CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION

Guests Signed in:

Sylvia Sprigg

Wallace Smith (Zoning Board)

Charles Russell (Selectman)

Nancy Sabin

Toby Goldsmith

David Miskell

Yvan Plouffe

Gregg Beldock

Mel Hawley

Shyla Foster

Richard Bernstein

Catherine Hughes

Mike Russell

Laura Cahners-Ford

Jim Emerson

1. General Business: Review of Minutes: In minutes of December 7, 2000 the minute taker was instructed to review the tape at the end, where the Black Willow III presentation was accepted. Jeff McDonald signed it.

Jeff McDonald moved to approve the minutes of December 7, 2000. Dave Brown seconded the motion and it was approved, 4B0 with one member abstaining, one member not here yet and one member absent.

There were additions to the minutes of 11/30 done by another person and these will be incorporated in the version e-mailed, and sent back. Minutes for 11/16, 11/30 and 12/21 were postponed.

2. Stockbridge Homeowners Association: Discussion about corrective action regarding setback on Fire Pond Road: Mark MacKillop represented Stockbridge, James Barker represented himself.

Dean Bloch gave a brief synopsis: 3 to 4 months ago the Planning Commission held a meeting which was warned to reduce the road right of way, but instead agreed to grant a reduced setback. The intent was to grant this for James and Susan Barker, for their lot because they wanted to build a barn. In the official wording for the decision it stated that the approval was for reducing the setback on Fire Pond Road which includes other properties as well.

This was brought to our intention, Dean said, and it was felt that is was appropriate for the Planning Commission to specify that the reduced setback is only for the west side of Fire Pond Road. In going over the situation it was felt that when changes of dimensional requirements such as setbacks are being looked at, this would happen when the subdivision is being approved; that is, in the beginning. But probably after that stage (several years later) a change of setback should probably go before the Zoning Board as a variance. We have discussed it with the Town Attorney and it seemed like that was the direction to take. We need to talk about doing an amendment.

Al Moraska said it was his understanding that the Planning Commission was doing this only for the barn; and it was this one structure and not the whole lot. If the applicants wanted to add it for other structures, then it would come under guidelines for the p.r.d.

Mark MacKillop said Stockbridge Homeowners were in complete agreement in understanding the intent to limit this to the barn, and no one intended this to apply to the northern side of the right of way.

Jeff McDonald asked why a re-application would be necessary for that, and asked why the Planning Commission couldn=t just issue corrective language for the decision. Dean replied that there is a written decision that is part of the land records. He thought the safest way to do that is to hold a public hearing.

James Barker said he feels he has already jumped through enough hoops for this and he certainly does not want to have to go through a re-application to what they have already done. He said he was given three different sets of procedures to do this process, all of which he has gone through, to end up like this. He said if the Planning Commission is willing to issue corrective language, then he will certainly go along with it.

Ed Stone said we=ve done something that we shouldn=t have done, and now these people age going to suffer the consequences; that=s what will happen. What we need to do is to re-evaluate the whole situation. We stated at that meeting that we didn=t feel that we should get involved in it, and stressed the Zoning Board of Adjustment should be the ones to handle it. We had a letter from the Stockbridge Homeowners Association that this was approved by them. But it was the Zoning Board=s deal.

Jeff McDonald verified with Dean, a suggestion that this corrective action be done through administrative action to change the wording. Dean said the safest way is to hold a public hearing, because today it is just a discussion. The benefit of an open hearing, Dean continued, is for the property owner in the future so that all the paperwork is in order when the property is sold.

James Barker said he can understand why a warned hearing is necessary, but doesn=t feel an application should be necessary.

Jim Donovan asked if the hearing just couldn=t be reopened. But Dean said they cannot do that. Ed Melby agreed that it was clearly the intention originally, to limit this approval to just the barn.

Dave Brown asked if Dean could call the attorney to see if the Zoning Board has to be involved with this, and to have the attorney=s decision in writing..

Ed Stone noted that we=ve all agreed this was done just for the barn; can we just do it for the barn or do we have to do it for the whole property? Jim Donovan said we can=t do it for the barn but we can do it just for a certain distance. Because it was a p.r.d., legally it could be handled as a subdivision modification, because we already modified everything in the original one.

Wally Smith was asked his opinion on this. He said he would only speak as one member of the Zoning Board. The State of Vermont gives us five criteria by which we can grant a variance. He said if he reviewed this scenario it would be somewhat implausible to grant this variance. He would agree with Jim Donovan that the way our Planning document reads, the Planning Commission was within its purview to make an adjustment to a front yard B side yard setback as far as a p.r.d. is concerned. He said he is not sure it is good public policy to keep doing that.

Procedurally, the Planning Commission did something that the Zoning Board could not do, and that is, they had a warned hearing for a right of way production, you did not have a warned hearing for a change in setback requirements. You did approve something, and because no one appealed to the Environmental Board within the specified period of time, Mr. Barker and his wife have an approved issuant of a building permit. To get Mr. Barker to agree to make up for some of the faux= pas= here (he=s got what he needs), there seems to be a need for accommodation here, so that if Mr. Barker decides to go along with these modifications in the wording he does not jeopardize what he legally has in his pocket.

Wally continued: This is a lesson that both boards have learned; that is, in going on and building something that is not warned.

Jeff said we are in agreement that we=d like to take a corrective action, and that the applicant was willing to participate in that. If Dean will confer with the attorney in that, basically we will be warning a hearing and not necessarily a new application. He asked Mr. Barker if he would be agreeable to that. We would be fine-tuning it, but AIt=s our mistake.@ Mr. Barker said he would go along with that; he has a foundation in the ground already.

Jim Donovan said, in looking at the big picture the Planning Commission could just go in and change any of its decisions at any time, by whim. And we can=t do that, so Mr. Barker may have to go in and apply (and then have a hearing), even though it=s not going to jeopardize what he=s got. Ed Stone offered to draw up the wording on this.

Al Moraska said he does not think the Planning Commission made a mistake on this approval. We were in our authority to make a modification to the p.r.d. The problem lies in our wording. Mark MacKillop and James Barker said they are agreeable to this, and asked the Planning Commission to just let them know what they should do next.

3. Sketch Plan Review for 2-lot subdivision on Plouffe Lane: Yvan Plouffe brought in the plans for a 2-lot subdivision of an 18 acre parcel on the east side of Plouffe Lane. The applicant had previously sold land on the west side of Plouffe Lane which was subdivided by Gregg Beldock. There is a house already built on proposed Lot #1 which is the residence of the applicant. The proposal will create one additional building lot.

Details about the land layout and the sand pit personally owned by Mr. Plouffe were described, as well as land which will be preserved. Plouffe Lane is a town-owned road off Carpenter Road, sold to the town by Mr. Plouffe=s father. He said he had walked the distance from his proposed waste disposal area and the stream, and it was 200' away although the river is not on his land; the area is 40-50' from his fence. He said Frank O=Brien and Ernie Christensen from the State have come over and seen this wastewater treatment plan.

The adjacent property owners, Yvan said, are the Town of Charlotte, Dan Boardman, David Perrin, and George Vandevord=s successors (new owners). He described a property right of way for some of these neighbors and the area that Mr. Perrin hopes to buy next to the river. He showed the area where wildlife travel near the river.

Jim Donovan said we need to feel comfortable that the dimensions of the setback from the stream is okay, so the location needs to be indicated on the drawing.

Gregg Beldock spoke about a Plouffe Lane Maintenance Agreement which the Town of Charlotte had asked him to do as part of his previous subdivision approval. He asked that any new people in this development be added to this maintenance agreement. Jeff McDonald asked if the other property owners participate in this agreement, and Gregg said they are supposed to, though it=s hard to get some of them to pay the bill.

Al Moraska suggested, and Yvan agreed, he is willing to put this in the deed. Ed Stone said this is usually something that has to be in writing, so Yvan said he would put it in the deed.

Dean Bloch will give Yvan a subdivision application, and will ask that he indicate a building envelope on the application.

Jim Donovan moved to classify the Yvan Plouffe application for a 2-lot subdivision on Plouffe Lane as a Minor Subdivision. Ed Melby seconded the motion and it was approved, 6B0 with one member absent.

4. Lewis Creek Associates: Reopen Final Plat Hearing for a 2-lot subdivision to change location of primary septic field for Lot #1: Dean Bloch submitted a statement that the parcel being subdivided was created by a boundary adjustment between Lewis Creek Associates, Inc. and Charlotte land Trust which was approved on November 2, 2000. The application was approved, however the hearing had to be reopened because the State required relocation of the septic field.

Subsequently a new design has been submitted (approved by Spencer Harris) in which there is a wastewater system easement over Lot #2 for Lot #1. Dean Bloch has drafted a Findings of Fact and Decision for consideration and signature to be ready for the closing on January 10, 2001. This Findings of Fact is to be considered part of the Minutes.

There was a discussion of whether to include a requirement for a 20' wide path easement, but this is not a requirement of the approval because the decision for this was made long before any application for the boundary adjustment in this application. Making this a requirement would take away any tax advantage this donation would get. Therefore #4 in the Findings is not part of this, and #3 in the proposed Decision starting with AA Recreation Path..@ is also not part of this.

Jim Donovan moved to approve the revised application of the Lewis Creek Associates, Inc. 2-lot subdivision Findings of Fact and Decision as prepared by the Town Planner, as revised. Ed Melby seconded the motion and it was approved, 6B0 with one member absent.

5, Waldorf School, Inc. Sketch Plan Review for Site Plan Review for operation of a school on Ferry Road: Mike Russell, Shyla Foster, and Jim Emerson represented Waldorf School. Mike Russell said they have been operating in Shelburne for over 20 years with a K- through 8 program with 200 students. There are 80 to 100 schools within the United States. Recently the high school phase has started with 20- to 24 high schools in the United States.

The school uses rhythmic and life approaches, and groups to teach reasoning along with textbook answers. They plan to raise funds ($300,000 for 4 years with $250,000 already raised), and have three staff for a high school already. There are 12 students lined up already, need 15B20.

On the possibility list for locations are the Charles Kelner building which is available, or the creamery building. There are some other possible facilities along the west on Ferry Road, but are looking at the creamery building.

Shelburne appreciates the school, but doesn=t appear to have an adequate site for expansion. There are some State requirements and some Town requirements there such as setbacks, second floor egress, ventilation, fire safety etc. that would be difficult to be met in the Kelner building.

Ed Stone asked how many students are projected for 3, 4 or 5 years from now. Mike said the creamery building has 8,000 s.f. and if there are 15 students in a class there is adequate space. Their high school curriculum has a gardening program and they envision ball fields, etc. They wonder if the 8:00 train to Rutland may pose a problem because of noise interruption (from rumor).

Septic capacity is approximately 650 gallons capacity per day, so that would last for at least 3 years and then as the school grows, they would need to develop a larger system.

Mike Russell said one of their schools built two years ago, has been named the best Ahealthy school@ on the east coast. It is deemed environmentally safe, for some students who are allergic. Now, Mike said, they have a standard to meet. One of the problems with the Kelner building is meeting such standards.

They intend to have students use the train if possible. The Kelner building has less raw parking available than does the creamery. Because there is much more space than needed right now, they may consider moving the 7^th and 8^th grades to Charlotte from Shelburne.

Mike said they don=t anticipate needing a gymnasium or cafeteria yet.

Jeff said traffic and access for Ferry Road may be a concern of the Planning Commission, however since the addition of the crossing gates that situation may be better.

Ed Stone suggested that the applicants give scenarios of what they think the day would be like there, such as when Ferries come, when trains come, and the possibility that a restaurant may be nearby. There needs to be some kind of ideas presented. Mike Russell said he does have access to the number of students with cars and those who would be brought in cars and dropped off.

Dave Brown added that there should be an estimate of how many entrances and exits per day would be expected. Jeff noted that there is a pedestrian access to that crossing. Dave said the time (for the school activities) is important relating to the other activities around that Ferry Road location.

Ed Stone asked that the predictions be made for up to 4 years, that is, where there might be stuctural changes; up to that point.

Dean said there would have to be two applications; one for each property they are considering. Jim Donovan agreed, but offered the applicants the opportunity to come in and meet informally for advice if they just want to narrow this down to one application.

Al Moraska mentioned evening activities; there would have to be a look at lighting, etc.

Mel Hawley said Country Home Products does have a right of way, in a discussion about preferences to have a minimum amount of curb cuts for the Kelner property. Mike Russell had thought there wouldn=t be a restaurant coming because of a rumor that they couldn=t have a curb cut. Jeff stated that the applicants had merely had a sketch plan review and some discussions about future plans, and no such decision had been made.

6. General Business: Jimerson Sketch Plan letter: Dean Bloch had wanted the Planning Commission to review the letter he sent to the Jimersons on the already approved sketch plan.

Dean had also sent the members a letter suggesting that when there are sketch plans to be reviewed, more comments should be made at that stage so as to save time and money for the applicants when they proceed further into the process. Members said this was a good suggestion.

On Saturday morning members will meet for a site visit at the Stearns property on Mt. Philo Road at 8:00 a.m.

7. Decision from Deliberative Session on the Petition to Re-Zone the Industrial District on Route 7 and East Thompson=s Point Road: This took place on December 21, 2000:

The Charlotte Planning Commission deliberated on the petition to re-zone the Industrial District on Route 7 and East Thompson=s Point Road on December 21, 2000. The Commission determined that we are not in support of the petition and do not recommend the action.

The Industrial District in question is recognized in both our current and proposed Town Plans. During the development of the new Town Plan, a subcommittee considered the issue and determined that the present land base zoned Industrial was appropriate. Base on siting criteria, alternative locations to replace this area would be difficult to find. The Commission is also concerned that conversion of the site for Residential development could have adverse impacts for the Town.

According to Chapter 117 of Title 24, a proposal to alter the zoning designation of any land should be evaluated and a report prepared to cover the following points:

1) The probable impact on the surrounding area, including the effect of any resulting increase in traffic, and the probable impact on the overall pattern of land use.

2) The long-term cost or benefit to the municipality, based upon consideration of the probable municipal tax base and need for public facilities.

3) The amount of land already subject to the proposed new designation and the need for additional land for that purpose.

4) The suitability of the area in question for the proposed purpose.

Given the activities to date with adoption of a new Town Plan, such a report could not be prepared. In our opinion, the action to re-zone is premature and not recommended by the Planning Commission.

Ed Stone moved to approve this decision. Jim Donovan seconded the motion and it was approved, 6B0 with one Planning Commission member absent.