CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION

1. General Business: Review of Minutes: January 4^th, Laura Cahners-Ford name was corrected and Abest@ school was corrected on page 2. January 18^th, regarding school impact specify AStearns@ and number of lots. Josie Leavitt moved to approve both the January 4^th and the January 18^th minutes. Jim Donovan seconded the motion and the motion was approved, 5-0 with one member absent and one member not present yet.

2. Black Willow II: Discussion regarding possible violation on Thorpe Cove Road: Tom Mansfield reported that Graham Goldsmith has responded to a letter sent to him regarding this meeting. Mr. Goldsmith stated his opinion of the circumstances in his reply, which Tom made available to the Planning Commission members.

Suzanne Webb stated that she has never received a copy of this letter.

Tom Mansfield explained that this is a subdivision that was developed by Graham Goldsmith. It received approval on July 8, 1996. One of the conditions of the approval was construction of a private access right of way to the lots that were part of the subdivision; that is called Thorpe Cove Road. There was a letter received by the Zoning Administrator from Mr. Jackson in late July of 2000, in which Mr. Jackson stated that it was his belief that Mr. Goldsmith had constructed Thorpe Cove Road not in strict compliance with the conditions in the recorded plat for the subdivision.

Subsequent to the receipt of that letter, Tom had made a site visit with Mr. Jackson, with Suzanne Webb who is president of the Homeowners Association that represents Black Willow II, and 2 or 3 others from the Homeowners Association. They walked the Thorpe Cove Road that was in question, all the way down to the end of the road that dumps into the fire pond that is part of this subdivision.

At the conclusion of that site visit, Tom said, there was no real consensus among the homeowners that were present there, he felt, that there was in fact any contradiction or irregularities about the construction of the road, so he indicated that absent some sort of written consensus from the homeowners via the Association, that the Town was going to be silent on this issue. Tom said he did receive a FAX from Mr. Jackson with the Homeowners Association letterhead but the only signature on it was Mr. Jackson=s. It said that it was the consensus of the Homeowners Association that the road had not been built in strict compliance of the subdivision condition, and then a second written request was received from Mr. Jackson that the Town take action against the developer, Graham Goldsmith for constructing it not in accordance.

Tom asked Mr. Jackson if he could send him a copy of the letter from the Association with all the signatures on it, and he did receive such a letter with the majority of these signatures. At the previous Planning Commission meeting it was agreed that the members of the Homeowners Association would be invited here to present their case, along with the request that Tom sent to Graham Goldsmith.

John Beal said he is in agreement, as the letter has indicated, that the road was built out of compliance. It was reviewed and in his research, he discovered that the identification of the lot numbers has changed. All his research has still indicated that the right of way is not in compliance. He also disagrees strongly with the letter written on January 22, 2001 by Graham Goldsmith that indicates that he was supposed to build a road to a cul-de-sac and proceed to build driveways from there. One of the principles of real estate law, Mr. Beal said, is that you can=t land-lock any of the lots in the subdivision and you must provide an easement to the furthest lot in. For Mr. Goldsmith to make an assumption that he had only to provide an easement to Lot 11, while there are still two lots further in, would not be acceptable by any plan.

Jeff McDonald asked who actually constructed the driveway. John Beal said he believes the construction took place by Eric Bound who worked with Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Goldsmith was the architect for Beal=s house, and , it was observed that Mr. Bound conveyed Lot 9 which is not near the fire pond.

John Beal said he believes the topography played a part in where the road ended up. There is somewhere between 15 and 20 feet elevation difference from where it is supposed to be.

Suzanne Webb said the road as it exists now, doesn=t meet Act 250 regulations. The grade is too steep. Act 250 states that there should be no more than an 8% grade.

Graham put the road in at 22% grade, Brian Jackson said. The Association at that time had to Act 250 and the Planning Commission and then the AS-turn@ was put in by Graham, and that actually never got recorded either. That one still isn=t a real access because it says, Aas depicted on the plat@ and neither way was recorded. The recorded one would go straight up the hill, he said.

Jeff asked if there is a desire to move this road back. George Bedard (who is a surveyor) said he had been asked to do 2 or 3 things for Brian Jackson over the years; he said he noted the discrepancy in where the road is vs. the way it was on the map. It would have been very steep. In 1986 the first plan was acted on by the Planning Commission. There was a r.o.w. that came in off the road and continued on to the cul-de-sac by Lot 12, then it had another one that continued off the cul-de-sac that was shown on the plan.

The version that is in the Planning Commission packets is the one when Graham Goldsmith came back in 1988 and asked for the r.o.w. to be changed. He now shows the r.o.w. taking off from beyond the cul-de-sac, near the corner of Lot 12 and Lot 11 and cutting down over the hill and passing through Lot 10 between Lot 10 and Lot 9.

When Brian Jackson bought the land the road was there, but he was not aware of the relationship of the road to the maps. One of the things that is notable is that the power company stayed within the road right of way all the way up through. The last pole before going down over the hill is located on Lot 12 and cuts down over beyond the curve. That last recorded change in the r.o.w. places the r.o.w. into Lot 10 and headed into Lot 9 just as shown on the plans. How the road was built is that the far bottom point of this bow of the road is about 100' out of place from the center of the r.o.w. It is fully 75' from the edge of the r.o.w. to the center of the mid-point of that curve. George replied that it was most likely either because of having to blast ledge, or to go the easier route. The key to this is that it is not where they said they said it was going, on the maps that are recorded. All the deeds refer to two points: the 1986 plan and the 1988 plan, George said.

The 1986 plan shows a straight r.o.w. up the hill. In May of 1991 there is a proposed bowing of the road to modify the break coming up through; things were built more steeply than it should have been for the Act 250 permit. That plan shows this bow, but the problem with that map is that it didn=t get recorded, and that >s about 120' outside the easement. John Beal said it is thought that the reason that part didn=t get built is that it would also have had to be blasted and Mr. Goldsmith did not want to do the blasting for that either.

George Bedard continued: Right now the way it stands, is that everybody=s deeds refer to a right of way as shown on two versions of a plan that you have in front of you, and would indicate that it should have been straight coming off Lake Road. The Planning Commission=s actions, whatever it was intended to be in May of 1991, didn=t get followed through with an official recording. The people on all of the land served by the changed roadway probably would have been best served by granting them quit-claim deeds handed to them that now grant them the right of way coming up the hill, and down at the far end, there is a circumstance where there is no approval of what was put in. The other one, failing to have a mylar recorded within 90 days.

Ed Stone: Then if what you are saying is true, the road that is currently in place is an illegal road.

George Bedard: It is not withing the right of way that is shown on the plans of the recording. The unrecorded one shows the way he was going to correct the front part of the road, and shows at the far end, how it should have been. There was no attempt to show it differently at the far end.

Mr. Bedard showed a detail of the cul-de-sac, and another of the space relative to Lot 14 if that were taken up, with revision dates in May of 1991. The first one is stamped by Graham Goldsmith and the second one is stamped by Stuart Morrow, Jeff observed. The base date for the map on file is June of 1986 with a 1988 revision.

Brian Jackson referred to the Biancchi decision by the State of Vermont in 1997. It appears all of the deeds are incorrect but he would like to see the road where it is supposed to be. (Lot 14 is still owned by Graham Goldsmith and has no house on it.) There is a legal right of way to Lot 10 and Lot 9; but this road gets out of the legal right of way; There is legal access but the track on the ground doesn=t follow that legal access, Brian said.

George Bedard: Down on Lot 14, Mr. Goldsmith, if he wanted to build on that he could build his road in the legal right of way that he has.

Brian Jackson said he would like to see the Town direct Mr. Goldsmith to build the road where it is supposed to be.

Suzanne Webb said she would agree that the road should be redone, and it is not the responsibility of the Association to change this.

Brian said he would at least compromise that the road be built further away from his house even if it can=t be built all the way over to the correct right of way. He said he is not sure Graham Goldsmith could build on Lot 14 because in order to sell Lot 11, he gave Lot 11 permission to have it=s septic on Lot 14.

Jeff McDonald said it is his understanding that the Bond held by the Town of Charlotte is only about $3,500.00. (There was concern that this amount may not be enough to rebuild that section of road.)

When he first approached the former Zoning Administrator (Charlie Burnham) in 1998, his first response was, AWell I should write a letter, >Notice of Violation= to Graham Goldsmith, and it=s going to >screw up= everybody=s titles,@ Brian said. Brian related that he did not want to cause a problem with the titles of the other neighbors, but wanted just to address this issue. At that point, Brian continued, Charlie said he was going to write Mr. Goldsmith a letter because there was a fire pond issue which didn=t ever get done. At that time there was a letter in the Act 250 file signed by Katherine Goldsmith in 1987 stating that they had installed the fire pond. Obviously that didn=t happen because we put it in and we provided the dry hydrant. $3,500 was the performance bond, to get Mr. Goldsmith to finish the fire pond. When the fire pond was constructed he (Goldsmith) said to Charlie that he wanted the $3,500 back. Charlie said we have a 90,000 gallon fire pond that is bone dry and he cannot certify that the issue is settled. So the $3,500 is still held by the Town.

That bond has sat there, Brian said, because Charlie had asked Goldsmith to Aplease respond@ to the concern about the road being in the wrong place, and that was in 1998. There has been no response.

Jim Donovan advised the Association to find out who actually built the road in the wrong place. Brian said he knew it was Eric Bound. But Jim said he didn=t mean who physically built the road, but who paid for its construction. Brian said they had repeatedly asked Eric and he has refused to say who authorized it, and Graham Goldsmith has also refused to say.

Brian Jackson said they would further research through an attorney how to proceed. When the fire chief recuperates from his recent operation they will ask him more detailed questions about how relocating the road in that area will impact fire truck access. The fire pond is now operational.

The issue of Thorpe Cove Road is put on hold until further options are reviewed.

3. Gregg and Elizabeth Beldock, Sketch Plan Review for Subdivision Modification: Randy Frantz, adjoining neighbor, joined Gregg Beldock at the table.

Gregg showed a road which accesses Lots 4 and 5 on the subdivision. The road as shown on the survey that was filed in April (for Plouffe Farm) is not accurate and is about 15 yards away from where is actually is. The adjoining landowners are the only people affected and would like to have an administrative amendment to avoid having to have a new survey done.

The aerial photographs show the road and the applicants would like to prevent future development on those Lots 4 & 5. They would like to be able to use the existing road. It had been suggested by Dean Bloch that there should be some verbiage that says the existing road shall be the access for Lots 4 & 5.

The language states that the access is for Lots 3, 4 & 5. The Vermont Land Trust has part of Lot 6. Instead of showing the actual road, it is as though there is an intended further development there which we do not intend.

We want the survey to reflect the true placement of that existing road. The driveway doesn=t reach the back lot. Jim suggested leaving the map but erasing the line and the Aright of way@ wording that is in error.

Dean read the description and if this map correction is made then it is acceptable.

Gregg Beldock described a dotted line in a portion of Lot 6; it is his intention in the future to sell to Randy and Paige, the lots 4 and 5 that he currently owns and these 15 acres (where the dotted line is) of lot 6. Gregg said it isn=t feasible to farm that section of his land at this time, and Randy had asked that he not fence it for sheep or cows. He thinks Randy wants to attach half of that to his Lot 2 which he currently owns, and the norther half of Lot 2 to Lot 4 (approx. 17 acres and the other section also 17 acres). Lot 6 is the lot that Gregg=s house is on.

Ed Stone moved to classify this as a Subdivision Modification. Dave Brown seconded and the motion passed, 6-0 with one member absent.

4. Village Master Plan, Final Review: Nat Goodhue and Terry Boyle presented the draft outline. First they had done the charrette, then the meeting with the Planning Commission, then the forum and determined an inventory. Some of those they used at the charrette, and the final plan is shown on Sheet 14 of this outline.

There are some maps that are part of this report, each referring back to the text. The first pages describe the natural resources and inventories.

Page 17, Section 9 Implementation makes recommendations. There is a description about transfer of development rights.

Nancy Sabin asked if this is the actual Village Master Plan referred to in the memorandum signed by the Selectboard. Is there going to be another plan in addition to this one? Dean Bloch said the Town Plan covers the town, and this plan covers the West Village. Then that plan will cover the Burns property. It is like concentric circles. The study area will be more focused on that one than on this one, he said.

Terry Boyle said you can draw from this and telescope into that next layer of detail. Some people may interpret AMaster Plan@ to be a pretty high degree of specificity. But this hasn=t done the detail of site analysis that you would need to take it to that final step. Nat Goodhue said the Town appears to want a higher degree of development within the village. He said this design helps to propose additional roads within the density area.

Nat said if the patterns from the different Design Teams are overlaid, we find the similarities among all the six teams. The Flea Market land is owned by the Town of Charlotte.

If the density within the center is increased to one acre, the rationale is the proximity to the village core to have more people within walking distance to the post office, town offices, bookstore, library etc.

This central district might include the Commercial, it also has the residential part of it which may include the senior housing. It shows the loop road back towards Greenbush Road.

He said there are some wetlands on the Burns property that may end up as a school site. There is an illustrated map that shows the two possible school sites for the future.

Dave Brown asked why wetlands become a school; is that what is happening, you can=t build a house there but you can build a school? Terry Boyle said some of the wetland areas are in these areas that are high density. By calling it high density there you may end up with quarter-acre lots. They would leave the wetland area open while using the rest of it for development. He continued; you may see on the maps, Aschool/outdoor learning.@ The wetlands is a classroom.

Dave talked about an earlier map that actually showed a school. Even though that has changed it still may end up as a school, Terry said, because it is a neighborhood generator, a community sort of thing. It probably would require some kind of system. Josie said they could cluster so that the wetland itself doesn=t have a building on it.

If there were a twenty acre parcel they would still have to see if they can find a five acre part of that to put a school on, while the rest of it could be part of an outdoor educational entity.

Dave said if an ordinary citizen had wanted to build something where the Town Offices are, he wouldn=t have been allowed to do so, yet the offices were built. In discussion about the school it would probably be built on Greenbush Road rather than in the wetland.

Next the talk went to the TDR (Transfer of Development Rights). Terry said Randall Arendt had wanted to be sure there were linkages, so that people know where to turn when they want to get a source of the development rights.

Jim suggested that he may want to sell development rights but may not find a buyer. Banks were suggested, or real estate agents. Jim said the Town 5-acre may stay.

Nancy Sabin said the majority of the land owners who went to the last charrette were appalled and didn=t seem to feel comfortable with this concept. The State statutes say that there should be a minimum for these TDR=s are preserved for 30 years. Who is going to be responsible enough to be sure certain things are held in perpetuity.

Jim said there is a difference in density (5-acre) and minimum lot size. There could still be 2 or 3 acre lot size or even quarter acre lots as long as that doesn=t increase the overall density of five acres.

Ed Stone asked what would happen if they went to 25-acre minimums. It appears that there would be million dollar houses vs. $200,000 houses. Jim said folks who preserved their land would be penalized for preserving their land; then if the land were suddenly in 25 acre zoning they would not be able to give it to their children because of the cost to build on it.

Sylvia Sprigg said the town seems to be hung up on 5 acre lots, and there is too much space being lost this way. More care should be made to cluster 5 houses on a 25 acre lot, she said, so that most of the acreage is kept open and the houses are closer together. Jeff said there is a finite limit on what can be done rather than thinking about a metropolis so that should be a goal for all development. All of the development can=t happen only in the village.

Sidewalks were discussed; some didn=t want sidewalks, but pedestrian loops are shown which are mowed grass with trees on the side. Crushed rocks for some paths; but Ed said that would make it hard for baby carriages and wheelchairs.

From this point the presenters and officials discussed how the final plan can be printed and made available, how many to have printed from the master etc. Jim said one copy should be made, then marked up and a decision on how many copies made at the next Planning Commission meeting. Jim will be the official editor.

5. Ed Stone B discussion of planning for sites for communication towers. He said WIZN may not still want to keep the tower and Ed had suggested using another location. Anything that is put up will affect people in town, so he volunteered to be the Planning Commission representative. Jim Donovan said there is a map which might be helpful which he will look for.

Ed said Fire & Rescue, and other groups could form a study group so there is a consensus to plan this correctly. Mary Beth Freeman will be included, and Allison Lockwood, for instance.

6. Al Moraska: re proposed Town Plan: There have been changes that the Selectboard have made, so that the Town Plan that was approved at the Planning Commission hearings and the Town Plan that will be presented to the voters are entirely different.

The Selectboard listened Apolitely@ to people who pointed this out, but have refused to make any changes to what they have changed in this version. Therefore Al said he does not want to support adoption of this new Town Plan. Several other members of the Planning Commission voiced similar concerns and said they will not support its adoption as well.

APPROVED BY THE CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION ON

Chairman Date

O:\Planning Commission\Minutes\2001\cpc1feb2001apprvd