CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of Meeting of
February 20, 2003
Charlotte Town Hall – 159 Ferry Road
Town Office – (802) 425-3533
Members Present: Chair Jeff McDonald
Al Moraska
Linda Radimer
Gene Diou
Gordon Troy
Jim Donovan
Staff Present: Dean Bloch
Public Present: Holly and James Callery Ed Merritt
Matthew J. Wamsganz Ellie Russell
Daniel Rosen Nancy Sabin
Tony Stout Bill Maclay
Martha Perkins
Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
Consent Agenda: 1. Policy Regarding Distribution of Documents
2. Memo from Affordable Housing Committee “Update of 1991
Munson Study” (dated February 2003)
Mr. Troy expressed his desire for a discussion on the consent agenda items. Mr. McDonald moved this proposed discussion to after PUBLIC COMMENT. Mr. Troy said he would also like to have a discussion on the zoning work regarding the village planning process, which all members agreed with.
Mr. Troy noted minor editorial changes to the Policy Regarding Distribution of Documents (copy attached to these minutes). Advise of council should be “advice”.
Mr. McDonald asked for a motion to accept this Policy as amended. Mr. Troy moved to accept the Policy Regarding Distribution of Documents with the discussed changes. Mr. Moraska seconded the motion. Ellie Russell noted that in the policy, it mentions that the planner’s notes will be released but in another place, it also says that sometimes they are not available, so she asked if this issue needed clarification. It was decided that it was fine as written. Therefore, following this discussion, all were in favor the previously-stated motion and the motion was unanimously approved.
There was a brief discussion on the Affordable Housing Committee memo and how it will be incorporated into the Town Plan. It was noted that it supports the update to the Munson study.
January 2, 2003 – Following discussion, it was decided that approval will be tabled until a new draft is circulated due to numerous modification to the Nextel application section.
January 16, 2003 – Mr. Troy moved to approve the minutes of the January 16, 2003 meeting. Mr. Diou seconded. All were in favor and the minutes were approved.
February 6, 2003 - It was noted that “Dr.” and not “Mr.” should precede Daniel Raabe’s name. It was also recommended to add Dean Bloch’s list regarding West Charlotte Village to the minutes; everyone agreed. Mr. Troy moved to approve the minutes of the February 6, 2003 with changes as noted. Ms. Radimer seconded. All were in favor and the minutes were approved.
Mr. Bloch reported that the contract with Burnt Rock was now before the Select Board for approval. Mr. Troy asked Ms. Russell to convey his opinion that Burnt Rock is proposing a reasonable price for the amount of work they are going to do for the Town. Ms. Russell agreed. Mr. McDonald said that he would try to make it to that Selectboard meeting.
Mr. Troy distributed his notes on the rewrite of the zoning bylaws. He noted that some major things that he will try to do is put together a table of uses and standards by zone and put in a big table for PC review. The second topic is to look at definitions and come up with framework to try and put Burnt Rock in a path. Ms. Radimer said that it was important for Burnt Rock to see the overlay of natural resources. Mr. Troy suggested borrowing a school bus or van and spending a half-day of touring the Town with them, together with the Conservation Committee, and the Zoning Board of Adjustment and the Selectboard should be invited to attend.
Mr. McDonald said that this matter will be continued at 8:45.
CONVERSE BAY TRUST/DEEDS
Matthew Wamsganz from CEA, representing both parties, addressed the PC. He reported that Deeds is proposing to sell .25 acres to the Converse Bay Trust and in this proposed transaction, there is an agreement to not disturb the trees in that area. He showed, on an aerial photo, the area that they want to protect (strip of woods) to give them privacy. Mr. McDonald asked for any opposition and/or concerns. There were none. Mr. Troy said that it was logical and Ms. Radimer asked if this would trigger the 10-acre provision. Mr. Wamsganz said it is over 11 acres.
Mr. McDonald asked Mr. Wamsganz if there was any objection to the three conditions that Mr. Bloch had expressed to them previously (i.e. submission of an 18x24 mylar, no tree cutting on the property and a waiting period of 180 days for a decision). Mr. Wamsganz said that would not be a problem.
Mr. Troy moved to close this hearing. Mr. Diou seconded. All were in favor and the motion was unanimously approved.
JAKE AND HOLLY CALLERY
Jake and Holly Callery, together with Bill Maclay, addressed the PC. Mrs. Callery explained that the goal is to clean things up for the co-housing process and to therefore adjust the boundaries of their property. She further explained that she and her two daughters own 45 acres and would like to divide that off and boundary adjust onto Jake Callery’s acreage to make a total of 125 acres for the proposed co-housing project. Mr. Troy asked how this proposed adjustment would affect the trail, to which Mr. Bloch said it will all be in the co-housing property. Ms. Radimer asked about the pond and Mrs. Callery showed her where it was on the drawing. Mr. Callery said that they would be willing to move the boundary to accommodate the proposed underpass anticipated for 2005. Mr. Troy said that the concern is if, at the day after the decision, the Callerys sell their property; this is important to the trail network and everything should be done to ensure that a problem is not created that cannot be fixed later. Mr. Callery said that they have had feedback from VTrans, because as Mr. Troy noted, the State is responsible for building the underpass. Mr. McDonald asked Mr. Bloch to verify the location of the underpass in this property, to which Mr. Bloch affirmed that it was where it was currently noted. Mr. Moraska asked about the new lot that is being proposed and it has frontage on Route 7, but a curb cut would have to be off Thompsons Point Road. Mr. Callery responded by saying that there are approved curb cuts on Route 7 on the property. Mr. McDonald asked for any other questions. Mr. Troy noted that in addition to the mylar submission requirement, there was the 180-day period before a decision is made and is this acceptable to the Callerys and their daughters. Mr. Callery said that it was no problem. Ms. Radimer moved to close the hearing. Mr. Moraska seconded. All were in favor and the motion was unanimously approved. Mr. Callery thanked the PC for their very long patience with the co-housing project; it was an “outstanding effort.” Mr. Maclay also thanked the PC.
ALMA CLARK/TOWNSEND
Tony Stout addressed the PC representing Gene Townsend/Alma Clark. He began by stating that Ms. Townsend could not be present tonight. He noted that the State has been sitting on the wastewater application for weeks and the reason for his appearance tonight was to propose a driveway cut. He stated that the location of the property is on Mt. Philo Road with a site for two houses and a proposed shared driveway. He showed the proposed driveway location and explained that the reason the location was selected is because it is the only point you can see in all directions a reasonable way. The proposed shared driveway works fine for two houses; therefore he said he was only looking for one curb cut. Mr. Moraska said his recent site visit made him agree that the site distance around the pine tree was where the driveway should go. However, it was noted that the pine tree will be removed.
Mr. McDonald said that the PC should think about the process, since this is the first application doing this. Mr. Troy said that he is not comfortable until Junior looks at the site. Ms. Russell said that the Selectboard decides on issues such as this based on the PC’s recommendations. Mr. Bloch reminded everyone that, at sketch plan review, they said that they prefer a shared curb cut/driveway. Martha Berkins asked Mr. Stout if it would delay him if a decision was not made tonight. Mr. Bloch said that agendas are getting filled up and that’s the problem. Mr. McDonald asked why this was being done now instead of part of the subdivision application process and Mr. Bloch said that because the Selectboard ultimately approves curb cuts, but if the applicant is in the middle of a subdivision application, it is an intermediary thing between sketch plan and final. Mr. Troy suggested that, rather than dealing with this issue as current policy established, and this wasn’t fully dealt with in site plan, that the PC make an exception that it deal with it in connection with the final decision and subject to getting approval from the SB. Jim Donovan agreed. Ms. Russell said that the Selectboard has no problem with Junior reviewing this. Mr. Stout said that the applicant will fight for a higher driveway site. Mr. Moraska said the curb cut as shown on the plat makes the most sense. Mr. Stout asked about the process of the wastewater permit needing to be signed by the State before the applicant can file because the application is in to the State and they would like to get on the agenda. They would like to submit the final plat application and continue with the wastewater application in the meantime. Mr. Troy moved to waive the requirement of having curb cut approval prior to submitting a final plat application and also to have the approval of the road commissioner. Mr. Donovan seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was unanimously approved.
Mr. Bloch told Mr. Stout that he can come in with the final plat application without the wastewater permit in hand but that the wastewater permit must be applied for before the PC will warn the final plat hearing.
REVIEW OF WRITTEN DECISIONS (deliberations)
Waldorf – ready for signature.
Raabe/Wings Point – ready for signature with comments/changes.
Nextel – Mr. Troy excused himself from the decision-making deliberations and gave Dean Bloch a written comment. Mr. Bloch read it.
DISCUSSION OF VILLAGE PLANNING
PROCESS (continued)
Mr. McDonald asked for opinions on the process. Mr. Donovan said that the Village Plan was a way of trying to bring the process of more concentrated growth in certain areas, while preserving open space and open land. Ms. Radimer said that there are a lot of issues around the west village that need answers, ie. septic. Mr. Moraska said the village master plan is designed to be a guide and not something the PC implements and not unless approved by the voters. He said that in some ways you can maintain the concepts but make them a bit less aggressive, e.g. modifications to TDRs. Ms. Russell expressed her concern about tying the village planning process together with the Burns planning process. Mr. Donovan said that the problem is that the Memo of Understanding (MOU) talks about doing village planning and the PC was saying that this was done because of the village master plan and without it being done, it creates a problem with the MOU because that work needs to get done before work on the Burns property can be done. They did have a discussion with the Vermont Land Trust & Preservation Trust after the hearing. They initiated a discussion of focusing on the Burns and LeBeouf property and how it fits into Ferry Road, etc. Mr. Troy suggested drafting a letter for publication in the newspaper. He said that the hearing brought lots of valuable information, e.g. co-housing is the kind of pattern that we’re going to have to accommodate and nurture as we move forward because the existing west village is not going to accommodate the kind of development that was discussed in the village master plan. He also said that there are density things that can be done in the town that would have minimal impact – people want the way it looks untouched, so how do you increase density without altering the character - is what he heard from comments. Mr. Donovan heard that there was a lack of understanding of where the town is headed and what current zoning allows and what the town can legally do. Nancy Sabin said people cannot accept the amount of growth in the time frame that the report said.
Martha Berkins said that it is important to remember that people came shocked and if the Town is going to educate them, the people need to educate the Town; she asked the PC if the Town should consider having the people who live in the village form a subcommittee to help the PC get that point across. Ms. Radimer agrees with this comment; momentum should be encouraged and fostered; people won’t buy into it unless they are a part of it. Ms. Russell said that small groups in different parts of the village would be an idea, as Dr. Clements suggested. Martha Berkins suggested that some form of agreement is needed that shows that there is a concept of villages with open land on the outside. Mr. Bloch said that he heard that people don’t want sprawl, but the “five acres” provision would do that. Ms. Russell said that a lot of education on the TDR concept needs to be done. Mr. McDonald said water and waste water aspects came up a lot; you need to define infrastructure. Mr. Troy said people from the village have approached him and said at least half have contaminated water supplies or failed septic systems. Mr. Bloch asked if the plan was proposing 300 new houses. Nancy Sabin suggested to burn ¾ of it and keep ¼ to work on. The PC asked which ¼. Ms. Sabin responded by saying that this report should have been picked apart by a committee and the common sense part (e.g. doing away with 200 of the proposed houses) and realistically determine how many would be feasible. Mr. Donovan said that the units could be apartments and if a 50-acre parcel and 20 acres of wetlands were clustered together, they could still get 10 units there, so it doesn’t mean they are in the wetlands, but it means that there is a potential for 10 units there. Martha Berkins said small groups is good next step because people will speak out in small groups. Mr. McDonald asked the theoretical question of what is the value of the master plan, to which Mr. Diou said that that was a valid point because the plan doesn’t address existing problems in the village. It wasn’t a plan to improve or prepare the village for growth. Mr. Moraska agrees, and the plan is a template, but problems need to be addressed or it won’t work. Mr. Donovan expressed his concern about the water and wastewater issue. Nancy Sabin asked about the money. Mr. McDonald said that a grant could be a possibility. Mr. McDonald said it is a double-edged sword because once you get the grant, the State will have the ability to say when you are going to fix the problems. Mr. Troy suggested focusing on feasibility with the infrastructure issue. Mr. Donovan agreed, but said that they need closure on the village master plan. Mr. Troy thinks that these two issues could be in tandem.
Ms. Russell said that education needs to be done to explain why the Town can’t fence the borders. You can lim it growth and plan for it, but you can’t stop it. Ms. Sabin asked if there was any way that the PC could do for an engineering study on the aquifer.
Mr. McDonald said that they should continue this discussion and compose a publication on findings and thoughts and where the PC should go for the newspaper. Ed Merritt said commentary allows more detail than a letter when published in the paper. He suggested that the PC talk about the village planning process and where to go from here, where we came from and what’s the goal.
ADJOURN
Mr. Donovan moved to adjourn; Mr. Moraska seconded. All were in favor and the motion was unanimously accepted. The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kimberly L. Johnson