicant comes to the PC with an
application that conforms with the regulations of the town and for whatever
reason an application is not approved, and then there’s an appeal. From that viewpoint, he said that we have
all failed in our job because working in a democracy the goal is that people
satisfy particular rules and regulations and they should be permitted to do
whatever it is they are asked to do provided they comply with such rules and
regulations. The question regarding the
first application was something that was not, in the PC’s opinion, within the
rules of the Town as their jurisdiction provides and the Zoning Board did not
feel that they complied with their jurisdictional requirements and they were
denied the application. So the issue
that is now before the PC is that do these new modifications bring Nextel into
compliance with that area of land use regulations that the PC has jurisdiction
over; that is what the PC will deliberate on.
Ms. Reid noted her aesthetic concern if she had to put up a lead wall
to block the radiation from the proposed tower. Mr. Troy said her health points are very valid but the larger
concern is that he is personally very suspect about what our federal government
has deemed as safe. Ms. Reid asked if
she should not be able to sell house and has to rent it, and children of this
renter get sick because of radiation, who is liable? Mr. Troy said that Charlotte, as a community, needs to make an
economic decision and give direction and power to the Selectboard that they can
finance what could conceivably be a million dollars worth of litigation. Mr.
McDonald said that the PC has no authority to regulate the health effects of
telecommunications towers and this is the wrong venue to have this
discussion. Health effects should be
taken to the federal government. Tom
Henricks asked if property values are the PC’s jurisdiction. Mr. Troy said that that is the lister’s
office’s responsibility. Mr. Henricks
said that he is talking about the effects of this particular project. Mr.
McDonald said that anything addressed in the Town plan or the Town ordinance
delegated to the PC are things that the PC has to consider.
Ms. Reid asked why they are closing the hearing. Mr. McDonald explained
that the purpose of the hearing is to take testimony and once they close the
hearing, they are finished with the testimony and they begin deliberation and
take into account all of the testimony and comments and review the notes. Mr. McDonald asked for any questions or
comments. Mr. Moraska said he shares
Ms. Reid’s concerns about health and the PC jurisdiction is solely site plan
review. Mr. McDonald asked for a motion
to close the hearing. Mr. Troy reinstated his motion to close the
hearing. Mr. Diou seconded the motion.
All were in favor. The motion was unanimously approved and the hearing
is closed.
LAKE CHAMPLAIN WALDORF HIGH SCHOOL: SITE PLAN AMENDMENT TO ADD PARKING LOT AND
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES. PROPERTY
LOCATED ON FERRY ROAD IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
Mike Russell,
Sandy Fead and Bill Warnock addressed the PC.
Mike Russell explained that he was representing Lake Champlain Waldorf
Education Association and Greenwood America LLP (record owners of the
property). He said they have an
agreement to purchase the subject property.
Mr. Russell showed the site on a map and explained that SP1 is their
master plan, which showed that they want open grass, a few more buildings and
some parking, gymnasium and classroom building. To do this, they have proposed rearranging this area. They are proposing a parking area, gymnasium
and classroom. Mr. McDonald asked for
questions on SP1. Sandy Fead explained
that they were before the PC 1 ½ years ago to show things relating to water,
parking and sewer. Student body has
grown and is growing and the planned work has to fit in and this is their
conceptual plan/background.
SP2 – Mr. Russell
showed this map which is Phase 1; it is how the site looks like today
externally. In Phase 1, the only
external features will be a utility building which houses the water system and
a fire suppression system and there will be underground utilities (water,
sewer). He showed existing septic
disposal and where the future septic disposal would be. It would be shared with
Greenwood America’s residential future project and use the same system
(one-acre holdout where pumping system is will be shared by them.)
Sandy
Fead said that they have begun a community water system because of the number
of students. Also a sprinkler system is
required for the second floor. A 10,000
gallon tank will be buried. A holding
tank of 15,000 gallons will be needed and a building on top of that for
sprinkler and water. They will use the
existing well. Linda Radimer asked
where the parking area is in relation to grade of the land and Mr. Russell
explained that there is no grade but a drop-off from the road right-of-way 2 or
3 feet below the grade of the road. In
the middle of the field area, an existing swale drains into the fire pond –but
with the right equipment, it can be drained using the catch basin. Mr. Bloch
asked if they had an easement to drain the runoff onto the adjacent property
and Mr. Russell said that they do not need one, because it is an existing
swale. Mr. Fead explained that the
purchase and sale agreement with Greenwood America would contain an easement to
drain. Mr. Moraska asked if the wetlands had been delineated. Mr. Russell said yes on SP2, there are three
areas of wetlands which he showed to the PC. All of them are Class 3 wetlands.
He said he has Dean Bloch’s recommendations addressing the following three
issues:
Parking
Landscaping
Lighting
Lighting
– There are no proposed changes to existing lighting.
Landscaping
– No changes other than the trees that had to be removed to allow for the
parking area. The basketball court goes away in Phase 3 but through Phase 2
they do propose to have the basketball area located where it is because of the
parking in Phase 3. It would end up being
a parking area instead of a basketball court.
Mr.
Troy asked the distance from the proposed basketball court to the road and Mr.
Russell said 25-30 feet. Mr. Troy asked
if they had a variance. Mr. Russell
said that the basketball court is not listed as a structure in the
ordinance. Mr. Moraska asked how long
is temporary? Mr. Russell replied that
“temporary” is 6 months. They are
asking the PC to approve SP3 which is Phase 2.
Mr. McDonald asked why this was an “amendment” and Mr. Bloch said that
the change of an existing approved site plan is considered an amendment. Mr. Fead said that they have to get water
and wastewater permits as well as water permits for the public water system and
they are incorporated into the Act 250 permit for the site.
For
purposes of disclosure, Mr. Troy said that he owns some property that was part
of the original Act 250 permit that incorporates this parcel and he said that
he has no reason to recuse himself because there is property between them and
Greenwood America has no problem either.
Charlie
Lemieux from the railroad company asked if there were any buildings that are
going to be built at the south end of the existing creamery. Mr. Russell responded by saying that there
aren’t and they do foresee that in their planning but not currently. Charlie asked about curb cuts.
Mr. Russell said that the second curb cut is for ingress for the parking
area. Charlie said that since there
are railroad tracks there, they would like to see a fence from F-5 to the south
of the ball park to protect children from trains. There is no proposed fencing other than a backstop. Mr. Diou asked if there would be any fencing
around the basketball court. Mr.
Russell said no, other than the backstops.
Mr. Donovan had two issues:
1) he said he thinks that there
is merit to flipping the basketball and parking because it would give a greater
buffer between the road and basketball court and both would be paved in the
future so it wouldn’t change anything in the end; and 2) the second entrance
- he said he understands the
circulation patterns, but to have three
curb cuts onto Ferry Road instead of one, using only the two existing curb cuts
would place the roadway between the two fields and would limit flexibility and
require cooperation of the adjacent landowner. Mr. Bloch suggested using the new drive as the sole drive. Mr. Fead noted that mostly traffic happens
at two times (a.m. and p.m.); the desirability of ingress and egress to keep
traffic flowing is strong. Mr. McDonald
said that he would like to see a circular drive. Mr. Moraska asked what the site distance is from the railroad
tracks to the first driveway. Mr.
Russell said about 150 feet. Mr. Troy
said that the number of no new parking spots is the real issue based upon real
anticipated use. Mr. Fead talked about
real anticipated use and said that, for example when something is going on in
the gym, it is not likely that people are going to be taking the train. Mr. Russell noted that there are 101 planned
parking spaces on SP1. Mr. Donovan
proposed flipping the basketball court and the parking. In terms of landscaping, he said, shade
trees should be along the roadway.
Flipping them makes it easier to put in shade trees now. Charlie said that they don’t want shade
trees now by the road because of visibility.
Mr. Troy noted that they couldn’t do trees there because of the power
lines. Ms. Radimer suggested planting
lower growth trees and asked the speed of the train. Charlie said 25-30 mph.
Mr. McDonald said he is not comfortable with the basketball court
because it is too close to the road.
Mr. Russell asked if they do agree to flip the basketball court with the
parking area and eliminate the volleyball court, would that mean that the PC
would give them their approval. Mr.
McDonald said that they would get his approval. Clark Hinsdale, Jr. asked is there is a provision to walk to the
school from the center of town, from the railroad station and from the ferry
crossing. Mr. Russell said that there is a marked pedestrian crossing at the
railroad tracks. He also said there is
a walking lane headed up to The Brick Store and a pedestrian trail is there
that connects to the school property.
Mr. Donovan said that he would like to close the hearing. Mr. Bloch said
that it is not clear as far as landscaping.
After discussion, Mr. Diou moved to close this hearing and Mr. Moraska
seconded the motion. All were in favor
and the motion was unanimously approved to close the hearing.
CHAMPLAIN VALLEY CO-HOUSING: CONTINUATION OF PRELIMINARY PLAT HEARING.
Sheila
Braun from Champlain Valley Co-Housing (CVCH) addressed the meeting to discuss
the issue of fire protection and the concerns of the Charlotte Volunteer Fire
Department (CVFD). Mr. Bloch informed
the PC that Bill Maclay could not make it tonight. He said he received a letter from Chris Davis and from Bill
Maclay. Mr. McDonald began to
paraphrase Bill Maclay’s letter. The addition
of sprinklers in the multi-family buildings and bedrooms of the common building
was a change that was made, he said.
There was some additional separation of structures. Mr. Bloch said the main difference is for
the multiple unit buildings; they were not initially proposed to have sprinklers
but now they have found a less expensive way to deal with that. Also, with the single-family dwellings, the
proposed separation was a total of 30 feet, so there’s now a 15-foot
setback.
Mr. Donovan moved to
closing the hearing. Mr. Troy seconded
the motion. All were in favor and the
motion was unanimously approved.
REVIEW OF PROPOSALS FROM CONSULTANTS TO
ASSIST TOWN WITH AMENDING LAND-USE REGULATIONS, AND DISCUSSION REGARDING
INTERVIEWING PROSPECTIVE CONSULTANTS.
The
PC said they have 3 proposals from interested consultants. After discussion and deliberation, it was decided
that Jim Donovan will negotiate with Burnt Rock.
ADJOURN
Respectfully
submitted,
Kimberly
L. Johnson