TOWN OF CHARLOTTE

PLANNING COMMISSION

7:00 P.M. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2002

TOWN OFFICES, 425-3533

 

Members Present:           Jeff McDonald      Dave Brown          Gordon Troy

                                                Martha Perkins             Al Moraska

Members Absent:                Josie Leavitt                  Jim Donovan

 

Guests Signed In:                Fred Muskat                 Sylvia Sprigg                    Stephen Brooks                 Sheila Braun

                                                Marc Maderazzo          Janet Cohen                      Lydia Hibbard                    Linda Radimer

                                                Debbie Ramsdell          Nancy Sabin                     Robert Mack                      David Cherington

                                                James Laberge                     

 

1.   General Business: Rewritten minutes for February 7, 2002 were reviewed, and Gordon Troy moved to approved the minutes of February 7, 2002 as amended. Al Moraska seconded the motion and it was approved, 5-0 with 2 members absent.

2.   Review of letter to William Maclay for Champlain Co-Housing:  Small point, Dean was asked to add the name of the applicant on the letter to William Maclay. The date will be changed to February 28, 2002.

      The applicants had asked that the time for the Sketch Plan be extended, and Gordon did not recall voting on that, so to make sure that classification does not expire, Gordon moved to extend the classification of the Champlain Valley Co-Housing Project of a Major Subdivision, to 6 months after February 28, 2002. Dave Brown seconded the motion and it was approved, 5-0 with 2 members absent.

      Several members put together the statement of observation for Paragraph 7.  The following issues and concerns which should be addressed in addition to all other requirements set forth in the Bylaws. The Planning Commission encourages minimal encroachment into the wildlife area at the western boundary of the project area and therefore it is the unanimous opinion that the 275' plan is preferred by the Planning Commission.

3.   Modification of Subdivision, Final Hearing of Barbara Horsford and Lydia Hibbard: Dean Bloch noted that the Horsford Lot was sold to Kathy Muskat and she needs to sign that (Fred Muskat can sign).  It’s under contract to Rattner, and a letter was submitted for that part of it.

      Fred Muskat was asked to come to the table as representing his wife, Kathy.  Lydia said she is selling her lot, and part of the Purchase and Sale Agreement is that the Muskats have to agree to this Boundary Line Adjustment. It has been surveyed, and the purchasers have walked the property and have agreed to this.

      Gordon remembered that there was an issue on the septic location; there was no approved septic on the 15 acres and the designation had to be swapped. Dean said that was addressed by Notes 8 and 9 on the Septic Plan.

      Gordon Troy moved that the Planning Commission approve this Subdivision Modification to the PC01-51 as proposed by the applicants for the Barbara Horsford / Lydia Hibbard Subdivision. Al Moraska seconded the motion and Jeff asked for discussion.   The motion was approved on a vote of 5-0 with two members absent.

4.   Conservation Fund, Final Plat Hearing for 2-Lot Subdivision:  This is the final hearing for a 2-lot subdivision of the former Laberge Farm at the intersection of Greenbush Road and Thompson’s Point Road.  The Sketch Plan Review was on December 6, 2001, when the project was classified as a Minor Subdivision, but there were no other recommendations.  David Cherington is representing the Farmland Projects for the Conservation Fund. 

      David Cherington said the Laberge Farm had purchased the quadrants totaling 268 acres at the intersection of Thomp­son’s Point Road and Greenbush Road.  The parcel that is being considered at this hearing was described on a map, where David pointed out Thompson’s Point Road going toward the lake, at the junction of Greenbush Road.  He pointed out other parcels that were sold prior to the Conservation Fund’s acquisition of the property.  This application deals with Parcel 7, Parcel 6 and Parcel 5, which lies west and east of Greenbush Road and south of Thompson’s Point Road.   Parcel 5 is a corn / alfalfa field, and the parcel on the east side of Greenbush Road, and there is an intervening wetland / woodland area and another hayfield. These are Parcels 5, 6 and 7.

      The subdivision that is being addressed at this hearing is to find a solution to a historic, but badly in need of repair farmhouse, and the barns which, at the Laberge Farms auction, have been divested of all the milking equipment and the piping, etc.  All that is left are the tie-stalls, no gutter cleaner or anything that would be re-activated under today’s dairy conditions. 

      The challenge for this project is to investigate the historic significance of the farmhouse, and as we did that work, the Conservation Fund engaged Pritchett Associates, who did a study of those structures.  They determined that the larger, northerly portion of the farmhouse dated back to the 1790's and had quite a history. The southern part, which faces south and is slightly lower in its ridgepole height, is probably in the 1830's.  David described the drawing which came out of the “Gazetteer” from the 1800's, where the “newer” part is where Laberge lived.

      David said they are working on a plan for that property, and he has brought with him both the names of the proposed buyers for this property. They are faculty members who will join UVM this Fall.  Martha noted that one is a Watershed Professor.  The program that this professor is involved in was bought by UVM from the University of Maryland, to help rejuvenate their curriculum and catalogue.

      The first document is the Grant of Development Rights and Conservation Restrictions which would apply to the 14 acres, Parcel 7A which includes the house and barn.  It states (a) that Parcel 7A cannot be further subdivided, and (b) that in terms of a guest house only (it cannot be rented) a guest house can be constructed, and it expressly says that they shall reference the facade drawings provided by Pritchett Associates, which takes the original arrangement of the original structures and they restore that.  [Gordon observed that this will take away the glass pane window that faces south that is uncharacteristic of the dwelling.]

      David continued; the way this document reads, is that if they are going to deviate from that plan, they must come back before the Conservation Fund.  Gordon asked what happens if the organization no longer exists.  David replied that in a memo to the Planning Commission which states that once the Vermont Land Trust holds the easement on the rest of the property then the Conservation Fund would convey its easement on the 14 acres to the Vermont Land Trust, which would then have the entire 268 acres which was purchased in September 2001, would come under one conservation easement holder and enforcer.

      Dave Brown asked about the rest of the 268 acres, and what chances that any of that would be developed.  Dave Cherington replied that it is their intent to try to recover a fraction of their cleanup costs, holding costs, and purchase price, to sell to the Vermont Housing Conservation Board, a Conservation Easement. That would be 7B, 6, and 5 for a total of 254.7 acres.  The 15 acres on 7A would already be protected.  Applications to the Vermont Housing and Conservation Boards are highly competitive, with a long waiting line.  We allowed up to 3 or 4 years to get to the head of the queue. In round one we were turned down. That commonly happens, but in the event that we are turned down three times we cannot re-apply. In that event we would find one house site on 7B (144 acres), but not Lots 5 and 6 which would be given to Vermont Land Trust, in a site that was picked by a landscape designer that is hid­den. We are committed to protecting this property, David said.

      Dave Brown said he is concerned about the future of property in this town. Some of the farms in Town went out of farming and their fields were allowed to grow over, which in turn drew in a lot of wildlife.  Then after the wildlife have taken up residence in their newly found food source, along come the developers who clear the land for the housing. What happens, Dave asks, to the wildlife? They are pushed to where there isn’t enough habitat.  He suggests that the fields be hayed and farmed as they were before, so that new wildlife are not drawn there. Too much of that has happened in Town.

      David Cherington said this property is a mix; the maintenance of farmland is critical to Vermont’s landscape, and the “pucker brush” is a major problem.  The nice thing about the Laberge Farm is that every field that was tilled when the Laberge’s had it is tilled now.  The remaining part is streambanks corridor which flows from north to south.  That area, in any conservation plan must have a substantial stream buffer.  This land has a nice balance between the natural landscape and the corn and alfalfa land.   He said if you read the Vermont Land Trust document, the farmland is critical to such a pattern.

      David Cherington said he wanted to address Dean Bloch’s recommendations. In the Paragraph entitled “Configur­ation” in the memo it states that only 35 acres of the 144 acres is reserved for agriculture.  Even when you exclude the stream land corridor and the buffer, there is pastureland and there are sections of that pastureland that could be restored.

      James Laberge agreed that there are sections that could again be used as tillable land.  There are several areas that could be plowed up and used as pasture land, also.  David replied that the current tenant of the tillable land is Roland Ayers, Jr. from North Ferrisburgh; he has a 5-year lease. At some point, Roland would like to either purchase or lease this land at its agricultural value.  In the event that the Vermont Land Trust does not accept their application and the 144 acres has to be sold, David said the Conservation Fund would hope that the new owner would want to continue leasing the tillable land.  Just as at Nordic Farms, we endeavor to find a buyer who shares our philosophy of active agriculture.

      Martha Perkins asked why the Vermont Land Trust turned down the first application.  David replied that VLT wanted them to have a signed Purchase and Sale Agreement with a bona-fide farmer for the whole farm minus the farmstead. 

      In Dean’s recommendation, David Cherington suggested that, with respect to the future of Lot 7B, a Conservation Easement be a referenced understanding between this Board, but he doesn’t want there to be language “Thou shalt” in there that would make the land lose its value. The easement that David handed out as Document 2, 7B is not approved for septic disposal.  That is standard language in all Vermont subdivisions, David said. That would cover 2-A, 2-B and the last sentence of Paragraph 3.  The Conservation Fund would rely upon the concept that any future development would require Town approval and that the other concerns would be addressed by the Conservation Easement. David said they would like to have the requirement in the last sentence deleted because then there can’t be a tax advantage for the gift.

      David said the Conservation Fund, even though it is non-profit, has no tax benefits. But their issue is with the DHCB and if they cross us off the list 3 times and we’re out, and it depends on whether they have any money, it is risky.

      Sylvia Sprigg asked about the Wulfson property at Cedar Beach, where they specifically did make sure the open space requirements were revisited, was a precedent for this.  Jeff said the Lavalette property is a better comparison. That language was not put in the Lavalette property. Gordon said he had no objection to deleting that last sentence of Para­graph 3.  Gordon said he didn’t see any reason to have 2-A, and 2-B is dealt with by the requirement that “No building of any kind can occur on 7B without the applicant coming back before the Planning Commission.  Gordon suggests that instead, a reference to the Bylaws be made.  Let the Minutes reflect that the applicant refer to the Bylaws.

      Robert Mack asked why the Conservation is considering subdividing this property.  He asks where we are heading with this contiguous piece of property.  It is too fragmented, he said.

      Gordon asked if this relates to the viability of the farming operation. It seems that one of the inherent problems is that the Laberge’s had difficulty in continuing the farm operation, given the size of the property and the size of the structures, they are too small in one respect and too large in several respects.  There is an enormous expense to preserve the house, so he doesn’t understand how not following through on what’s being proposed here doesn’t further enhance an opportunity to actually keep agriculture in the community.

      Robert Mack said the problem is with the Charlotte zoning requirement of a house on 5 acres.  This isn’t driven by economics.  Gordon reminded Robert that he had bought the Clark Farm for a quarter of what it was purchased for by a charitable organization.  Robert said it was too bad that you can’t have both (the barn and dwellings, plus the land).  Robert said the barn could be a calf facility, because ultimately the concrete in the barn is worth something.  David Cherington said the fact that the house is still standing, is the only reason that the land is still of any value. Martha asked David if the barn is going to be taken down, and David doesn’t know.

      Nancy Sabin said it was the Charlotte Land Trust that had insisted, for the Lavalette property, that the barn be torn down, and one of the major things that were upsetting, is that the Charlotte Land Trust insisted that the well house, the eggery, and the windmill also be torn down.  The ambiance of country living is dying because these beautiful little barns and little outhouses etc. are being torn down.  Now the Charlotte Land Trust is doing what Robert doesn’t want the State Conservation Fund to do, which is slightly hypocritical. So at what point is somebody going to come up with guidelines.

      So we’re back again to “Doesn’t the one that pays the taxes and the one that owns the land have a right to do some­thing?, Nancy Sabin asked. Wasn’t Shirley Laberge upset that your father built the barn that blocked her view?” Robert Mack replied, Davis knows me, and he could have put that land up for sale in several different ways. 

      Sylvia Sprigg said that Shirley Laberge had the total package on the market for years, and no one seemed to be inter­ested. Most of the farm property was being used on a lease basis to add to usable land that other working farms had.

      Robert said he didn’t say there weren’t other alternatives. He just wants it to be used for the best use of the Town of Charlotte, with people in Town being able to use the land and barns. The Town has changed a lot in the last couple of years, he said.  Gordon asked, In what has the Town changed in a manner that specifically affects this property. And Dave Brown asked how come there weren’t a lot of people trying to buy that farm, if that’s the case, because it has been on the market.  Robert replied that they could just put conservation easements on the property and then sell it.  

      Gordon said they couldn’t put the land into easements and still get $350,000 for that house in need of restoration, with no land left with it.  How is the nearly $700,000 that the Conservation Fund able to recoup its investment, in order to continue in business? A chari­table, 501-C-3 organization cannot sell a piece of property to a private individual for less than the appraised value. What we are trying to do is exactly what we cooperated in doing on the Clark Farm for you. We are trying to keep the property “agriculturally affordable;” that’s the objective of this project.

      Robert said it is his opinion that the barn is worth more than what you are giving credit for. Martha Perkins said it’s a sad thing to be unable to keep the farm together. Robert said Davis’s choice is second best.

      Al Moraska said he has concerns for Parcel 7B.  If this lot is sold or leased to a bona-fide farmer that’s not a problem. But if that’s not a feasible option, to have a house built and perhaps sell that lot to someone else. There is a distinct possi­bility that the person who buys that property won’t care about agriculture. That’s one of the prime pieces of agricultural land, so I think we need to something to preserve agricultural use on that property.

      David Cherington replied that, if you go throughout the State of Vermont and look at the so-called “country squire” buyers, “gentry” etc., I think even Robert would attest to that, that many of those people rent their agricultural land for a dollar an acre, or even nothing per acre for agricultural use, to many dairy farmers throughout Vermont.. Gordon said in some cases they actually pay a farmer to do this.

      Jeff McDonald said there is an unbuildable lot at present, because of the note that 7B does not have an approved septic design on it. Al agreed that there is some bit of control, but no control about the attitude of the purchaser. But David Cherington replied that if there were restrictions such as that they could not sell the property.

      Gordon Troy asked Mr. Cherington if the document he presented is “in stone” or are there things that could be changed?  There are a couple of open areas, he said.

      On Page 2 at the end of the second paragraph, it should say, “in perpetuity.”  In 1-3-C, between the words “property” and “owned” it should say “presently owned.”  On Page 3 Section 2-6, Gordon said it should end after the words, “separate parcels.” The whole idea is that it shall not be subdivided.

      On the top of Page 5, Section 3 #5, it makes reference to Section 3-10 which is not there. It may intend to make reference to 3-8.   In #6, 9 lines down of Page 5, it discusses guests and tenants.  David Cherington said that has been deleted.

      In Paragraph #7, Home Occupation is discussed and it is required that it be in the residence, and it should not be listed as “single family residence,” (because it is a duplex) why that couldn’t be put into the guest house and not be limited to the main residence.

      Gordon added that there should be an ability for the Conservation Fund, to be able to assign it to a “like entity.”

      Dean observed that in Paragraph 4, on page 5, it discusses the historic aspects, so that this is ultimately assigned to the Vermont Land Trust. David said they took the language in that paragraph from the Vermont Land Trust.

       Gordon asked, from Dean’s recommendations, if Paragraph 2A and 2B were removed, 2C became Paragraph 2, and Paragraph 3 was modified, retaining the first sentence:  “Lot 7B is approved as a 144.8 acre lot and is not approved for any construction or development because no information regarding sewage disposal capability has been presented. Pursuant to Section 13.2 of Chapter of the Subdivision Bylaws, the applicant agrees, and the Planning Commission has waived the requirement to demonstrate sewage disposal capability.  No building, construction or development of any kind shall occur on Lot 7B without further approval from the Charlotte Planning Commission.” David said that is acceptable.

      Dean said the survey of the 14 acre lot would probably be sufficient as long as there is a little composite showing its relationship to the entire lot. David Cherington said the surveyor has made a Mylar already.

      Dean said there is a version of the survey of Lot 14 that shows the replacement septic area designed by Civil Engin­eer­ing, Associates.  There will be a new Item 6 describing the septic design.  Dean said there should be one map. Instead of changing the map again, Dean said the Wastewater Plan could be recorded separately. David said if they can avoid bringing the surveyor back on site, that would be great.

      Al Moraska moved to close the hearing on the Conservation Fund application for a 2-lot subdivision and to take it up in deliberative session.  Martha Perkins seconded the motion and it was approved, 5-0 with 2 absent.

5.   Pre-Sketch Discussion:  Nancy Sabin has a store, and she would like to make the store into two 1-bedroom apart­ments. She said if she has to make it into one apartment, it would have to be at least a 4 or more bedroom apart­ment.

      Nancy asked Steve Brooks twice, to refrain from taking her picture.  Dave Brown asked about her septic. She has a 150' setback from the pond even though it is not a Class II or Class III wetland.  This is a change of use, Jeff noted, from a business to a residence. 

      Gordon Troy noted that she is now living in there with one separate apartment. Nancy wants to change the store to 2, 1-bedroom apartments.  Nancy said there are 7 bedrooms in the house. There is a 1-bedroom apartment in the house, which is separate. 

      Gordon said it appears that there is one non-conforming use.  Nancy Sabin said this was a 2-family house. She took out a dry well, an ice box, an outhouse and a dry well, and a hand pump. When her grandmother married her grandfather she insisted that it be split in two.  It was a legal 2-family house.  When Nancy added the store it was called a Cottage Industry, 22 years ago. That was a predecessor to a “home occupancy.” 

      She is just outside the line of the Village District.  Nancy said there were many more cars for her business, than there would be for 2 small apartments. She has 2 ½ acres and the building rights for the lot across the road. 

      Nancy wants the answer in writing, whichever way it goes. Nancy said she believes in affordable housing. The one apartment she rents for $510 per month with no utilities. As a landlady she feels that’s two high, but not when considering the $1200 for a new 2-bedroom apartment above the Brick Store, it doesn’t appear unreasonable.  “I’m sick of selling assets to afford my taxes for my house.”

      Dean said, Section 6.6 on Page 45, under “Non-conforming Uses,” a non-conforming use may not be changed to another non-conforming use ... without approval of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.

      Jeff said for septic, the State looks at an office as requiring 15 gallons per person, but for a residence that goes to 150 gallons per person.  Nancy said her septic tank is 1200 gallons.

      Gordon read a passage regarding designated historic buildings within the Town of Charlotte, and suggested that as an avenue to pursue. This is not talking about “Historic Structures.”

      Nancy said she would have to add 2 windows on the west side, but no changes on the east, north or south. The only other avenue might be the elderly dwelling.  In the new store she has nice stairs.  The old part of the store has stairs that are two narrow.

      Dean said the septic issue might be a sticking point and might require a design. Nancy said Frank O’Brien had done that design, but he is not in business now.

      Nancy said, trying to fill out an application, this doesn’t seem to apply.

      Al Moraska said on Page 3 of the Zoning Bylaws there are 10 elderly housing units allowed per 5 acres.  That would appear to mean that for her 2 ½ acres, she could have 5 elderly housing units.

      Nancy said that’s why this is a joke. We don’t want sprawl, but all the rules and regulations seem to require it. Martha Perkins moved to adjourn, at 8:50 p.m.  Al Moraska seconded and it was unanimous.

APPROVED BY THE CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION ON

 

________________________________________________________________________________________________

                                    Chairman                                                         Date

 

 

O:\Planning Commission\Minutes\2002\feb28.doc