CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION

1. General Business: Dave Brown was welcomed back after his illness and surgery!

Review of minutes for January 3, 2002: Details were corrected to clarify and pinpoint exact locations of the parcels being described. Gordon Troy moved that the Planning Commission accept the minutes of January 3, 2002 as amended. Jim Donovan seconded the motion and it was approved, 5-0 with one abstention and one person absent.

Review of minutes for January 17, 2002: Extensive detail changes were made especially in the Clark application to be sure that the minutes were clear about all rights of way to be delineated on the map. Greenwood America applications details were clarified to clearly identify the acreage, lot numbers and easements. Gordon Troy moved that the Planning Commission accept the minutes of January 17, 2002 as amended. Jim Donovan seconded the motion and it was approved, 5-0 with one member abstaining and one member absent.

2. Robert and Lorna Jimerson, Final Plat Hearing for a 2-lot subdivision located on Roscoe Road: Jeff McDonald read a letter from Lorna Jimerson that explained that she had prior commitments and requested a postponement until March. Dean said he had notified neighbors about this and said the scheduling was a mistake, recommended a continuation.

Jim Donovan moved to continue the application of Lorna Jimerson to March 21, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. Al Moraska seconded the motion and it was approved, 6-0 with one person absent.

Gordon recommended a different way of dealing with a postponement, but Dean said in this case it was the fault of the Planning Office and didn’t want the applicant to have to suffer the cost of re-advertising. Dave Brown advised that a letter go out to the neighbors to inform them that this application is postponed and to advise them of the new date. The Planning Commission directed the Planner that this be done.

3. Gregg and Elizabeth Beldock, subdivision amendment to change the location of the septic system on Plouffe Lane: Gregg said he had bought more land from Yvan Plouffe in order to prevent more development. The septic design that Yvan had approved was way too close to the river, as he had previously thought. He found that it was actually only 65' from the river.

Jim pointed out a location on the map that has a previously approved septic. Gregg said he had bought more land from Yvan Plouffe for the purpose of preventing more development. After field survey and study, the septic design that Yvan had obtained approval for was closer to the river than was previously thought (See, PC-01-22). Gregg believed that the actual permitted location was only 65' from the river and seeks to amend the permit.

Jim pointed out the location on the map that has a previously approval for septic disposal (See, PC-01-22). Gregg discussed the situation related to septic lines (force mains) crossing Plouffe Lane at several points and the previous approvals by the town for those locations, referring to the approvals 10 years ago, 5 years ago and 2 months ago. This led to a discussion pertaining to the Planner’s notes concerning the possible necessity or requirement for a License Agreement. This issue was raised in the context of ownership of Plouffe Lane as well as the Town Right Of Way on Plouffe Lane. The discussion continued and the following were found:

1) the force main “as built” crosses Plouffe Lane within the “septic right of way” as previously permitted;

class=Section8>

2) the town has a right of way over a private road;

3) the rights of way under discussion are pre-existing; and,

4) the applicant is seeking approval of the “as built” septic.

It was further found that the proposed “as built” septic disposal area is located on the northwest side of Plouffe Lane, is further away from the LaPlatte River than as designated in the approval for Loc C2 (See, PC-01-22) and will therefore cause less disruption to riparian wildlife areas and is less likely to impact the River.

The Planning Commission noted that because of the common ownership of these lands by the Applicant, that a better location for the septic system was desirable. The Planning Commission noted that because the force main was crossing Plouffe Lane within the existing septic right of way that no further requirements for this amendment were needed.

Gordon Troy moved to approve the Subdivision Amendment to relocate the septic system, noting that the location of the septic line as built exists in a pre-existing designated force main, in a pre-existing right of way which crosses Plouffe Lane, and that prior to the septic permit being issued, the applicant will submit to the Planning Commission a survey with septic area and associated easements, and the survey shall be recorded in the Land Records prior to the septic permit being issued. Martha Perkins second the motion and Jeff opened discussion.

Al Moraska moved to amend the motion to show that the location of the force main is the same as was previously approved with the original Subdivision Approval. Gordon Troy agreed with the modification. Jeff called for the vote on both the motion and the amendment. The complete motion was approved, 6-0 with one member absent.

4. Clark subdivision deliberation and review of proposed draft written decision: Gordon said he didn’t see the r.o.w. for the northern property. It was noted that the two maps are in a different rotation and in a different scale. For clarification purposes there should be notes that show both rights of way and this should be done all on one mylar.

Dean Bloch reported on what the applicant and his attorney had told him. They don’t want to do any research on the width of McGuire / Pent Road. Dean thinks, from the Town records, that it is 30' wide. They said whatever it is, it is. But they have a 60' righ to way over that anyway. That comes from their mother, who created that right of way.

The adjoining property to the east may also have a right of way, and one of the maps does show that. Jim said it appears that the applicants have met some of the conditions, but the northern right of way is still unclear. That was one of the conditions (...(8) That there is either satisfaction of non existence of a right of way that is shown on the tax map that is shown along the northern boundary of the property of Wayne and Faye Clark, or if it does exist, that the right of way be clearly delineated on both the mylar and the deed. If the right of way to the property to the east does not exist, and that can be shown to the Town Planner, then Condition #8 is automatically satisfied.) .

Gordon said the important point of that is that if the Town owns the north/south right of way on that property and it’s a Class IV road, then the Town has a continuing right to use it. It’s open and you can’t put a fence across it and prevent the town people from using the right of way. When you think about the larger issue of the trails system and everything else that’s potentially going on here, it ought to be incumbent on us not to close off something that’s pre-existing.

Dean said it is “McGuire / Pent Road” on the map and there is nothing on there that indicates that it’s not a town r.o.w. Gordon said it’s on there indicating that it is a town r.o.w. Dean repeated that this is a town road. Gordon said that we need somewhere, in this mylar that is going to get filed, that it is indicated that McGuire / Pent Rd. is a town road, either within that right of way, or specifying the length or width.

Martha asked who would put a fence up. Gordon said either the new owners or some new owner in the future.

Gordon said we can reopen the hearing because of information that is new to us. Gordon said they will own the land subject to pre-existing conditions. Jim agreed, and even though nothing will change the decision, it needs to be clearly delineated to protect the Town’s rights in the future. For clarification purposes there should be notes that show both rights of way and this should be done all on one mylar.

Jim suggested that on the mylar, it be shown that at least 30' within that 60' right of way be shown on the plat. The only thing we are really dealing with, is that it exists and there should be a statement that this 30' shall remain open.

Gordon said that essentially there are three right of ways. There should be three notes. Dean asked if the written decision reflects all that, and the members said, no.

Added to the written decision, one right of way deals with the private right of way that runs north / south. Condition 2 is the McGuire / Pent Road. Condition 3 of these right of ways, is the right of way that runs along the northern boundary running east / west. The r.o.w. on the northern boundary may or may not exist, but it appears to show access to a 42.6 acre lot which is identified as #15 on the tax map. It appears, and Dean concurred, that Lot #14 is land locked.

Jim asked Dean if he had seen the right of way back to Mt. Philo Rd. Dean replied that he had, and it is a 60' wide access to Mt. Philo Rd. Dean said he will change the draft of the written decision, and asked about the continuation. At the next meeting the written decision will be brought in for final decision and signature. The mylar must say what is dictated in the conditions of the written decision.

5. Greenwood America subdivision amendment, deliberation on draft of written decision: Jim thought Condition #9 might be written wrong on the map. In #2 of the Findings of Fact, it should be noted that the private school is currently located on Lot 1. It was suggested that it say, instead, “from the original submission of Lot 1.”

Namely, the southern portion of Lot 3 will use the existing curb cuts and access drives currently serving either Lot 1 or Lots 2 and Lot 4.

Jim asked that this note be put on the map.

The map should describe the floating trail easement in more detail. The trail should cross either Lot 1, or Lots 2 & 4. A note on the map will say that the “floating trail easement will extend easterly and northerly through Lots 1, 3 and 4.”

6. Greenwood America deliberation on the 3-lot subdivision: This will be done at the next meeting, February 21, 2002. Dean said Champlain Valley Co-Housing will come in on that date, and possibly some time to discuss the Regional Plan