CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION
Town Offices, 425-3533
7:00 p.m., Thursday, March
21, 2002
Members
Present: Chairman Jeff McDonald Al Moraska Gordon Troy
Josie
Leavitt Jim
Donovan
Members
Absent: Martha Perkins Dave Brown
Officials
Present: Planner Dean Bloch
Guests Signed
In: Michael Burke Stephen C. Brooks
Dawn
Wulfson Mark
Smits
Lorna
Jimerson Eleanor
Russell
1. General
Business, Review of Minutes: The minutes for February 21st were
reviewed. Details were added and some sentences were reworded for
clarification, and two names of persons speaking were corrected (Frank Lambert,
not Frank Lavallette, and Charles Lemieux, who did not sign in). Jim Donovan moved to approve the minutes
for February 21, 2002 with corrections. Josie Leavitt seconded, and the
motion to approve was 5-0 with two members absent.
2.
Robert and Lorna Jimerson, -- Final Plat Hearing for 2-Lot Subdivision: Mike
Burke represented the Jimersons.
Jeff stated that the Sketch Plan had been
named a Minor Subdivision in December. Mike Burke was asked to give an
overview.
This subdivision is at Roscoe Road and
Lewis Creek Road, which Mike described on the map. The parcel is approximately
24 acres and it is being divided into two parcels. There is an existing house
on the lot -- which is in bad shape and may not be salvageable. There are two places where mound-style
septic could be installed, and a second system at the edge of the pasture,
slightly up into the woods. Most of the lot is wooded.
One building envelope would include the
old house but the old house doesn’t have enough front yard setbacks, if
replacing the old house. Then there is
an alternate building envelope back behind the power lines.
Driveway sight distances are adequate.
Existing curb cuts would be shared, one driveway would be in the shared right
of way of Wayne Palmer.
Gordon Troy asked what would be done with
the road / driveway maintenance. Lorna Jimerson said she believes she is
responsible for this; Wayne Palmer plows the driveway now. It’s in the deed that whoever owns it is
responsible up to the part they own.
Jim Donovan suggested that she might want to change that, so that it is
up to the split. Dean’s recommendations
were that the access easement (60-ft. wide) be put on the plat.
Al Moraska asked, if they choose to use
the building envelope for Lot 1, up on the hill, where would the driveway
go? (There is a concern about wetland.) Mike replied that if the driveway stays next
to the property line where the original driveway is, it would be away from the
wet area. Mike offered to further define that driveway on the map.
At this time, Lorna Jimerson said, it
hasn’t been decided if that building envelope up on the hill will be used. Mike said he would put a note on the map to
indicate the possible location of the driveway, if the southern building
envelope is chosen instead of the one that includes the existing house.
Dean Bloch had called to attention 8
points of issue, which are addressed in the recommended motion to approve.
Jim
Donovan moved that the Planning Commission approve the Robert and Lorna
Jimerson application for a 2-lot subdivision, with the following conditions:
The Final Plat shall be
revised as follows:
A force main
easement shall be indicated between the southern portion of the building envelope
on Lot 1 and the septic field.
The septic easement for Lot 1 shall
include metes and bounds.
The building
envelopes shall include metes and bounds, and the northern portion of the building
envelope for Lot 1 shall be labeled (i.e. as a building envelope).
The Minimum
Lot Frontage shall indicate 300 ft.
A Planning
Commission Approval block and a Town Clerk recording block shall be added.
The deed for
Lot 1 shall include the septic easement on the Jimersons adjoining lot. The
deed for lot 2 shall include the access easement for Wayne Palmer, heirs and
assigns.
Prior to the
conveyance of Lot 1, the applicants shall record an amended deed for their adjoining
parcel, which includes the septic easement for Lot 1.
I f the constructed force main is located in such an area as
to need an easement of over the adjoining Jimerson parcel, an as-built
wastewater plan for Lot 1 shall be submitted which shows the location of the
force main and associated easement.
All new
utility lines shall be installed underground.
An 18-ft. by
24-ft. Mylar of the Final Plat (revised in accordance with Condition 1 above)
shall be submitted to the Planning Commission within 60 days and recorded in
the Charlotte Land Records within 90 days.
Gordon Troy seconded the motion, and
discussion followed. There was a concern that in case there is a new driveway
built the crushed stone material be only
of the non-white type of stone. That will be an added condition #7, and was
accepted as a friendly amendment.
Before the vote on the motion was taken,
Stephen Brooks asked where the new utility lines would be put, and will they
have to bury the lines. Jeff said the Planning Commission is not asking the
applicant to bury what is existing.
Al Moraska saw that there is a note about
spring water mentioned on the Palmer property plat (some unknown spring
rights), and asked if that is where they get the water. Mike said a lot of old
farms had that language in the deeds, but the applicants each have a drilled
well where they get their water.
Lorna Jimerson said there is a cistern in
the bottom of the old Palmer house and there were pipes from someplace on the
hill, so that could be the undefined spring.
It is not an issue now, she said.
Gordon Troy said there could be a note on the Mylar. Mike said the
Boundary Survey does reference the spring that way.
Dean Bloch repeated that the location of
the driveway needs to be delineated in the event that the southern building
envelope is used. Mike agreed, and
added that the correct location for that would be along the easterly side,
coming in off that existing driveway cuff.
Gordon added another friendly amendment,
#8, that the maintenance of the driveway
at the split with the Palmer driveway be put on the deed for Lot 2. Jim Donovan accepted that addition also.
Stephen Brooks asked if the house that may
possibly be demolished is insignificant.
Lorna Jimerson said she has never gotten to the point of deciding
whether to demolish it. Jim Donovan
said that is not actually a part of this application. This is not listed as a historic structure, according to the Town
survey. Gordon said the Town doesn’t
even have authority to go into that in a subdivision.
Stephen persisted, saying that it sounds
to him, the way the application is written, that the application is applying to
take down the house, and he wants someone to determine if the house is
significant or if it is insignificant.
Jim Donovan said there are two things: if it is officially designated as
historical, and secondly how that ties into the Subdivision regulations.
Jeff McDonald said that there is a
property with an existing structure on it that is part of the subdivision. Whatever they decide to do with the house,
doesn’t seem material to dividing off the land.
Josie asked Lorna what her take on the
house is. Lorna said the main part of
the house has probably been there for about 100 years and has had some parts
added onto it. She has had a few people look at it, and everyone so far has
said it is in pretty bad shape.
According to the Palmers, the house has never had any historical
designation and is not in any historical registry.
Jim said, for the Standards,
The Planning Commission
should give due regard to the preservation of historic structures and areas
including villages, covered bridges, agricultural structures, stone walls, and
public buildings.
And in Required Improvements in Design
Standards, under Existing Features
They are historical features
as identified in the Town Plan or as identified by the Planning Commission,
shall be preserved insofar as possible through harmonious design, appropriate
construction methods, and in accordance with the Policies and Standards set
forth in the Town Plan and Bylaws.
Jim Donovan moved to add another condition
(#9) that the old house should be
preserved insofar as possible through harmonious design, appropriate
construction methods, and in accordance with the policies and standards set
forth in the Town Plan. Lorna asked
if that condition locks her into preserving the house. No, she was told. For instance if it were going to cost $200,000 to fix the house
and it has never been brought to our attention that it’s a historical site, and
it is not in the Town Plan as a historical site. Jim said we should not be holding up the subdivision if the
standards don’t exist now while we make some standards.
Gordon said the real point is the weakness
in the regulatory system that we have for the Town as it pertains to these
kinds of issues. We are not in a
position to hold up the subdivision on the basis of whether or not this is a
historical structure or not. Stephen
Brooks said he thinks the Planning Commission has the burden to determine
that. Jeff said we have a Town Plan
that has already identified the historic structures and that is not listed.
Jim said he tends to agree with Steve, but
the current language has no standards in place as to how to answer Steve’s
question. Steve thinks the Planning
Commission owes a good faith effort to investigate whether this house is of
historical significance or not. But in
absence of anything other than the Town Plan being in place currently, we have
no way of doing any additional studies.
Therefore we cannot answer the question, other than looking at the Town
Plan, whether it’s considered historical or not until we’ve set up additional
criteria or adopted criteria. So
therefore we have to go by the Town Plan until we have something else in
place. Jeff said that statement can be
put in the Findings of Fact, that this structure is not identified as a
significant historic structure in the Town Plan. That’s the purpose of the Town Plan.
Jeff
called for a vote on the motion. The
motion to approve the subdivision was 5-0 with 2 absent.
3. Dawn Wulfson, Sketch for
Subdivision Amendment: Dawn Wulfson and Mark Smits
appeared, to explain their request. [Al
Moraska said he is an abutter for that property so recused himself from commenting
on this project.]
Dawn explained her application to amend
the Subdivision condition requiring that this Lot use a shared driveway within
the development. She said her
contractor, Mike St. Hillaire, had told her he had obtained a waiver of that
requirement from Robert Mack, and from the Zoning Administrator. But she did
not have any documentation of this. Therefore the contractor built a driveway
directly out to the road, making an additional curb cut.
Dean noted in his statement of issues,
that the overriding criterion in this situation is the minimization of curb
cuts. The access was discussed during the subdivision process. By using the
common roadway, the visual break-up of the surrounding fields by multiple
driveways is reduced.
The applicant’s deed indicates that the lot
is to be accessed by the common road (which is Night Run Lane) (See Item 5 on
the deed). The covenants (Item 11) also
refer to the common road, as does the Subdivision Final Plat Decision and the recorded
survey plat. Dawn asked if the Planning
Commissioners had driven by the new house and driveway, and said in her opinion
it looks better as it is. That doesn’t
make any difference, she was told. Gordon said the problem is, as it is with
other situations, is that when people want to subdivide the land and then go
ahead and change it from the way that it was approved. Somehow some think that if they don’t do
this in the way that it was approved, that they can come in and get the
conditions changed because the builder wanted to save some money, or some other
reason. Dawn said she changed it
because she didn’t want to go past the other person’s front lawn, and it just
looked better that way.
Mark asked how they can get the amendment
approved to keep the driveway as it is. Jeff replied that they would have to
prove some hardship, that there is absolutely no way they can have the driveway
as it was originally approved. This is
a Sketch Plan, but the applicants are advised that it isn’t likely that if it
comes in with a Subdivision Amendment application, that it would be approved.
[ At this point Stephen Brooks was taking a
photograph of the applicant, and she requested that he not publish her
photograph. ]
Mark asked if they have to rebuild the
driveway themselves, in light of the fact that the contractor is gone now and
would not be rebuilding the driveway.
Several Planning Commissioners replied that they would indeed have to
pay for this themselves, and Gordon advised them to hire a lawyer after that.
There
is a 60-ft. right of way for the driveway, but they were advised that the
driveway only has to be 15-ft. wide and it can be designed anywhere they want
within that 60 feet to minimize the effects. Also, the applicant has to identify
the additional curb cut as not being in compliance with the subdivision
conditions.
4.
Dean announced that there was a Site Visit at 6:00, at the Gahagan property,
and that Gordon, Jeff, Josie, Al, Jim and himself were there. Also the applicants were there, as was
Kennedy Snow.
Gordon asked the owner why the lot lines
were delineated as they were. It would have split the pond in half. For some
reason Mr. Gahagan had thought he had to have the septic on the new piece of
property. With the information that the septic didn’t have to be on the new
lot, in reality he thinks that he can draw a straight line to divide it into
two equal properties of 5 acres each.
If he put the line on the point of the hill where it would be an even 5
acres, as a straight line running from Whalley Road to the north, rather than
the AZ@ configuration that he originally presented, and then grant an easement
for the septic and keeping the pond on one of the lots. There is plenty of room
with the setback requirements. He has
to have the setback from both roads, even though the new driveway will now come
off Popple Dungeon Road.
According to the map the wet area is
within the wooded area. Jim said the
wet meadows might be larger than expected, and that there should be another
site visit. Jim said he is not in favor of dividing any lot unless it is
determined that it is buildable.
Jeff said the Planning Commission’s
observations at the Site Visit shouldn’t be in the Sketch Plan letter. Dean
said he thought those observations should be in the letter, and Al said we
should make known the optimal choice. Josie recalled that Mr. Gahagan had said
he would get someone to make the wetland determination. Dean suggested that the letter state that
For the Subdivision Application, the Planning Commission recommends that the
applicant have the wetland delineated.
Gordon added that the collective opinion
is that the house site should be at the southeast corner of the property within
the setback, and that driveway should come off Popple Dungeon Road. Jeff asked that the letter also say that the
CPC would like to see the property lines straightened out.
5.
Written draft decision for the Remo Pizzagalli: The members agreed with the
draft decision as written by Dean Bloch.
Al Moraska moved to approve the Pizzagalli subdivision as written, and
Gordon Troy seconded the motion. It was
approved, 5-0 with two members absent.
6. Village Planning Process: Discussion of several
issues ensued. Jeff indicated that there is a Village Master Plan that has been
put together after many committees, a charette, etc. Jim Donovan strongly recommends that we not redo anything in
Items 1 through 4, but work on 5 and 6 only at this time. Ellie Russell took
part in this initial discussion; so on this coming Monday at the Selectboard
meeting, there will be CPC members present.
Al noted that the Selectboard will appoint
a committee of people to work on the Economic Committee. At this point Stephen Brooks was advising
the Planning Commission to treat the new Selectboard as new people who have
very little experience, and advising that the Planning Commission do all the
planning and then just hand it off to the Selectboard.
Gordon agreed that this is a fundamental
Planning issue, and will be asking that the Planning Commission have an active
part in the Economic Committee when the members are selected. Historically each of these things that have
been decided by the Selectboard and other committees, have not been treated as
Planning Commission duties, and that should change.
Gordon said that Burnt Rock (who did this
for many different Towns) should be commissioned, for $1900, to go over the
Town Plan and regulations and identify the discrepancies and duplications that
may or may not exist. Dean said there is
$5,000 in the budget for this.
Jim Donovan said in his opinion, Burnt
Rock is the very best qualified of such consultants, and they know the laws and
have the expertise to do the job.
Gordon noted that Jim’s company and one other besides Burnt Rock had bid
on the Town of Warren’s contract, and that the Town of Warren was pleased with
the job that Burnt Rock did in their Zoning rewrite.
Steve Brooks said he thinks this third
party is a good idea. It will take the politics out of it. Gordon said this is just to deal with the
Zoning review issues and determining how to best proceed at this time. (This is
referring to Zoning Regulation work to be done this year.)
The Selectboard has to appoint the
Economic Committee. The Planning Commission may request that they be asked to
assist. Ellie said the Vermont Land Trust has to agree. Jim said if there is money in the budget
right now, Burnt Rock needs to be contacted now to discuss this point.
Some of
the members will be at the Selectboard meeting on Monday.
The CPC meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
APPROVED BY THE CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION ON
|
|
Chairman Date
O:\Planning Commission\Minutes\2002\mar21.doc