CHARLOTTE
PLANNING COMMISSION
THURSDAY,
JANUARY 8, 2004
7:00
PM
Charlotte
Town Hall – 159 Ferry Road
Members
Present:
Jim
Donovan
John
Owen
Robin
Pierce
Linda
Radimer
Members Absent:
Jeff
McDonald
Gordon
Troy
Staff Present:
Dean
Bloch
Others
Present:
Jonathan
Fisher
Ed
LeClair
Ted
Montgomery
David
Miskell
Eleanor
Russell
Wade
Weathers
Bill
Nedde
Lynn
Mansfield
Jim Donovan, in his capacity as Vice Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m.
APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA AND REGULAR AGENDA
CONSENT AGENDA: SKETCH PLAN LETTER FOR CHARLES STEARNS
Mr.
Donovan asked for comments. There were
none.
Mr.
Donovan asked for comments. There were
none.
MINUTES
October 2, 2003 – There were not enough
commission members at this meeting that were present at the October 2, 2003
meeting to act on these minutes. They
will be tabled.
December 18, 2003 – The commission
reviewed these minutes, together with Mr. Troy’s comments and corrections,
which were previously sent in. Mr.
Owen, being a new member and not present at this meeting, withdrew from these
discussions. Ms. Radimer moved to accept the
minutes of the December 18, 2003 meeting with corrections as noted. Mr. Pierce seconded. All were in favor and the motion was
APPROVED (3 yays, 1 abstention).
JOHN ROSENTHAL: REQUEST FOR REAFFIRMATION OF THE WESTWIND SUBDIVISION OF HOLMES ROAD, APPROVED ON MAY 2, 1978, RECORDED IN MAP SLIDE 17
Wade Weathers addressed the PC on behalf of John Rosenthal. Mr. Weathers explained that the Westwind subdivision was never recorded until June of 1979 and regulations say a plan has to be recorded within 90 days of approval. This current request, he explained, is for a reaffirmation of the approval so it gets recorded in a timely manner. Mr. Donovan asked Dean Bloch to clarify his second point in his planner’s notes for this matter. Mr. Bloch said that there is an adjoining property owner and that the property is naturally subdivided by Lake Road (Lots 12 and 13) and in the original approval, the condition that the PC had for those lots was that they either get a variance or that they be considered attached. They were ultimately sold into separate ownership and the attorney for one of the owners felt that there could be a cloud on title and talked with the Zoning Administrator and being that it is over 15 years old now, it now complies with zoning regulations and he thinks it is not a cloud on title, so that question is moot.
Mr.
Donovan asked for questions/comments from PC members and there were none. He then asked the audience for comments;
there were none. Robin Pierce moved to close this
hearing. Linda Radimer seconded. Mr. Pierce moved to approve the requested
affirmation. Ms. Radimer seconded. A vote was taken on both motions. All were in favor and BOTH motions were
unanimously PASSED.
LYNN MANSFIELD
(APPLICANT) AND MARJORIE MANSFIELD, RANDI McCUIN, LYNN MANSFIELD, LISA GERE,
JAMES MANSFIELD, AND LANCE MANSFIELD (PROPERTY OWNERS): SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR A 2-LOT SUBDIVISION.
PROPERTY LOCATED ON MOUNT PHILO ROAD AND LIME KILN ROAD IN THE RURAL
DISTRICT.
Lynn
Mansfield and Bill Nedde addressed the PC.
Ms. Mansfield gave a background of ownership. This property has always been in agricultural use since 1909
when the family bought it. The
subdivision application that they submitted represents their wish to subdivide
the east parcel of their property into 2 lots – one is 113 acres, which they
intend to sell and the other lot is 10 acres which is directly across the
street from her home. The 10-acre lot
contains the barn and several outbuildings and it is an agricultural use and
would be subdivided as well. She said
the request is in keeping with the Town Plan because of the agricultural use. She also stated that the property on both
sides of the road is in the current use program and they intend to keep it
there after the subdivision. She next spoke of Item B in the application, which
speaks of demarcation of boundaries (west is Mt. Philo Road, east is more west
with swale that bisects the property and there is a hedge along Mt. Philo Road
on the south, and a hedgerow on the north).
Item C is approved right-of-way – currently 1,000 feet on Mt. Philo
Road. She also said that they have no
issues with Item D, which speaks to septic capacity issues.
Bill
Nedde said he had two concerns on staff comments. 1) Staff indicated that pursuant to zoning bylaws, there is a
requirement that this project be revised under PRD. He doesn’t feel it is applicable to this application. 2) Application doesn’t meet the spirit of
provisions that Lynn Mansfield just went through and he reiterated that the
main goal of the family is to retain the barn structure and adjoining
properties, retain the agricultural use and continue within the current use
program.
Mr.
Donovan asked about the proposal to join Lot 1 with properties across the
street making it a single parcel. Mr.
Bloch said that it is subdivided but with one deed (one parcel, one listing)
but in zoning it is 2 parcels. The
road naturally subdivides the parcel into 2 parcels. Mr. Donovan asked about the possibilities of it joining into
1. Mr. Bloch said that this question
was posed to the town attorney and their response was that they were not
totally endorsing such an action but they have seen it done. Mr. Bloch said that, given the fact that a
Class 3 or higher road naturally subdivides property; you wouldn’t normally be
able to join 2 properties on sides of the road. If an applicant wants to keep
both properties on opposite side of the road, and if an applicant agrees to
join the parcels, they might have more legal standing to overcome the natural
subdivisions.
He
said that the applicants could sell the property on either side of the road
without getting PC approval, but they are asking to create 10 acres out of a
portion of the property on the east side of the road and that requires planning
commission approval. John Owen asked
if the remaining 10 acres is viable for farming in the absence of the 49? Ms. Mansfield said it should be. Mr. Donovan asked if the PC could create a
lot and indicate that it is not a building lot. He said the PC could say that for now, the 10 acres is a
non-building lot and if the parties could come back in the future to revise. Ms. Mansfield said that Item D in Section 13.2
speaks to that, i.e. there is no septic capacity and they don’t have an issue
with that. The PC was amenable to
state that the 10 acres is an agricultural lot (non-building) under Zoning
Regulations 13.2. Mr. Bloch expressed
concern about doing so because of possible problems 20-30 years from now. Ms. Mansfield asked what the Town issue
was. Mr. Donovan said that the issue
was creating a lot that might not have septic capabilities and 20 years from
now, it might not have good septic and the PC is then forced to approve it
because it is a lot even though it has no capacity.
The
action of the PC is to classify this application as a major or a minor
subdivision and to make recommendations, Mr. Bloch reiterated. The PC explained the process to the applicant
(that Mr. Bloch will write a letter subject to PC approval and send it out to
them after they review it at their next regularly scheduled meeting).
David
Miskell asked if there had been septic exploration done regarding the ten-acre
lot? Ms. Mansfield said no. Mr. Nedde
said there are 2 possible conditions of the final plat – on Mr. Bloch’s notes,
there was a suggestion that designation of open space is a requirement of a
PRD. He sees complications with this
regarding the calculation of acreage to determine open space (172 acres). There was a brief discussion on this issue
and for this application, Mr. Donovan noted that between Lots 1 and 2, they
either need to designate the open space now or put a condition on it for the
future stating if the open space relates to either Lots 1 and 2 or Lots 1, 2
and 3. He would rather do the
calculations now than in the future to determine the open space.
Mr.
Bloch reminded the PC that they need, from the applicant, a survey showing the
2 lots. Ms. Radimer said that they need clarification of the property on the
west side of the road. Mr. Nedde said they could highlight that.
Ms.
Radimer moved to classify this application as a minor subdivision. Mr. Pierce seconded the motion. All were in
favor and the motion was unanimously PASSED.
Mr.
Donovan asked for further comments.
There were none. Mr. Donovan
told the applicants that they would be getting a letter summarizing this
discussion and that something should be able to be worked out regarding getting
by without the septic.
TEN STONES, INC.: SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW AND A SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT FOR A COMMON HOUSE IN A REVISED LOCATION. PROPERTY LOCATED ON TEN STONES CIRCLE IN THE RURAL DISTRICT.
Ed LeClair and Ted Montgomery addressed the PC.
Mr. LeClair explained that they 1) would like to move the building envelope and
2) are asking for a 6.4 percent reduction in the overall design clause
(effluent into pretreatment facility).
1. Moving the Building Envelope – Mr. LeClair
explained that they are moving from a more central area to an agricultural area
because they put in a barn and are using the garden more because they now have
goats and chickens. Mr. Donovan asked
them to point out the property on the drawing, which they did. There are no new road cuts or road
construction, Mr. LeClair said. They
have designated parking spaces; they have a permit, which allows for 20 spaces. The structure itself is under 25 feet
tall. Cut sheets on proposed lighting
with be forthcoming, he said. Mr. Donovan asked what some of the issues are and
how often the parking overflow might occur and also asked about the
height. Mr. Leclair said that it would
be commercial use. He also answered that it would be a single story
structure. Jonathan Fisher asked if
they had any drawings of the proposed structure. Mr. LeClair said will have for
the next time they come in, but further explained that the structure would have
a clapboard exterior and it would be all ADA accessible. Mr. Fisher asked how it compares in size to
what was approved ten years ago. Mr.
Leclair said it is one-third of the size.
Mr.
Donovan asked for questions or comments.
There were none. John Owen said
it looked like a better arrangement than they had before.
2. Reduction in Overall Design clause
(Effluent) – Mr. Leclair explained that they were asking for a 6.4 reduction in
total flows into the engineered wetland.
Their purpose for doing this is to get better water quality and to save
money. He gave a background on the wetland situation – each two houses share
one septic tank; when it comes out of the tank it is pumped into a common force
main and then dumped into the engineered wetland. The problem that they run into is if they include the 440 gallons
per day from the flows form the common house, that that puts them over
discharge permit and it is expensive to get the permit and also if they do
that, water quality suffers. He
reiterated the reason for their request:
A) get better water quality – this system takes the water from a
community and pulls it together into one place and if averaging flows, it
provides the grounds for reducing the effluent; B) visual – the current system is based on 16 houses operating at
full peak (that’s 7 showers, 6 dishwasher loads, 5 washing machine loads and 13
toilet flushes per day per house 365 days a year), so if you take 16 houses and
pull them together, there is rationale for saying that there is some reason for
reduction.
Mr.
Donovan asked for questions/comments.
John Owen asked if they had low flow toilets, showerheads. Mr. Montgomery said yes, it is an Act 250
piece. They have all of that. Ms.
Radimer asked if they’re trying to set a more realistic flow? Mr. LeClair said yes.
Mr.
Donovan wants to make sure that they get an okay from Spencer. Mr. LeClair said that the state feels it is
a realistic proposition. Mr. Donovan
said he would rather have it go into wetlands than septic. Mr. LeClair said they are permitted already
to go ahead with the mound but they are adding in to wetland. They would eliminate the mound from this
proposal, he said. The new proposal
would show that change in design. Mr.
Pierce asked if it would set a precedent.
Mr. Donovan said that it probably would not. Ellie Russell asked how it compared with what was decided for
the Champlain Valley Co-Housing project. Mr. LeClair said that they do not have
a pretreatment facility. Mr. Donovan
said they are using provisions in the 1996 regulations that allow them to do
it. This would not have been allowed
with Champlain Valley Co-Housing because if they took their common house out,
they would still have an issue.
Mr.
LeClair said that Spencer had encouraged them to come to the PC. Spencer’s basic recommendation is to accept
the 2002 rules rather than piecemeal everything. Mr. Bloch said that this situation warrants flows that are lower
than the standard 1996 flows.
Mr.
Donovan said that they won’t have peaks all the same time and they are
proposing 90% for the building, so adding in 90% of the value and the
particular nature of it as a common house for a co-housing development as well
as the issue that people will be in one place or the other, in theory it may be
a 0% increase.
Mr.
Donovan said that if the PC granted a 6.4 reduction for Champlain Valley
Co-Housing, there would be no problem here.
Mr. Owen asked if the 2002 regulations are eventually approved, why not
accept this now? John Fisher said it is
a matter of consistency. Mr. Donovan
said this is a unique case because of the pretreatment facility.
David
Miskell asked if it was the PC’s decision on reduced yield or a Selectboard
decision. Mr. Bloch said it is a PC
consideration because of site plan review; the issue of adopting the new rules
is a Selectboard consideration, but this particular change is under the PC’s
jurisdiction.
Ms.
Radimer asked if they could build the new building and not use the sink and
bathroom at first. Mr. LeClair said
they would rather be able to use both.
Mr. Donovan said that because of the uniqueness of the situation, he
would have no problem accepting this proposal and if a new applicant came in
and met the same criteria, the PC could approve a similar application in the
future.
Mr. Owen
moved to classify this matter as a site amendment and subdivision
amendment. Mr. Pierce seconded. All were in favor and the motion was
unanimously PASSED.
Ms.
Radimer said that she agrees that the reduction is a great idea because it
results in cleaner water, but would feel more comfortable if the PC looked at
the conditions and situation and really established the differences from a
mechanical point of view from this application versus the Champlain Valley
Co-Housing project.
Mr.
LeClair will provide the PC with a list of things that makes their project
unique. The applicants were told that
the PC will want Spencer’s written review before the next meeting. Mr. Owen
asked for verification that this would result in cleaner water. Mr. LeClair will provide said verification
as well.
Mr.
Bloch went over his list briefly:
parking, lighting, preliminary elevation of building. Mr. LeClair and Mr. Montgomery will bring in
the elevations. They also plan to
provide cut sheets of proposed lighting.
The parking will be in the subdivision.
Jonathan Fisher suggested that the PC check to see if changing flows is
a Board of Health issue. Mr. Bloch will
do so.
CHRISTOPHER BOFFA: CONTINUATION OF SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT TO
CREATE NEW ACCESS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY.
PROPERTY LOCATD ON MOUNT PHILO ROAD IN THE RURAL DISTRICT. Mr.
Donovan informed the PC that Mr. Boffa will not be attending the meeting
tonight. He also said that Mr. Boffa is
putting in his Act 250 application. The
question is whether to withdraw his application or put it on hold until the
process is completed. The PC unanimously agreed to continue this hearing while
they await the decision from Mr. Boffa’s Act 250 application. This matter will be continued to March 4,
2004. Mr. Bloch will ask Mr. Boffa to
put in writing a request for continuation.
MINUTES
November
20, 2003
– The commission reviewed these minutes, together with Mr. Troy’s comments and
corrections which were previously sent in.
Mr. Owen, being a new member and not present at this meeting, withdrew
from these discussions. Ms.
Radimer moved to accept the minutes of the November 20, 2003 meeting with
corrections as noted. Mr. Pierce
seconded. All were in favor and the
motion was APPROVED (3 yays, 1 abstention).
ADJOURN
Ms.
Radimer moved to adjourn. Mr. Pierce
seconded. All were in favor and the
motion was unanimously PASSED. Adjournment at 9:20 p.m.
O:\Planning
Commission\Minutes\Unapproved\January 08 2004.doc