TOWN OF CHARLOTTE

PLANNING COMMISSION

7:00 P.M. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2002

TOWN OFFICES, 425-3533

Members Present: Jeff McDonald Jim Donovan Gordon Troy

Martha Perkins Dave Brown

Members Absent: Josie Leavitt Al Moraska

Guests Signed In: Wayne Clark Barry Gilmore Bill Maclay James Lawrence

Daniel Rosen Frank Lambert Steve Mack Gina & Tom Catanzarita

Ellie Russell Sylvia Sprigg Charlie Russell Doris & Harold Stewart

Larilee Suiter Lee Smith Debbie Ramsdell Carl & Marilyn Johnson

Kari Suiter Jake & Holly Callery Jim Wells Susan April

Bill Suiter Stephen C. Brooks Nancy Sabin Richard S. Weed

Mike Russell Sheila Braun Charles Lemieux

1. General Business: Minutes were reviewed for February 7, 2002 and several clarifications, better descriptions were proposed by Jim and Gordon in order to make what was discussed that evening more clear for future Boards to understand. Gordon offered to send the rewritten paragraphs before the next meeting to be voted on at that time

Dean received new letter regarding the Clark Estate, which says that the Warranty Deed doesn’t show the 60' northern right of way, but only a driveway. The time was 7:35 p.m. and the next item was due to be heard, so no action was taken.

2. Champlain Valley Co-Housing, Sketch Plan Amendment: Bill Maclay, Planner for the Co-Housing group, presented a change in the design because of wetlands issues and concerns from neighboring Wildwood West. They had known that there were wetlands in the lower part of the land, but not those bordering the location of proposed housing.

These are State Class III wetlands (the lowest grade of wetlands), according to the Army Corps of Engineers, but with any wetlands, Bill indicated that the Army Corps of Engineers will not allow an applicant to alter more than an acre of wetland without a permit that is basically impossible to get. In fact, if even less than an acre of wetland is altered, the Army Corps has to make a determination that you are minimizing the impact based on what it is possible to do, Bill said.

Previously the plans had housing going right into the wetland area. The Army Corp suggested that the whole project could be moved further to the north (only 50' from Wildwood West), but they had explained in reply to Army Corps, that the original plan would have done that, but the Wildwood West neighbors did not want the development to the north, and therefore the Planning Commission had told them it was unacceptable. The development couldn’t move south because of the wetlands, and to the west because of forested habitat..

Working with consultants, they came up with two newer plans: one is more elongated and is closer to the wooded land. It has a narrower green and a pedestrian street. One change is that there would be some parking down in the housing area. It keeps a 275' setback from Wildwood West. It still has a single row of parking to the north, along with a small number of parking spaces toward the south.

• At this point Jeff McDonald wanted the audience to know that this is a Sketch Plan change, and that the applicants sent notifications to neighbors, but that the Town had not. At Sketch Plan the Town may only classify whether the application is a Major, or a Minor Subdivision. The applicants are bringing in suggested changes prior to submitting a more formal Preliminary Plat Application for which the Town will formally notify all the abutters of the property.

Bill Maclay said the applicants now have more information, and ask for guidance before they draw up plans that would be entirely unacceptable. Bill had a map which indicates the entire Callery property, of which the Champlain Valley Co-Housing will purchase 125 acres. Bill added that in the original plan, Clark Hinsdale, III would have some building lots; but these are not in the plans presented at this time. Jeff asked for further input from the audience.

James Lawrence (from Greenbush Road) asked about the location of the access road. Bill Maclay said the access is the same as what has been presented before, and that it is from Greenbush Road, coming straight down across the hill, along the property line and then going at an angle following a tree line; that is not proposed to change.

Dan Rosen (Greenbush Road) asked about the timetable for the hearings. Dean said there has to be a warning 15 days before a hearing, but the applicant has to submit the plans for review which will include engineering designs, surveys, a road plan, and landscaping. This may take several months. Dean indicated that the applicant would also have to obtain a separate Act 250 permit.

Dan Rosen asked, “Moving west, how does that affect the wildlife? Is the sewer still going to be on Hinsdale’s land?” He was told that it was partially going to be on Hinsdale’s.

Bill replied that there will be no roads and no houses within the common green. There would be a footpath going into the edge of the tree line, but that proposal has not changed. The developed area of the 125 acres, is 6 acres. The large area would be protected in perpetuity. The most significant part of this would not be disturbed at all.

Frank Lambert asked about the wetland determination. Dave said the Corps of Engineers has already made the determination of the wetland locations.

Frank continued. He has recently walked near where the pond was, to the west, on the Randall property. Someone has gone in there with heavy equipment and has completely dug out where the pond was. He asked if that was to change the designation from wetlands. Jim said the State looks at certain criteria such as vegetation, hydrology and soils that show wetlands. The soils take a long time to develop the conditions that show wetlands.

Bill Maclay said that Jeff Severance, from Civil Engineering Associates, had said in the region where the development is planned the wetlands at the edge are quite marginal, and that it’s quite likely that the reason it’s wet is because of the work Clark Hinsdale had done on the Berry Farm. It was his opinion that if this section were mowed it would eventually go back to being usable land. Jim said that’s because the vegetation would go away.

Frank Lambert had another question: If this wasn’t a P.R.D. and there would just be a bunch of houses there, the land would still be open if there were 5-acre zoning. Just because of the lay of the land, the topography of the land, you could not put 24 houses in there, he said. The wetlands would prevent that as well.

Jim Donovan acknowledged that certain towns have requirements in their Zoning Regulations that show that you have to provide a normal subdivision layout to establish a lot count, or you have to subtract out for the wetland areas or forest areas to establish a lot count or come up with density. Charlotte Zoning Regulations don’t have these provisions.

Gordon asked, without the 5-acre density and the conditions that Jim described of discounting certain types of land as not included in the density, what would 10 houses look like on that property evenly scattered, with each house sitting on its own 5 acres throughout the property? This does not appear to be what the Town wants to see happening. We seem to be in a situation, Gordon said, where the applicant is coming before us, clearly complying with the rules, actually coming up with densities that are well within compliance with the rules of the Town as they exist, or even going further with respect to maximizing with “non-built-upon” area in a very large area.

James Lawrence said when he first heard about this project sat down with Clark and the applicant with the map, the applicant and Clark pointed out where 10 or 15 houses could go, piecemeal, and frankly, that would have been a horror for us, to see houses all over that land. Mr. Lawrence said he felt the Callery’s also wanted to see the development more concentrated. Ten houses scattered all over that land would not have been good either.

Steve Mack asked where these houses would be. He asked why the cluster couldn’t be closer to Greenbush Road. Bill Maclay replied that they could have done that, but the area Steve was asking about was better agricultural land and they wanted to preserve the better agricultural land. Another drawback is that the development would be much more visible from Greenbush Road. The maximum height would be under the 35' maximum allowed by the town.

Stephen Brooks said he believes the Wildwood West neighborhood has a kind of commonality and he said he hoped the two neighborhoods could find a commonality, and suggested they consider, as an example, having a public swimming pool for the development.

Susan April asked about the apple orchard that was originally proposed. Bill said because of the visibility concerns that Wildwood West residents had, a decision was that though there may be some apple trees most would be evergreens.

The landscaping would have dense, staggered trees with “maximum screening” in mind, in answer to the concerns of Wildwood West.

Sheila Braun, representing the applicant, asked if the Planning Commission were going to make the apple trees mandatory. Jim said the Planning Commission could ask, but would probably not make that a condition.

Gina Catanzarita said there’s no only the 24 houses, but the outbuildings as well including a barn and a greenhouse, and the office structure. Bill said this was planned before, like a Common House and the office would be like a home occupation kind of thing, but they thought they could just make that the place for the office. There would be two guest bedrooms in there as well.

The separate office isn’t allowed in the P.R.D., Dean said. Where will the “toys” go? (lawn mowers, etc.) Bill said they would probably go in the basements.

“This is not what we looked at before.” (Catanzarita) “Now I’m wary of what else they are going to come up with.”

Jeff said this is still a Sketch Plan. We don’t approve a Sketch Plan, but this is just to get ideas. The formal plan will come in as a Preliminary Application.

Gordon said it appears to him that the applicant has been extraordinarily forthcoming in presenting what their vision was and what they are trying to build, and as they have moved through the process and found limitations, wetlands, for instance, and they have tried to accommodate each and every concern from Wildwood West and other public input. If there have been any changes it is because of public input.

Bill said the distance used to be 200' and now it is 275' (75' further to the south) and more of the units are further away from Wildwood West. The only other change is the slight move away from the wetlands.

Jim Donovan said, in response to comments that this plan looks different from earlier plans, that he is pleased that it is coming in different, because that means the applicant is listening. The changes are a good thing. If there are further requests, Jim urges that they be made as soon as possible and not after the application is much further along.

Nancy Sabin asked about the “haha” which is the berm that will partially hide the parking building, etc. That is still there. Her other question is, if the Army Corp of Engineers decides now, that they will now disapprove of this, do they have the power to stop this? Act 250 is also of concern, Bill said. The applicant has to make everybody happy, and then they have to come back here to the Planning Commission to tell of any additional changes.

Tom Catanzarita asked about the size of the evergreens. Bill said the landscape architect will specify the sizes of the trees. He asked about the yellow markers on the trees. He was worried that they were marked to cut them down. But Bill said these were only a way of knowing the caliper and species of tree there.

Steve Mack asked about the size of the buildings. Bill said the largest is 3 bedrooms, and there are some 2 bedroom units. That is identified on the drawings, and the number of drawings is based on the septic design. There are 60 units within the buildings.

Lee Smith asked about parking. Bill said the majority of the parking is in one lot (most of it covered). All that can be seen from Wildwood West is covered. There are some other smaller parking areas are in the low area. Lee Smith said they would prefer mirroring (flipping) the whole design so that no cars will be pointing toward Wildwood West as they are approaching the parking area. If they could be looking at the barn instead, that would be better. Bill said the pedestrian-oriented street might suffer with such a switch.

Dan Rosen said the concern that doesn’t go away for him, is that the overall impact is the number of additional people. He did an informal count, up to the Old Brick Store. There are 150 people now, and this number will double. He has a heartsick feeling that it will be like something that happened on Long Island. In the period of 6 years, it went from an area with fields and streams, to a dense city.

Martha Perkins noted that this parking is so far from the houses, that she worries that their may be an enforcement problem in that people will have to be told to move their cars back away from the houses and up to the parking areas where they belong. With 3 bedroom houses there will be children, and groceries, etc.

Sheila Braun said she has done research on this because of the wind chill factor in Vermont, comparing that with one that was built in Colorado. She said there will be some instances on very cold days where exceptions may have to be made, but she found that people were following the rules pretty well. Bill pointed out three parking areas. The one up above is for a certain number of houses, and the other two are for the other groups of houses. He said they are reasonably close. Martha asked if there are people waiting to go in there, and Sheila said there is a waiting list.

Charles Lemieux from Wildwood West, said he knows a couple in Hartland, VT who are abutters to the co-housing there, who have told him there are a lot of adjoining landowners to that co-housing who have lawsuits because the developers didn’t do what they were supposed to do, blasted into the side of a mountain which caused cracks in foundations and loss of wells. Martha said the one in Hartland is very different, and for this one she sees a lot of planning and a lot of interaction and citizen input. She said this is a process that the Planning Commission is doing for the citizens. She said the threat of lawsuits doesn’t make her feel very good.

Nancy Sabin said she is a little bit concerned about “too many people, too many houses ... etc.” Ten years ago the street she lives on had more farms, much less houses. When Wildwood West first came in, there were fears about those “hockey houses” which would be like some run-down houses in Burlington. They would be low income houses, and so on. (Dan said, “As far as Charlotte goes, it is!”) But she just feels bad that, with the town supporting having less sprawl, and finding out the cost of a lot, and the “affordable” threshold being around $300,000, this seems to be a good alternative. So many people are trying to be accommodating, she said they should be accepting it.

In a discussion about cost, Sheila Braun said the cost may be $150,000 for the single sites. Bill said all of them will have an area that the unit controls. There are between 10 and 12 single units. If someone buys an attached house he would have a yard area as well. There will be design review guidelines, Bill said. The Homeowners’ Association will have a committee for Design Review.

Stephen Brooks brought up Ten Stones. That is not co-housing. He wanted to tell people about these applicants’ web site, www.ChamplainvalleyCohousingOrg, and that the library has free internet access. He is concerned that the commissioners are not supporting this process enough.

Tom Catanzarita asked if, after all of this is built, an individual homeowner wants to add a bedroom or add on something to the unit, could he do that? Bill said it would be illegal, and absolutely can not happen.

Dan Rosen asked if someone can get an amendment after all of this is done. Bill said this project would have to get an amendment . Gordon said this is a P.R.D. and if anyone wanted to get any amendment, any change that didn’t involve adding a bedroom, they would also have to go before Act 250 and other agencies. This project can’t be changed that much.

Jim Laberge said he is very impressed with the job the applicants have done. He remembers when Wildwood West first came in. Nobody likes to see development, but these applicants are doing a good job in trying to make this a community. He thinks they are doing a decent job.

A person from Wildwood West asked about the septic systems and Bill said even if that main system fails, there are two other fall back areas. The State will have a permit process and Bill assured them that the State won’t let them do anything that no one else can do.

Bill expects that the buildings on the north end will be built first, in a little more than a year after final approval. There are 10 out of 24 equity buyers now.

Jeff said his preference is to have the 275' setback. Bill Maclay said his preference also, is to go with the 275' setback. The Army Corp of Engineers wanted them to have only a 50' setback from Wildwood West, so they would appreciate it if the Planning Commission wanted to make this as a condition.

Jim suggested that if they can do it, they should try to pull the last two units away from the wetland area more. Also he suggested that they pull the road north of the units, just to the tree planting. The berm can go around the back of the parking area and if they need to, add another berm on the other side, so that they still do the screening but they do the filling operation out of the wetlands as much as possible. Then the only thing visible is the roadway. The Army Corp has to be convinced that you have done as much as possible. Also check the visibility from Greenbush because these buildings have moved. Jim asked the applicant to reiterate in their preliminary application, why the parking can’t be put on the other side. Given the shift over to the west, more screening should be done to shield the western units.

Gordon Troy said he echos what Jim has mentioned. He said he would encourage the applicants to be 275' away.

Sylvia Sprigg said the Callery’s are making a good, maximum use of open land. It is unfortunate that the folks who have had the use of the Callery’s and other folks’ land, for the number of years that they have owned their lots in the neighborhood, that things change and the folks who own the land have the right to develop it, and the Town has rules and regulations so that this is going to happen. It really is the Town vision of what will be in the future of the community.

Jeff said the original recommendations in the previous letter were still valid. Additional draft documents to be submitted with the Preliminary Plat Application were the Roadway Agreement and Waiver, Sewer Service Agreement and Waiver, Sewer Operation and Maintenance Agreement, Trail Easement, Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for the trail easements and “boiler plates” can be provided by the Town. Bill said there is a fair amount of work to do, and they may be ready to come back in six weeks or so.

Jim said the Planning Commission may want to have a traffic study. Dean read passages from Chapter 6 in the regulations, so that will be addressed when the Preliminary Plat Application is submitted.

Stephen Brooks asked if all the neighbors will get a copy of the Preliminary Plat Application. This is not a requirement, but since all the neighbors will be notified 15 days before the hearing, they can come in and inspect the drawings at the office. Bill said he will send one complete copy to the Wildwood West organization as well.

Jeff said the Planner will summarize the thoughts in another letter to the applicants.

3. Deliberation on Greenwood America: Martha Perkins left then, because she had not been involved in the review of this application. Gordon Troy moved to approve the Findings of Fact and Decision on the Final Plat Application of Greenwood America for a 4-lot P.R.D. subdivision creating 3 lots and 1 common lot, application number PC01-50, as per the draft Findings of Fact and Decision of Dean Bloch with the three modifications to Paragraph 1-a regarding a home office, to the decision Para. 5 adding the word “existing” in front of the words “diversion ditch” and adding a new Paragraph 13, which uses standard road gravel. Jim Donovan seconded the motion.

In discussion, notice Dean’s comments relating to the last draft decision 1E and 1F, and 1G was added, including words that should have been in the revised Town Plan.

The motion was approved, 4-0 with 3 absent.

Deliberation on Clark draft decision: In condition No. 4, Gordon said the word “should” needs to be changed to “will.” Also he wanted to add a paragraph in the Findings, that “along the northern boundary east-west, there is a right of way. However, upon research the Town Planner has found that no such right of way appears to exist within the chain of titles. Without prejudice to the existence of any right of way, we approve the Boundary Adjustment as requested by the Trust of Wayne of Faye Clark. Jim Donovan seconded the motion. In discussion, the Board looked at the maps. The motion was approved, 4-0 with 3 absent.

Deliberation on Gregg Beldock draft decision: Gordon had some minor changes, which were put into the minutes for February 7^th. Gordon also had a new #4 of the Decision and a substitution for #3 which will be a Finding..

Finding #7 Since the force main when crossing Plouffe Lane is within the existing right of way, no further requirements to this amended subdivision application are required.

Decision #4 The newly designed septic system crosses Plouffe Lane within the limits of the existing septic system right of way across Plouffe Lane.

At 10:00 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.

APPROVED BY THE CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION ON

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Chairman Date

O:\Planning Commission\Minutes\2002\feb21.doc