CHARLOTTE
PLANNING COMMISSION
THURSDAY,
MARCH 4, 2004
7:00
PM
Charlotte
Town Hall – 159 Ferry Road
Members
Present: Members Absent:
Al Moraska Robin Pierce
Linda Radimer John Owen
Gordon Troy
Members
Absent:
Jim
Donovan
Robin
Pierce
John
Owen
Staff Present:
Dean Bloch
Others
Present:
Clark Hinsdale,
III Cindy
Metivier
David Miskell Carl Cole
Ellie Russell Charles Stearns
Clark Hinsdale,
Jr. Lynn
Mansfield
Sylvia Sprigg Eric Farrell
Linda Hamilton Kim Spadaccini
Pete Demick Jenny Gundee
Cindy
Metivier
Carl Cole
Charles
Stearns
Lynn
Mansfield
Eric Farrell
Kim
Spadaccini
Jenny
Gundee
Chair McDonald
called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA AND REDGULAR
AGENDA
CONSENT AGENDA: (Nothing on Consent Agenda)
Public Comment
Written Decisions
Minutes: December 4, February 5
December 4, 2003
- Mr.Troy will recirculate his comments. The PC directed Kim Johnson, recording
secretary, to listen to the tape of the meeting in order to ensure that the
transcript correctly reflects what was said at the meeting in order to clarify
certain sections of the minutes.
Marjorie Mansfield,
Randi McCuin, Lynn Mansfield, Lisa Gere, James Mansfield, and Lance Mansfield:
Final Plat Hearing for a two-lot subdivision.
Property located on Mount Philo Road and Lime Kiln Road in the Rural
District.
Lynn Mansfield,
representing the family, addressed the PC. She gave a brief history of the
matter. The Mansfield family owns
property on Mt. Philo Road and is looking to subdivide the east parcel of their
property into 2 lots – one is ten acres and the other is the balance consisting
of 113 acres.
The ten acres is
directly across the road from the house and they want to keep the barn and
outbuildings with the homestead and the property that they own on the west side
of the road. She showed a map which they submitted with the sketch plan.
Mr. Moraska
asked if both lots would stay in the current use program. Lynn said the first
one will be, but the remaining portion may or may not stay in the current use
program – it is currently listed with MLS to be sold. Mr. Troy asked if a
survey had been done on the entire parcel; Lynn said no. Mr. Troy said he thinks it would be logical
to have a survey done to make it cleaner for the applicant and that it would be
likely that it would have to be done in order to sell it anyway.
Mr. Moraska said
that it would be good if the lots would follow some sort of natural features on
the parcel (fence lines, stone walls, stream, etc.) but there aren’t any on
this particular parcel. Lynn responded by saying that they were trying to
maintain the back lot along the swale and there is a tree and they tried to
line things up with the hedgerow. Mr. Moraska asked if they planned to take out
the old barns on the property. Lynn said that they are going to do something
with them.
Mr. McDonald
asked if this application was associated with a prior subdivision. It goes back
more than ten years. Mr.Troy asked when was the granting in deed. Mr. Bloch
said it was in Volume 64, which is a long-time ago. Lynn said it was purchased
in 1909 by her great grandfather.
Staff comments:
Lynn asked, in
Item 3, in the Charlotte regulations, if somebody were to put a single family
home on the 113 acres, is there a requirement that they come back to the PC to
get a subdivision amendment for a building envelope and access approval? Mr. McDonald said yes, unless the septic is
defined now.
Lynn said she
wanted to understand more about the intent of the open space requirement noted
in Item 5. She expressed concern about either lot being unduly burdened with an
inaccurate percentage of the open space requirement. Mr. McDonald said it is
unique because the open space percentage usually gets taken off one lot, but in
this case it’s hard because neither lot is a building lot. The maximum is 5
acres of potential open space on a 10-acre lot under the current regulations,
Mr. Troy noted. Mr. Troy explained that the way it was worded in Item 5 is that
for Lot 1 to be burdened for the entire 123 acres is illogical and the other
way around, is that it is a minimalist burden if the 10 acres was pulled out of
the 123 acres. Lynn said she would prefer it if the open space requirement on
Lot 2 does not include Lot 1. Mr. McDonald noted that it is difficult not
knowing what the plan is for building. Lynn wants the first sentence to have
acknowledgement that the open space requirement is there for the future for new
owners.
It was agreed
that this issue would be discussed further during deliberations of this
application. Clark Hinsdale III read a
statement regarding this application, after which he gave copies to the PC for
the record. He asked that all Town regulations be applied in this application;
for example, consideration should be given to the trail network, open space
requirements, building envelopes should be sensitive to land, septic
regulations should not be waived, etc. The statement further asked that the
hearing be continued so the applicant can address the issues.
Lynn had no
comment on the statement.
Mr. McDonald
asked Dean Bloch if there was anything in the town trail plan that highlighted
this parcel. Mr. Bloch said that where the trail for Nordic Farm comes out is
across from Maguire Pent Road, a Class 4 road, adjacent to the parcel.
Mr. McDonald
asked for any other questions. Mr. Troy said that the issue of natural
subdivision should get answered (parcel on both sides of the road). Mr. Bloch
said he will check with the Town attorney. For legal purposes, the hearing
should not be closed until they have an answer. Mr. McDonald said that if a
parcel is bisected by a road, it is looked at as a separate lot. Mr. Moraska
said that a ruling was made by Stitzel’s office that a road creates two
individual lots for subdivision purposes. Mr. Bloch said case law is on
functionality and usually applied to at least a Class 3 road or higher to
create a natural subdivision; Mt. Philo Road applies.
Mr. Troy made a motion to
continue this hearing. Mr. Moraska and Mr. McDonald expressed
their opinion that they do not see a reason to continue this matter. Ms.
Russell agrees that the PC should continue this hearing. After discussion, Ms.
Radimer seconded the motion. A vote was
taken and all were in favor and the motion was unanimously PASSED. This hearing will be continued to
April 1st at 7:30 p.m.
Charles
Stearns: Preliminary Plat Hearing for a
Major Subdivision creating one common lot and six building lots for five single
family dwellings (market rate) and a two family dwelling (for affordable
housing), to be reviewed under planned residential development provisions. Property located on Spear Street Extension
in the Rural and Conservation Districts.
Charles Stearns
and Carl Cole addressed the meeting. Carl said that this plot has been
unchanged and he gave a brief background on the matter. Carl said Mr. Stearns’
proposal is to create six building lots, with Lot 2 to be designated as
affordable housing and the other 5 lots will be accessed by a 60-foot
right-of-way, tied in to the existing driveway. Therefore, there will not be a
new curb cut. It is proposed that all
the wastewater be concentrated in one area – about midway down the east
property line on a knoll and an engineered proposed system is conventional
leech beds. When the road and the underground utilities are installed, Carl
said that Mr. Stearns would also install a force main leading to the individual
leech beds to the lots that they are associated with. The Plan results in 22.48
acres of open space when they take out the easements. Carl went on to say that
there is no plan to impact the wooded area, except slightly on Lot 7. All of
the open space is proposed to be in common ownership with each of the unit
owners. Lot 2 is planned for 2 units of affordable housing (duplex). Therefore,
there will be 6 lots with 7 units. Mr. Moraska asked if the common area will be
managed by all of the owners and Carl said yes. They would have an agreement on
how to use the open field, etc. He said a Declaration of Covenants will be part
of the package and it will address that issue. Linda Hamilton from the
Conservation Committee said that the purpose of the common area should be kept
available for future agricultural use. Ms. Radimer asked if they had any birds
that nest there and, if so, that may affect the number of cuttings done per
year. Carl said it would need to be cut in order to maintain it in good
agricultural condition. Ms. Hamilton said that the appropriate way to go for
the Conservation Committee would be to work with members of the association to
discuss different options as to manage that – e.g. time of cutting, etc.
Mr. McDonald
asked for questions. Mr. Bloch noted that in past applications the PC has not
wanted open space to be divided by fences. Carl said that before they address
the PC again, he will work with the language in the Declaration of Covenants to
address this issue. Mr. Bloch confirmed with Mr. Cole that the fire department
has not yet reviewed the fire pond as yet. Carl said they will extend the
hydrant as much as they can, but will have to have some sort of road there.
Carl said they would like to have the development road intersect the existing
driveway at a slight angle because if it doesn’t, there would be a problem with
headlights shining on neighbors – if at an angle, headlights won’t shine
directly at neighbors.
It was
determined that another site visit would be a good idea. Mr. Troy asked what is
presently staked; Carl said nothing. There are surveyor’s grade stakes and lot
boundaries are pinned. Ms. Radimer asked if they would put markers where house
sites will be and Carl said he would. She also said she would like to see the
roadway indicated.
Mr. McDonald
asked for questions. Chris Metivier expressed a concern about the force main
going through Lot 6. She sees potential issues re excavating and would like to
see more about how the house site will be and that it will not encroach on the
force main. She thinks there is some room for tweaking boundaries. Mr. Moraska
said there is an existing main going through there now and asked if it would
follow the same path. Carl said where the road crosses it, they would make sure
it is embedded in sand and well insulated. Jenny Gundee asked about the sewer
main and sewer easement and if it was going in or out of the field? Mr. McDonald answered that it was going in
the disposal field. She also asked if there was enough water to support all of
the proposed buildings. Mr. McDonald said that this question was raised at
sketch plan review. Carl said that he did a survey of the wells in the area and
many of them were not documented so there were no records. He did talk with Rob Frost who has drilled
several wells in the area; the whole south end of Mt. Philo Road is a problem,
but he assured that they can get enough water on each of the lots. Mr. Moraska
asked if they would have individual wells and Carl said yes.
Mr. McDonald
asked for any more comments or questions on the planner’s notes. There were
none.
Affordable housing
– Dean Bloch said John Owen apologized that he couldn’t be at the meeting
tonight; Dean distributed his email to the PC members and the applicant
addressing this issue. Carl said nothing has been resolved at this point, but
will have to be before final. As to what the affordable lot is sold for, etc.,
he said he doesn’t think it is a concern of the PC or should be because the
purpose for tonight’s discussion was to change the subdivision from a 4-lot one
to a 6-lot one per the PC’s direction. Mr. Moraska explained that the applicant
was receiving a density bonus and the PC was just ensuring that the process
worked properly. Mr. Bloch further clarified that in order to get density
bonus, the applicant needs to have an agreement with an affordable housing entity
before they come in for the final hearing. He further said that the PC is not
involved in pricing, but just making sure the applicant has an agreement with a
provider.
Carl then
distributed different versions for Lot 6 because of the potential problem of
the force main (Plans A and B). They showed different locations of Lots 6 and
7. One plan moved closer to Spear Street and the other plan moved farther away
from Spear Street. Linda Hamilton asked that if the association wanted a barn
on Lot 1 that they would share would they have to come to the PC to get
permission to put a barn there? Mr. Troy said it would depend upon what is in
the open space agreement, predicated on what resources are being protected.
Carl said he will stake out the original plan and then for the site visit, talk
about Plans A and B. Linda Hamilton commented that in Plan B, they are staying
out of the wooded area more than any of the other alternatives. Mr. Troy asked
if Plan B was getting closer to a wetland area. Carl said no; the dotted lines
are not necessarily the setbacks; they are a general area of where the house
will be which is above the wetland area. Carl also noted that they plan to put
the fire pond half in the Class 3 wetland and half out of it.
Mr. McDonald
recommended continuing this hearing. Kim Spadaccini asked if there was anything
proposed as far as increased noise and lack of privacy. Mr. McDonald said that
they will talk about that issue. Mr. Moraska asked what kind of noise she was
concerned about. Ms. Spadaccinitisano
said that there are a number of houses proposed and no trees to absorb the
noise. Chris Metivier reiterated that concern; she suggested that something be
written into the bylaws about how lots are developed and suggested making noise
protection a requirement.
Mr. Troy made a motion to
continue this hearing to April 15, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Moraska seconded. A
vote was taken and the motion was unanimously PASSED.
A site visit is
scheduled for April 15, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. with the hearing continued the same
evening at 7:30 p.m. It is open for anyone to attend.
Estate of Marietta
J.C. Palmer: Preliminary Plat Hearing
for a Major Subdivision creating five building lots for single family
dwellings, to be reviewed under planned residential development
provisions. Property located off on
Ethan Allen Highway, East Thompsons Point Road, and Greenbush Road in the
Rural, Industrial and Conservation Districts.
Eric Farrell
addressed the PC, representing the Estate of Marietta Palmer. He began by informing
the PC of two things which happened since the last time they appeared before
the PC.
He explained
that previously there were 143 acres made up the entire parcel. The Estate has
since sold 24 acres of industrial land. The other thing that has happened was
that when Clark Hinsdale, III took his Kingsland Farm project through, the road
that is part of the Palmer estate project, moved slightly to the east and now
it serves two houses and 3 houses in Kingsland Farm and the proposed
subdivision.
Therefore, the
entire parcel is now 118 acres total. At sketch plan, it was recommended to
eliminate a ten-acre lot and a 7-acre lot and they were already under contract,
Mr. Farrell continued to explain. He said they peacefully got out of their
arrangements with those homeowners. So now they are here tonight with a
proposed 5-lot subdivision.
Proposal: Mr. Farrell said that Lot 1 is currently the
same as before; it has frontage on E. Thompsons Point Road and access is on a
new road being called Palmer Lane. It also has two building envelopes. Pete
Demick is going to buy that lot and doesn’t have plans yet.
The farmhouse
lot (11.5 acres) - There is an existing duplex that fronts on Route 7 and has a
proposed right of-way to connect to Palmer Lane and there is Lot 5 (4 acres)
opposite Mr. Demick’s house. Another building envelope opposite the new home
that Peter KahnConn
is building on the existing parcel he bought from Sylvia Sprigg (Lot 2) and a new
6-acre lot being created west of the KahnConn house.
They are looking
for 3-unit approval on the farmhouse lot. The others are proposed to be
single-family houses. Out of 118 acres, building envelopes total 35 acres and
no-build areas total 83 acres. Therefore,
70% will remain open. Houses will be clustered along Palmer Lane. There is no
common lot; road and septic are burdened on Lot 2 by way of deeded easements
and rights-of-way.
Mr. McDonald
asked for questions. Mr. Troy asked where the lot lines were. Mr. Farrell
directed him to the plat. Ms. Radimer asked if the road coming into Lot 3 was
in the general area of the existing farm road. Mr. Farrell said it was. She
asked if it would make more sense to continue it forward and access the
southerly building envelope on Lot 1. Pete Demick said you wouldn’t want to see
the road from E.Thompsons Point Road and it would make more sense to come
around back instead of the road coming through the farm field. Sylvia Sprigg said that bird nesting
isn’t on the building envelope; there is a big oak tree on the property that
has a tree which holds an osprey nest.
Ms. Sprigg
also noted that where the driveway comes into Lot 3, that is the farm road that
extends along the fence line all the way to the end of the property; it is 2
distinct agricultural areas with a farm road bed and a fence line that goes
down through it. Pete Demick said he has no plans to build houses in there, but
thinks the option should be left open and if he changed his mind, he would come
back to the PC to seek advice. Linda Radimer suggested that the proposed
building envelope in Lot 1 not encompass the entire area. Mr. Troy suggested
there should be floating building zone in Lot 1. Dean Bloch, at this time,
distributed John Owen’s notes for this issue. Mr. Moraska said he thought it
would make more sense to use, as access to the building envelope on Lot 1, the
existing farm road which extends all the way to the west. This would also
eliminate the need for the upper access on Thompsons Point Road to the eastern
building envelope.
The following
were comments made on Dean Bloch’s notes (#s reflect Mr. Bloch’s #s in his
letter):
1. building envelope – looking at a floating one. Mr. Moraska
said, regarding the building envelope on Lot 2, in terms of topography, the
contour of the land goes down and he asked how that fits in. Eric Farrell said
it is high ground there. Sylvia Sprigg said that it is septic area to the north
of it. There was concern about visibility from Thompsons Point Road to Route 7.
Ms. Sprigg said
that it is an open meadow and there is no visibility problem.
8. Mr. Farrell distributed a drawing of the
cross-section of Palmer Lane. He explained that it will serve less than 5
houses on Lot 1, Lot 3 and potentially on Lot 5 and that it reflects the road
standards in the Town regulations.
10.Mr.
Farrell asked about the operation and maintenance agreement for the private
road or the septic system. He asked the PC if they had an interest in it
because it is a private agreement between the lot owners. Mr. Troy said yes,
because it is part of the subdivision approval. Mr. Farrell said he will
provide electronic copies of those operation and maintenance agreements to Dean
Bloch in advance of the final hearing.
Mr. Farrell
clarified that there are 50 feet around the wetlands. He said that there were a
couple of areas that showed greater than minimum setbacks along the boundaries.
The intent was to maintain minimum setbacks along the property lines.
Sylvia Sprigg asked how the total
septic capacity for the property was to be allocated. Mr. Farrell said that he
doesn’t know yet, but for the most part, the homes will be 4-bedroom
single-family homes. Linda Hamilton said that the Conservation Committee would
need field delineation of the wetlands along Thorpe Brook to determine where
the buffer zone would go on the land. Ms. Sprigg said that it is naturally
delineated.
Trails – Mr.
Farrell said that it is acceptable to the applicant to use the trail. Ms. Sprigg said she wanted clarification for the water
for individual lots. Mr. Farrell said there will be individually drilled wells
for each lot and there is an existing spring on Lot 1 and another lot. Lot 4 has rights to that upper right hand
one and Conn, Demick and other neighbors have rights to the existing spring on
Lot 1. Lots 2, 3 and 5 need to get
their own water.
David Miskell
said that large scale fields are worthless in terms of agricultural
productivity. The value in doing smaller fields makes more sense, unless
they’re in dairy. Pete Demick said they’re planning to do organic farming and don’t
know if other field use would be a concern.
Mr. Troy made a motion to
close this hearing. Mr. Moraska
seconded. All were in favor and the motion was unanimously PASSED.
Chris Boffa:
Continuation of Subdivision Amendment to create new access and
right-of-way. Property located on Mount
Philo Road in the Rural District.
Dean Bloch
reported that Mr. Boffa is still awaiting response from the State of Vermont
regarding his Act 250 application. Mr.
Troy made a motion to continue this matter to six months from today. Ms.
Radimer seconded. All were in favor and the motion was unanimously PASSED.
ADJOURN
Mr. Troy made a motion to
adjourn. Ms. Radimer seconded. All were in favor and the motion was unanimously
PASSED.
Meeting
adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
O:\Planning
Commission\Minutes\2004\March 04.doc