CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION

7:00 P.M., TUESDAY, JANUARY 5, 1999

TOWN OFFICES

425-3533

Members Present:Ed Melby, Acting Chairman

David Allen

Jim Donovan

Jeff McDonald

Dave Brown

David Woolf, new member of Planning Commission

Planner Charlie Burnham

Members Absent:

Chairman Al Moraska

Guests Signed In:

Martha Illick

Stephen C. Brooks

Stuart J. Morrow

Alison C. Lockwood

Jonathan Fisher

Liam Murphy

Sue Anne Patnaude

John Patnaude

Sylvia Sprigg

Sandy Mayo

1. General Business: Acting Chairman Ed Melby announced that the members of both the Planning Commis

sion and the Zoning Board would be meeting to discuss the appointment of two individuals to the positions of

Interim Planner, and the other person to work for Zoning. Each member of the Planning Commission has studied

the applications of all the candidates, and the person that they have considered for Planning is Katherine (Kit)

Perkins. They have made their decision known in an earlier, telephone meeting. These are part-time posts.

David Allen moved to officially consider that Katherine Perkins be appointed to the post of Interim

Planner. Jim Donovan seconded the motion. Before voting, Marty Illick from the Selectboard announced that

she had been appointed by the Selectboard to finalize anything that the Planning Commission decided to do this

evening. But there was a question of compensation that needed to be discussed first, as Kit had proposed a

change.

Ed Melby said because of personnel issues involved, they would go into Executive Session, and he invited

the members of the Zoning Board who were present, to go into executive session with them along with the Select-

board member. Ed Melby moved to go into Executive Session and Dave Brown seconded the motion and the

vote was 6-0 in favor. At this point as they were leaving for the small meeting room, Sylvia Sprigg objected to

them going into executive session. She said unless these issues were related to a reference to all the candidates

they couldn't do this. The chair overruled her objection and they continued to the meeting room. The vote itself

was deferred. [The time was 7:10 p.m.] It appeared a couple of people thought the timing was wrong.

The meeting resumed at 7:30 p.m. Sandy Mayo asked if they had made any decisions. Chairman Ed Melby

said the decision was not finalized because the Selectboard has to make the final decision.

2. Reconsideration of Anthony Perry's Preliminary Plat Approval, 556 Ethan Allen Highway: Liam

Murphy, Esq. represented the applicant.

Mr. Murphy asked the Planning Commission to look at some of the issues raised in his letter of December

10, 1998, with certain suggested changes in the conditions asked for in the original approval. This is a modifica-

tion of a previous subdivision. The southern phase has a house lot with four lots around it. The northern phase is

for lots 6 through 12, and each has a different entrance and different utilities.

The first question is on the fire ponds and hydrants. For Condition #2, the condition "must be deemed

operable" relating to both fire ponds, the applicant asks that the condition be changed so that the fire pond and

hydrants for the southern pond must be deemed operable before the southern phase house lots are permitted. Also

the fire pond and hydrants for the northern lots would have to be deemed operable before the permits were issued

for the northern section.

The second part of that is related to a "seasonal" pond that was suggested as a fire pond easement area. It is

a duck pond which is dry most of the year and has about 18" of water during the 6 months that it is wet. We just

want to clarify that the requirement is not that they keep that pond wet. Charlie Burnham concurred with that

suggestion; "This view is consistent with the opinion of the Fire Chief and also with State standards, and what

Mr. Murphy is proposing is what we had in mind but it is articulated a little bit better."

Mr. Murphy continued: In talking about Lot 1, there are the farm buildings and there is a farm stand build-

ing envelope. Lot 1, lot 14, lot 15, lot 16 and a portion of lot 5 are in the Open Space Agreement, which totals

73.86 acres. That is not questioned. But there is a limitation that says there can be no structures outside the

depicted building envelope areas without the Subdivision Modification. The applicant has no intention of putting

any new buildings on that lot. However on lots 14, 15, 16 and that portion of lot 5, there may be some who will

want to build a horse barn or a hay barn or similar structure on those agricultural lots. He didn't want to have to

come back to get a subdivision modification for such structures. Mr. Murphy proposed a change in that condition

such that the limitation not pertain to agriculture structures on lot 8, 15, 16, 17 and the portions of lot 14 and 5.

Lot 8 is a little bit different; it is a 4-acre lot but someone may buy it that has horses, so they would like to be

able to do that. This request would not apply to lot 1, where agriculture structures would only be within the

building envelope.

Mr. Murphy said that usually, agriculture structures are not required to get a permit, and the original Open

Space Agreement, with 78.6 acres, did not have this limitation. Jim Donovan answered that. "You are putting in

more buildings, and are actually adding in more lots. There are additional buildings now, and while it is a modifi

cation there is a net gain in terms of lots. The views from Greenbush Road are as important as the views from

Route 7, and therefore that's why we put this limitation in."

Mr. Murphy said that right now, according to our conference with counsel, under the rules for agricultural

uses, you don't have to do anything if you want new agricultural-related buildings, because an agriculture struc

ture doesn't have to have a permit. That is according to State rules, he said. But the issue on lot 8 is to allow a

horse barn because they would probably want to have the horse barn away from the house. One option is that

when we come back for the Final Plat the request could be made to make that provision. This would connect the

flat part near Greenbush Road.

Jeff McDonald and Jim Donovan agreed that they can take information now and decide later, while keeping

an open mind on this, but made it clear that several citizens had concerns about the expansion within the agricul

tural area, and about the viewsheds.

Mr. Murphy said he was merely presenting reasons for modifying these conditions. At issue, he said, is what

is a "conservation easement." They have a legal right to use their property for something. If what the goal is, for

the plantings, is a restriction, the restriction is not the problem. We're just trying to question whether the town

has a right to come onto the lots, relating to the landscaping.

Jim Donovan said, "That's what we were thinking, because we want the right to go back on, and plant those

trees if they are ever taken down, and bill the landowner. These trees are essential to the approval, and if some

future landowner takes those down, we want to make sure the Town has some resource to make sure those go

back in. That's what we're looking at; if you find some other way of doing that, we would be willing to look at

that possibility."

Mr. Murphy said that typically, the condition would be, "You shall install and maintain these," and if they

are not installed and maintained, then you can seek an injunction and a fine for not doing that. Jim said if they

could be sure that such a condition is tracked, through the years, and feel comfortable with it then we can look at

changing it.

Mr. Murphy suggested that they could show that on the plat, or get two plats: one with just the property

lines and the other with all the details and that would have to be approved. Then there could be a covenant where

that would be required to be approved and would give the town the authority that you suggest. But an easement

might imply that the public would have a right to enter the property.

Jim said that might be acceptable, and Jeff McDonald added that the Planning Commission didn't have the

plan and that is why that condition was put in there. Keith Wagner, their Landscape Architect, had taken the

plans with him. Liam said they now have superimposed Keith's plan on their plat. They will make sure that these

are mandatory plantings and that information will be on the plan. He showed the new version with it superim

posed.

Liam also spoke about the house peaks. The house peaks are not to exceed the lesser of the top of these

proposed plantings, or 30' from the lowest point of the building envelope. So if the plantings, as planted, are 24'

above the ground, then the house peaks cannot penetrate that. If the plantings are 35', then the house can't be

more than 30' from the lowest point of the building envelope. He said he wanted to make sure if a tree were only

16' high it would not prevent building a house that was 30' from the lowest point of the building envelope, so he

asked that the suggested wording in his letter be considered.

Next he discussed Condition #7, about the details. Charlie Burnham responded: "If the Zoning Administra

tor has house plans in front of him it must be very clear, because I won't be the one to see these."

Liam said he wants to make sure they are all on the same page; for example on Condition #9 it states there

would be "no cut" zones along lots 6, 7 and 8. People are buying so that they can have some view of the panor-

ama to the west and they would like to be able to provide for some view corridors, and if necessary to come back,

lot by lot with specifics of a few exceptions to allow for some viewing between the trees.

Jeff McDonald explained that the Planning Commission wants to differentiate ourselves from situations like

what has recently happened to the north of us. We are still trying to protect that ridge line, he said. From the

audience, Sylvia Sprigg added that in the opinion of many of the citizens in town, it doesn't matter if it's a barn or

a house on the ridge line, it's obstructing the view.

Liam said another issue, one about a trail easement. Item 10 relates to a trail easement to Route 7. Tony

wants to communicate that he has no problem and is committed to providing a trail easement along the westerly

portion of the property to connect the Patnaude easement with the property to the north. But an easement from

Route 7 back to the Patnaude property and walking people through the middle of the open space on the farm is

something that will destroy the privacy of this property. The parking lot on Route 7 on any fall weekend would

be a terrible burden on the property. The trail map in town doesn't show a trail on this part of the property, but it

does show a trail going to the west.

John Patnaude questioned about the mention of a "parking lot on Rte. 7." He asked if this Board had sug-

gested using a parking lot on Rte. 7. No, they said. David Allen thinks it is a reasonable compromise if Tony

Perry is willing to grant an easement for the trail to the north, connecting to the Patnaude trail easement. John

agreed; "I'm not looking for a lot of traffic from Route 7." David added that they were only concerned about a

trail that would go nowhere if that connection at the north of the northern section of the development were stopped

at the border. Jeff McDonald also agreed, as did Ed Melby, who had written a letter stating that view.

Liam said although they haven't signed the new open space agreement yet, that trail agreement was part of

the agreement five years ago and it will be left in there.

Liam asked about Condition #13 which says that each lot shall own a drilled well. He said some person may

have a drilled well that can support more than one property, and we want to have the option of drilling the well

ourselves. Dave Brown asked if what they meant was, that each lot had water. Liam said that is what they had

in mind.

Dave Brown asked about the cutting; he wants to see it in writing that the Conservation Commission shall be

involved with any decisions, to approve or not approve cutting, along with the Planning Commission. David Allen

said if conditions are not in writing, then it gets harder and harder to prove. They want to be able to have some

control over the ridge lines, and that brings into question the other lots that are down off the ridge line. While the

first person that builds there is going to be familiar with any covenants or protections, than the second or third

homeowner, he said. Then obviously things would have grown up a lot more, ten years from now. Liam agreed

that if these things are shown on the plans the likelihood that the next homeowner wouldn't know about it is less.

Charlie Burnham said the Planning Commission has to be sure that the desired standards for landscaping are

maintained in the Town Plan. Dave Brown said they already are there; it's just that ten years from now there may

be Planning Commission members who don't have the same views, while the Conservation Commission would

more likely have the same views in the future (on preservation of views,) as they do now. So he wants to have

them involved along with the Planning Commission. Liam offered wording to be added on the plans: "Any plans

for view corridors shall be approved by the Planning Commission with consultation with the Conservation Com-

mission," or you could do it backwards, saying "approved by the Conservation Commission with the input of the

Planning Commission." But it gets more difficult if you require approval of both because these plans also have

to go before Act 250 and the District Environmental Commission.

Conservation Commission person Linda Radimer offered her view: Charlie is right, she said. The Conserva-

tion Commission doesn't have a mandate or standards that they can enforce, such as the Planning Commission

does. She agrees with such wording as "approved by the Planning Commission with input from the Conservation

Commission." Ed Melby agreed with that suggestion.

Liam said that Condition #15 is like the fire pond issue. They would like to amend that to separate Phase 1

and Phase 2, relating to the roadways being constructed before the lots are permitted. He offered to submit some

new wording for these things.

Charlie Burnham suggested it might be appropriate that the applicant submit the wording for Proposed

Findings. Liam said he would be glad to do that.

3. Deliberative Session for James Wesson — Complete Findings of Fact and Decision: The hearing was

closed for new evidence, so these things discussed were about concerns that had been voiced during the previous

hearings and during their site walks. The main concerns were about the wet areas and the positioning of the

building envelopes and the curb cuts. They recalled that the applicant had declined to make a clustered arrange-

ment for the building envelopes, however they did want to see them closer together to avoid the wet areas and to

try to assure the privacy for the present house.

Ed Melby moved that the Planning Commission would require that:

1) 1 & 2 share a common curb cut,

2) that lot 3 be the only user of the right of way for its curb cut,

3) that they shorten the rear yard setback to encourage having the sites closer to the road; with lots 1

and 2, 250' from the road, and lot 3, 200' from the road to keep the field as open as possible,

4) that the front yard for lot 3 be oriented so as to be parallel to Route 7.

5) the setback of lot 3 from the northern border shall be 100'.

Dave Brown seconded the motion and the vote was approved, 6–0 with one member absent.

4. General Business, (continued): Ed noted that Charlie has put together the draft of the Town Plan timetable.

He asked Charlie to talk about it since he has resigned as of the end of this week.

Charlie had provided everyone with the proposed timetable at the last meeting. He noted that the warning

period for advertising is 30 days for public hearings, vs. the normal 15 days. He updated this timetable for the

Charlotte News. He has gone over these things today with Kit Perkins in case she is the one who will be working

on this. He said her time will be better spent if she can support the Planning Commission on the Town Plan.

Ed asked how Kit felt about that, and Charlie suggested they ask her when she comes in tonight to have

another interview. But he said it was his impression that she wants to work on the Town Plan and would feel

more comfortable with that, than on regulatory issues. She will need folks to assist her along these lines, he said.

Charlie said a railroad application is expected to be filed within the next month, as there is a meeting next

Thursday. That is the only application on the horizon. There is a site visit at the Aube property on Saturday,

January 9, 1999 at 8:30 a.m. Ed Melby said he will call the Charlotte News to reserve space for an article to go

along with the Town Plan timetable schedule.

David Woolf was introduced to everyone again, and welcomed as the newest member of the Planning

Commission. He is already well known as a member of the Design Review Board for Thompson's Point. Charlie

put him on the "Village Centers.." committee, if he doesn't object.

Charlie has written up an agenda for January 19th. He has scheduled the first meeting for March to be on

Wednesday, to accommodate the Town Meeting day being on the first Tuesday of March. Jim Donovan sug

gested that they set up some preliminary meetings to get things started, before the spearheaded January 19th

startup date. They will start with the 11th and 12th and will notify Gloria as they know the dates. They need to

get 3 or 4 key players, and try to get people to come in on January 19th.

Charlie announced that for the proposed Tower Regulations, the proposal had been changed in line with

Atty. Stitzel's recommendations and on Monday, January 18, 1999 the Selectboard plans to adopt an Interim

Zoning Bylaw. The Planning Commission as a whole has not seen the revised document, Jim Donovan said.

Marty said the 18th of January might be too early, but Charlie said the hearing has already been warned. Marty

asked if they could make some recommendations to the Selectboard between now and the 18th.

David Allen moved to adjourn to Executive Session for a personnel matter. Jim Donovan seconded the

motion and it was approved, 6–0 with one member absent.

David Allen moved that we recommend to the Selectboard that they hire Katherine Perkins as a con-

sultant on a part time basis for a period of three months, to assist in the rewriting of the Town Plan. Ed

Melby seconded the motion and it was approved, 6-0 with one absent. Jim Donovan moved that they continue

looking for an Interim Planner while they begin a search for a permanent Planner. Dave Brown seconded

the motion and it was approved, 6–0 with one absent.

Ed Melby said they might recommend to the Selectboard, one or two names. Jeff McDonald moved that

we recommend the name of Louis Cox for the position of Interim Zoning Administrator. Ed Melby sec

onded the motion and it was approved, 6–0 with one absent. At 11:00 p.m. adjourned this meeting.

APPROVED BY THE CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION