CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION

1. General Business, review of Minutes for December 16, 1999: Members reviewed several changes in verbiage and corrected the acreage on the Greene subdivision in an approval motion, corrected the name in the Haight / Callery subdivision approval motion, and two names of persons making a statement, but only three of the members who were present on December were there at that moment so they could not be approved until later in the meeting when Jim Donovan would be there to vote.

2. Location of drop box and light at post office: This matter was postponed at the request of the post office.

3. Jackson and Lydia Clemmons, Minor Subdivision: Dr. Clemmons brought in plans for this subdivision in which a lot from Greenbush Road down to the railroad tracks is being divided into two lots: Lot 1 contains a small building and their home on 10.82 acres, and with a line running east and west to separate it from Lot 2 which is 11.18 acres. Two farm buildings have been relocated to Lot 2 and they have been joined to form the beginnings of a barn house. They have made this application for a minor subdivision in order to complete that.

The plans have been redrawn in order to have the proper setbacks. Ed Melby asked about a recommendation that had been made regarding having the septic system pumped. Dr. Clemmons said this was not an order, but he does plan to do this anyway. There has never been any problem with it, he said.

Al Moraska moved to approve a minor subdivision for Jackson and Lydia Clemmons, with Lot 1 being 10.28 acres and Lot 2 being 11.18 acres, both lots accessed on Greenbush Road, and that the revision date be added on the Final Plat. Jeff McDonald seconded the motion and it was approved, 4–0 with 2 members absent and one member who was not here yet.

4. Gary and Mary Thibault, Carpenter Road, minor subdivision: Gary Thibault said they would take a ten acre lot out of 53.2 acres, put the farmhouse on its own lot and create another lot for another house. Primarily they wanted to put it on its own lot so they could obtain a mortgage and buy the rest of the property.

The window system for septic which Spencer Harris had approved would be extended and he plans to serve the new house by means of a force main. The septic system serving the farmhouse has been approved by Deputy Health Commissioner Ernie Christensen already. The Thibaults have received a Zoning Variance from the Zoning Board regarding the stream setback.

Next they discussed their open space agreement. The existing house has 3 units already, so there has to be five acres apiece. It has to be designated somewhere on the total property even if it isn’t on only one lot. Linda Hamilton helped by pointing out the area around the stream that is already a conservation area. Dave Brown suggested they designate the lower 5+ acres along the conservation area as long as it is designated as such. They don’t have to have a formal survey done. Jeff McDonald said one condition might be to show where the building envelope is, then say that if they come back they must have a formal Open Space Agreement. At this time there would be a “no build” total of 15 acres.

Gary Thibault said designating the bottom 5 acres, southernmost and adjacent to the LaPlatte River for conservation is fine with him; this area is all wooded and they have no intention of building there.

Al Moraska moved to approve a 2-lot subdivision for Gary and Mary Thibault on Carpenter Road, Lot 1 being 10.02 acres including the original farmhouse, and Lot 2 being 43.2 acres with Lot 2 having a separate curb cut on Carpenter Road, with the following conditions:

(1) The southernmost portion of Lot 2, the 5 acres closer to the LaPlatte River, will serve as the density requirement for Lot 1, and

(2) Any further subdivision of Lot 2 shall require an Open Space Agreement which will use the full acreage of 53.2 acres for calculating the percentage of open land.

Dave Brown seconded the motion and it was approved, 4–0 with two members absent and one member not present yet.

[At this time Jim Donovan arrived for the next hearing.]

5. Gary Wulfson, continuation of Preliminary Plat Hearing for a 3-lot subdivision to create two additional building lots on a 2-lot subdivision: Mike Brown represented the applicant and brought in an alternative proposal after meeting again with the applicant. Chairman Al Moraska stepped down because he is a neighbor and Ed Melby officiated at this hearing.

Mike described on the map, the northern boundary with Yarnell / O’Brien, the western boundary, fronting on Dowd / LaPlante and Al Moraska, and the southern boundary back to the road, separating 37 acres with the old barn. He showed the area that is being restricted — that is, there will be no buildings; it is not intended for public use, but will be restricted. “By my computation,” he said, “it’s about 33–to–35 acres, so even conservatively we will say that is 30 acres.”

Mike also showed the location of a new proposal to have only one curb cut to serve all three parcels. Linda Radimer inquired whether this restricted area follows the existing conservation strip along the wet area, and Mike said that essentially the restricted area follows right along the edge of the conservation strip, to total 33+ acres.

Jim Donovan asked what the total acreage was with Lots 1 and 2, and according to the acreage of the 4 lots it comes to 126+ acres. Jim said the preserved land according to his calculations, then, is a little less than 24% of the total land they started with. This proposal accomplishes the one curb cut that was advised. Ed Melby asked about the sight distances, and Mike said according his measurements the sight distance at the edge of this driveway is 800' in either direction.

Jim Donovan said his first comment was, “Thank you very much,” for what Mike had called “capitulations.” Jim asked how Mike had decided on the location of the driveway, and Mike said it was partly because of the slopes that were further down on both sides. There was some concern about headlights when people enter the driveway, bothering the owner of Lot 3, but Mike said he felt comfortable that the builder would put some plantings there to help shield the homeowner from the lights.

Ed Melby also thanked Mike for the work in asking the landowner for these concessions and they looked at the locations of building envelopes. Jeff McDonald agreed with Jim Donovan that if it turns out there will be further subdivision of Lot 1 that open space recommendation for lots of more than 100 acres for 50% would be revisited. For the time being this 23.7% of open space would be acceptable, he said.

A neighbor, Dan Luce, asked to speak. He is concerned about the location of the building envelopes on these two lots. Ed Melby said the owner has planned it this way and it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to check the road frontage and review the building envelopes. It was also the recommendation of the Conservation Commission that since the wildlife was on the west part of the lot it would be better to move the building envelopes closer to Dorset St. Dan pointed out the location of one of the other homes and he feels it is inconsistent. Linda Radimer pointed out the swale and the known area of a wildlife corridor. The Planning Commission agreed with this location which resulted in the building envelopes being closer to Dorset St.

Mike Brown said there may be some consolation in that the protected area is somewhat wooded, but Dan is worried that the 35–to–40 mile view he has all the way to Plattsburgh will possibly be blocked by one of the homes. Mike acknowledge that there is a long view corridor there.

Dean Bloch was asked if a view corridor carries an equal weight in consideration of the location of a building envelope, and he read a passage relating to that. He said the planning standards in the subdivision regulations say as relates to natural features, that compatibility with surroundings is a consideration. Jim asked if that view is visible from the road, and Dan Luce said his home is close to the road so he believes that it is. He pointed out his location on the map.

Dave Brown asked Mike if there is a way to juggle the position of the actual building in the building envelope so that it won’t disturb the viewshed. Dan said most of the homes there are hidden from the road. Mike Brown suggested that when the builder comes to actually build the home, Dan might go to him and asked that the house’s position be moved over a little. Dan was not consoled, saying that at that time “It’ll all be over.”

Dean said he thinks the view is slightly towards the north. Dan Luce said he believed the major corridor has been protected as a major wildlife corridor. He said the properties are more valuable because of the viewshed. Linda Hamilton said some of the ways to do this in the Town Plan is to cluster the homes.

Linda Radimer said moving the houses forward may infringe on the view but it isn’t hurting the wildlife as much. She said the presence of the wildlife has greater value than the viewshed and that is also better for the water. Jim Donovan said in a way he disagrees. Linda said she is only talking about this particular site.

Jeff McDonald asked Dan, if he is concerned about the view, and with this being a Preliminary Plat Hearing, he should get the particulars including the angle of the view, and bring that information in when the rest of the hearings are held. Jeff said if we have all the information perhaps there is something that could be worked out with where the home is to be built. He said Plattsburgh is almost magnetic north if you’re on the lake. Jeff suggests that there might be some adjustment that turns out to be minor.

Dan also showed on the map, the location of a culvert and stated that 3 years ago it rained a lot and there was extensive flooding near the culvert.

Dave Brown said he has walked the land a lot, and personally he would like to see the building envelope like it is; although on Lot 3 the building envelope might be moved a little bit. Dean Bloch suggested the parties meet for the purpose of coming to a compromise and to bring the proposal back for the Final Plat Hearing. Mike Brown said he really objects to that because in his mind the building envelope as it stands, is the best one. Dan showed the location of a couple of pine trees, and the view is to the right of that. Mike said he is willing to move the line back and as he pointed that out on the map, Planning Commission members voiced agreement that it might work. We did voice a concern howeve,r that this could affect the new screening that may be needed in front of lot 3.

Another caution that Linda Radimer voiced is that whatever illumination they use is shielded toward the ground. Mike Brown said he found no problem with this, and asked it he could be supplied with a sample of the way this could be worded. Dean will make a copy of one of the Perry subdivision conditions relating to lighting.

Ed Melby asked if there were any other issues and no one raised their hand, so Jim Donovan moved to close the hearing. Jeff McDonald seconded the motion. In discussion Mike Brown wanted to make sure that there really were no further issues he should be aware of. Then the motion was approved, 4–0 with one member abstaining and two members absent.

The matter will be discussed in a deliberative session and the applicant will receive a written decision with the conditions before the application will go on to the Final Plat Hearing.

Jim Donovan moved to approve the application for a 2-lot subdivision on the Rose Aube Estate with the following conditions:

1) The applicant shall submit a draft Open Space Agreement with the Final Plat application for the portion of land shown on the plat dated January 6, 2000.

2) Recent test pit data shall be submitted with the Final Plat application.

3) The plat shall be corrected for the following:

A. the title shall be “3 Lot Subdivision”;

B. the adjoining property owners shall be shown on the east side of Dorset Street;

C. the building envelopes shall be labeled and dimensioned, and the notations “2 lot subdivision per 11/1/99 date” and “Setbacks” shall be clarified, perhaps as “notes” rather than labels;

4) There shall be a consideration to preserving the views from an adjacent property;

5) Driveways shall be as indicated on the plat received on January 6, 2000.

After a discussion about the building envelopes and a suggestion about the landscaping, Jim Donovan made an amendment to his motion: (4) Consideration to preserving the views from an adjacent property, only if the information is supplied by the adjacent neighbor. Dean reminded members about the exterior lighting, and Jim Donovan made an additional amendment:

The final approval will include restrictions on exterior lighting.

Jeff McDonald seconded the amendments and Ed Melby called the question. The motion to approve was 4–0 with one member abstaining and two members absent.

Dean Bloch advised Mike Brown that because of the E-911 rules he must go before the Selectboard and get approved for a street name for this road.

The applicant will receive a written copy of the approval decision.

6. Ryerson/Finch Subdivision, discussion of road signs – amendment of conditions of approval: Planner Dean Bloch reported the reasons for this change: The Planning Commission had required a road sign (“Hidden Drive”) in each direction as a condition for this two-lot subdivision. The Selectboard has final approval on road signs and they lean towards having the least signs necessary, so Dean met on the site with Jim Sheldon-Dean to review the situation. It was decided that there is much less need for the sign in the northbound direction but do agree on the need for the sign in the southbound direction. A memo from the Selectboard was presented to the Planning Commission.

After a brief discussion, Al Moraska moved to amend the motion to the Ryerson / Finch subdivision regarding signing in which we had required two signs; one for northbound and one for southbound, and to require a sign in the southbound direction. Ed Melby seconded the motion and it was approved, 5–0 with two members absent.

7. Louis Cox, discussion of Certificate of Occupancy, Certificate of Compliance, Special Research Fee and hours of Zoning Administrator: Louis Cox discussed how the Certificate of Occupancy, required since 1979, is handled. These are issued for additions, remodeling of garages etc. as well as new homes. Everything that requires a permit has a Certificate of Occupancy and follow up visits. Sometimes, Louis said, this was not being done due to the time constraints and the fact that the position of Zoning Administrator is a part-time job.

All during that time that Louis researched, no fees were charged for this follow up work. In February 1998 following the Bianchi decision it became necessary that anyone selling a home has to prove that all the permits that were required for work that was done were in place and Certificates of Occupancy were obtained. It became the seller’s responsibility to have everything or they could not sell their property.

Real Estate agents, paralegals, attorneys etc. now are scrambling to get the right certificates and belated permits — and of course this has resulted in a lot of work with the Zoning Administrator assisting them in compiling records and in writing decisions. Louis is concerned about the workload. He said the former Zoning Administrator, Charlie Burnham, had proposed a fee for a Certificate of Occupancy of $150.00; but that left some questions of equality.

Should that fee be just for issuing a C.O.? Or should we consider a graduated fee based on the amount of research to catch up with permits that hadn’t been obtained when they were first required. A simple C.O. for a new home would not require the same amount of research as an older house that had a lot of un-permitted changes or additions, for instance. Charlie Burnham had presented a fee schedule but had not gotten feedback from the Planning Commission. The intention was just to apply for Bianchi-related extra research. Digging through old records is a different situation than simple recent permits.

Perhaps there should be an adjusted fee for the initial permit; if it is a permit to build a house, the applicant has already paid for that permit. But buying an old house requiring research four to five years back in time should require the research fees.

Then some people come in regarding potential sales but the permits are already there.

Louis suggested the septic permit fees may be set too low. $100.00 is too low to hire a consultant. Also one of the fees is only $25.00. He asks if it is proper to ask that the applicant be responsible for the cost of a consultant.

Planning Commission members continued with this discussion of fees, research costs and time, and asked that Louis Cox provide a summary of research findings and asked that he write up a list of proposed fees.

Next was a personnel matter regarding proposed working hours. Louis has actually been working far beyond the authorized amount of hours and the rest of the time becomes “volunteer” time as a community service. He sees no way of the workload being reduced, so asks that some provision be made that some of this extra time be paid for. He presently provides approximately 25 hours of work, but is paid 20 hours even if he works 30.

Al Moraska said the Planning Commission will work to have a committee look at both positions: that of the Zoning Administrator, and that of the Planning Commissioner.

The third item Louis discussed was done in Executive Session and the Planning Commission will work with the Selectboard to try to solve issues relating to the Bylaws.

8. Discussion of Town Plan: The Selectboard has notified the Planning Commission that they want to continue working on the new Town Plan but don’t feel they have enough time to make final changes. Therefore in order to keep at least one Town Plan on the books and not jeopardize some of the grants the Town is receiving, they are asking the Planning Commission’s support in the Selectboard’s decision to put the old Town Plan up for re-adoption. The Selectboard chair said they will work to get the new Town Plan ready for the November election date instead.

There was concern that all of the many volunteers who put this Town Plan together would have their work that has taken many months to complete, would feel all their efforts would go for naught. But that is the Selectboard’s decision and they have assured us they will try to get help from some of the original volunteers.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.

Submitted by Nancy H. Lane

APPROVED BY THE CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION