cpc19july2001

1. General Business: Review of Nov. 15^th Minutes: A small amount of corrections were made by adding phrases to clarify the intent at the time they were said and a name was corrected. Al Moraska had said Selectboard can recommend changes in zoning, but cannot actually make zoning changes within the Town Plan. Gordon had said that well heads should have property line setback requirements like a structure. A date was corrected. Al Moraska moved to approve the Minutes of Nov. 15, 2001 as amended. Josie Leavitt seconded and it was approved, 6-0 with one member absent.

December 6^th Minutes: Jack Clemmons’ comments were clarified with better grammar and for the description of the extension of the railroad tracks on which freight cars have been left, which block his access to fields across the tracks. Also, when Al had said there has been no application for a depot, he meant a freight car depot. On page 2, for the Telecommunications Bylaw, the word “Authority” (to hire a consultant) had to be capitalized. Then, Gordon said he didn’t “protest,” he “indicated.” That observation has been corrected. Marty Illick had asked, “What is the long term agricultural plan.” Gordon Troy moved to approve the Minutes of December 6, 2001 as amended. Martha Perkins seconded the motion and it was approved, 6-0 with one member absent.

Findings of Fact for Vadeboncoeur / Pierce: There was a consensus that Dean’s draft findings were fine. Findings of Fact for the Pizzagalli application, the draft was fine.

Dean asked the Planning Commission members to look over the draft of the Annual Report for 2002. There was a motion to alter a condition on an Act 250 decision on an antenna on Knowles silo. Gordon Troy noted that the silo is less than 1500' distance and doesn’t satisfy setback requirements. Dean said this was a notification only.

2. Donna and Rodney Stearns, draft decision: The Planning Commission worked from the draft Findings of Fact. Open space is a condition that has been met; but Jim Donovan said if the open space takes up the 50% maximum, then that takes away any allowable density from future development. At this time 7 acres are being used for this p.r.d., so that means (8 parcels X 5, or 40 acres, less the 7 acres), that 33+ acres need to be permanent open space rather than half of 77 acres.

In the immediate area, the average square footage of the single family homes average approximately 1471 s.f. (source: Charlotte Listers) Other changes to the draft decision related to the identification of the Mount Philo viewshed.

Mr. Ritter’s comments were read into the Minutes from December 20^th, and will be part of the observations for the written decision as well.

Part of the draft decision is that the 7 new homes be limited to 2000 s.f. Martha said she likes that, and an even smaller limitation if that meant the houses would be more affordable, even though this is not an “Affordable Housing” application. It was decided to continue deliberation on the size limitation for the houses as discussed at the previous meeting, as well as the open space requirements for the remainder of the property.

Gordon Troy wanted to have included in Number 9, an agreement to have a maintenance agreement for the roadway. This would be similar to the maintenance agreement for septic.

It was time for the next application so the deliberation on the draft decision was to be continued later.

3. Rolf Sennhenn, Site Plan Review for Mixed Use: This property is located on the corner of Ferry Road and Greenbush Road. This application is for a one bedroom (two room) apartment above the Old Brick Store. The access would be between the store and the shed. It will have a tub and shower. The application is for permission to park two cars in the Fire Department parking lot near the Senior Center. Rolf had a letter from the Fire Department that gives permission for this, as during the day there is ample room there.

Ed Stone, at the Sketch Plan Review, had advised him to have a fire escape. Though the State of Vermont does not require a fire escape, he does want to provide one (a metal ladder) outside a window. A fire escape is not part of this application, however. (It was a recommendation and not a condition.)

Rolf said the parking agreement is for two years and that he cannot renew it; he still owns some property on Greenbush Road which can be used for that purpose.

Josie Leavitt moved that the Planning Commission approve the application of Rolf and Carolyn Sennhenn to create a one bedroom above the Old Brick Store and use offsite parking for the staff at the Fire Department, with the Fire Department’s agreement. Martha Perkins seconded the motion, and in discussion asked what would happen if the Fire Department wants to terminate the agreement; Jim explained there was an alternative for parking on Rolf’s own property. The motion was approved, 6-0 with one member absent. A written decision will be sent within two weeks, Dean said.

4. Independent Wireless One, Site Plan Review for Telecommunications Antenna on an existing tower located on Spear Street Extension: Chris Bramley and Bill Bartell represented Sprint, which wants to add a cellular antenna to an unused tower on Spear St. Ext.

Chris Bramley said they are applying for Site Plan approval to install 6 telecommunications antennas, coaxial cable running from the antennas to the ground equipment, and ground equipment mounted on a 9x5 raised platform within a 10x20 fenced compound at 3247 Spear St. Extension. This is in accordance with Sect. 6.5 of the Zoning Regulations and Sec. 9.8 of the new Interim Telecom Bylaw. His company has tried to work with the Planning Administrator and the Town of Charlotte in avoiding building a new tower. The best way to do that, he said, is to add a minimal addition to the existing tower on Spear St. Extension.

Gordon Troy asked what is there now. Chris said the tower isn’t being used for anything right now, and the two big rabbit-ear antennas will be dismantled to put the new equipment on. Gordon asked if they were talking about the 5 to 6 tubular antennas that would wrap around the tower.

Will Simonelli, the engineer for this project, answered that. He believes the tower was originally built in 1980 for microwave use for AT&T. It is no longer used. Martha Perkins asked if they were putting up new cell towers, would they be as large? Chris replied that depending on the terrain and the location; they could be 375' high.

Gordon asked if they are talking about 5-to-6 ft. tubular sections which wrap around the tower. Bill said these are a little bit different and are panels.

Chris said they have some pictures of “as is” and the proposal for what they would look like afterward. They do not intend to increase the height of the tower. The red blinking lights are FAA required. The other thing is that they are opaque and are not reflective. The panels are 6' tall and 7" wide.

Martha asked about radio frequency hazards. Chris said for every tower they build they do a “worst case” scenario, meaning that if they are at optimum power they put out 75 watts, which is less than .02% of the government guideline for emissions.

Al asked what direction the waves would be pointed at. Chris said there will be three directions; 90E N towards Hinesburg, 210E SW, and 335E NW.

Chris said these are needed in order for Sprint to cover Route 7 through Charlotte. It gives Charlotte the ability to operate the B PCS channel. There are 6 PCS channels, Devon, AT&T Wireless and some others. Martha asked if there isn’t already adequate coverage in the Town of Charlotte. Chris said there may be, but Sprint doesn’t give coverage yet and it is their obligation, in order to keep their license, to show that they can provide coverage. They plan to have three in Charlotte, the other two in silos belonging to the Knowles Farm on Ferry Road, and atop a barn silo on a farm recently purchased on Route 7 by John Krep. At present there are none along Route 7 or on Interstate 89.

Al Moraska notes that in the specs it describes the output as 75 watts for each of these panels. Chris replied that there are two going in each direction and that would be a total of 150 watts. Describing the Spear Street antenna plans, he said of the two panels in each direction, only one of these panels is transmitting and the other panel is a receive-only panel. The one panel is actually duplexed so that it both receives and transmits in a procedure called “receive diversity.” One transmitter is talking to the mobile phone and those two receive antennas are looking for the return signal from the mobile phone. The “receive diversity” gives us a little more enhanced reception from the mobile phone to the cell server. So there is only one panel serving in each direction, Chris said.

Al noted that in both to the northwest and to the southwest of the antenna there are houses within 1500 ft., and asked what impacts there will be on those houses. Chris said there will be no impact at all; their research shows the impact is far below FCC standards. He said there will be no interference issues.

Jeff McDonald noted that the regulations under which the Planning Commission is reviewing this are Sections 6.5, Site Plan Review of the Zoning Bylaws, and 9.8 of the Interim Zoning Bylaws for the regulation of Towers and Telecommunications Facilities. The Planning Commission must issue a decision within 60 days of the opening of the hearing or the application is automatically approved. The project also needs a Conditional Use Permit from the Zoning Board of Adjustment which will determine whether the Use is allowed. The Planning Commission is just dealing with the Site Plan.

Gordon Troy asked why this application is before us when, after looking at Dean Bloch’s notes, we don’t have a complete application. Chris replied that every thing that is listed has been resubmitted and is there now, and offered to answer any further questions.

Jeff said the application is for a commercial district, but this location is actually in a rural and conservation district and the setback distances are incorrect. Chris agreed that the original application listed this as in a commercial district, but resubmitted a set that shows it in the Rural and Conservation Districts. Dean said although it is distinct from this application, the material has been submitted to the Planning & Zoning Office with an application for Conditional Use. He said it is up to the Planning Commission to decide if that is adequate.

Gordon said according to Section 9.8 of the Site Plan Requirements, Item L says the copy of the information submitted as part of the Conditional Use Permit application. He asked when the Conditional Use Permit application was filed. Was it at the same time as the Conditional Use Permit application? Chris replied that it was. Jonathan Fisher, Chairman of the Zoning Board of Adjustment, said the Conditional Use has not been accepted.

Jonathan said there is not a complete application for Zoning. Gordon Troy said that the Planning Commission should not even be having this hearing yet because the applicants have not been able to satisfy the prerequisites for opening up a hearing This hearing should not even be opened yet, because they can’t even provide us with a copy of the information submitted as part of the Conditional Use Permit application until the Conditional Use Permit application is first accepted by the Zoning Board.

Jim Donovan said if the information is available it may satisfy 9.8 L for a “copy of information submitted,” but it appears the office has everything except for one document. Chris said the information requested has nothing to do with health & safety.

Martha Perkins feels this is premature. “I submit we don’t have all the information.” There should be a structural analysis of the towers.

Stephen Brooks asked, “How is the Town better off to speed up this hearing?”

Jennifer Adsit said the 60 day clock is important. Eva Frazer-Harris disputed the “no potential health consequences” claim of the applicants. “We do not know what the long term uses or consequences are. One and a half years ago the ownership of this tower was transferred. Until that AT&T owned it, and it has not been used for more than 20 years. We purchased our home, knowing that the tower was not in use. There are already two providers in Charlotte. That tower should come under “new jurisdiction” and be under the Telecommunications Bylaws as a new use.”

Jeff McDonald said this Hearing may need to be held under a joint session with the Zoning Board. Gordon Troy moved not to open the Hearing on Independent Wireless One’s application, and moves to coordinate a Planning Commission Public Hearing with the Zoning Board of Adjustment, when both applications are complete. This gives the applicant the opportunity to address the technical issues that have been raised by both Gloria Warden and Dean Bloch. Josie Leavitt seconded the motion. Chris said he would agree to this.

In further discussion, only the immediate abutting neighbors get notified of a Public Hearing. Gordon Troy said under the Bylaw that will be voted on in March, a wider range of neighbors will be notified. Dean said if the person nearby wants to be notified, she can give him her name and address and he would include her.

Bill Doris said his is not an abutting property, but feels as far as public knowledge goes, the rest of the Town needs to know about this, too. Jeff called on the two representatives of the press to take note and to be sure this becomes public knowledge.

Jeff called for a vote. The motion was approved, 6-0 with one member absent.

6. Stearns draft decision (in deliberation, continued): Jim Donovan noted that there are in this application, 8 units. Therefore there needs only to be 40 acres accounted for under the density issue, for open space. They are using 7 acres at this time. Jeff agreed that there can be a condition that “This open space designated does not apply toward future density.” Jim said they can either leave that floating, or tie it down, as long as it’s clear on the plat. Jim said he doesn’t want to require more than the 33 acres that are part of this density.

Gordon recommended that the Planning Commission focus on the remaining issues and continue deliberation at the next meeting.

Gordon Troy moved to adjourn. Martha Perkins seconded and it was approved, 6-0.

APPROVED BY THE CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION ON

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Chairman Date

O:\Planning Commission\Minutes\2002\jan03.doc