Charlotte Planning Commission

Minutes of Meeting of

April 3, 2003

Charlotte Town Hall – 159 Ferry Road

Town Office – (802) 425-3533

Members Present: Jeff McDonald, Chair

Jim Donovan

Gene Diou

Al Moraska

Gordon Troy

Members Absent: Linda Radimer

Officials Present: Dean Bloch

Public Present: Stephen C. Brooks

Marty Illick

Sylvia Sprigg

Chris Boffa

Ellie Russell

Anita Payea

Lisa Gabriel

John Patnaude

Sue Patneaude

David Miskell

Linda Hamilton

Chair Jeff McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.

7:10 APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA AND REGULAR AGENDA (Nothing on Consent Agenda). However, Mr. Bloch mentioned one addition, which was a question to the PC if they wanted a representative from VELCO to address the PC? Mr. McDonald said that they would discuss this issue later if time permitted.

7:10 PUBLIC COMMENT

none

7:12 CONSERVATION COMMITTEE AND LEWIS CREEK ASSOCIATION: DISCUSSION

Marty Illick and Linda Hamilton addressed the PC. Ms. Illick showed a notebook to the PC, which she said was compiled for every town in the watershed, which was very helpful in that the notebook focuses on issues surrounding the watersheds and these resources cross town boundaries. Lewis Creek Association has shared this with the Charlotte Conservation Committee as well, she said. She has brought it to the PC to store it on the self in the Town offices. Mr. Moraska asked if they would be making up a list of recommendations and how it applies to the Planning Commission regulations. Ms. Illick said yes and in the Lewis Creek section is the first cut at their people looking at the wildlife stream bank, wetlands and natural resource parts of the town. Lewis Creek has made some conclusions and she remarked that it is dependent on neighbors to have healthy ecosystems. This notebook, she said, is a guide to help make maps and create new language for zoning and planning, as well as to show the State that the systems are in good enough shape so that the Town of Charlotte doesn’t have to build huge storm sheds. Mr. Troy asked that, when looking at a specific parcel, would the PC have the tools of pulling the data about that parcel from the collection of material in this notebook in order to plan the specific site or subdivision that they are dealing with? Ms. Illick responded by saying that the notebook is a resource tool, a supplemental compendium piece that complements the build-out. Linda Hamilton from the Charlotte Conservation Committee (CCC) responded as well by saying that Dean Bloch is familiar with the material in this notebook as well as knowing where to go for the advice he needs, e.g. what should the buffer be on a stream in a specific area. Ms. Illick said that when Lewis Creek Associates did prepare the data layers for the build-out, they had to make every town jive and one of the biggest problems was the surface water. Mr. Moraska said that a major concern is consistency and asked if Lewis Creek is coordinating with information the PC has on their maps and Ms. Illick said yes. Mr. Troy advised that the PC and its consultants would be looking for is language that can be utilized as a parameter for what it is doing when it is dealing with a specific parcel in the regulations. Ms. Hamilton said that we are all in this together (consultants, PC, town government entities) and think that this notebook should go to consultants to review. Mr. Troy commented that it has to be clear what the objective is that the PC wants to achieve and what is the data that it can use to satisfy the objective in a manner that is nonsubjective.

Ms. Illick asked what issues the Charlotte PC has faced. Mr. Moraska said that the regulations update is the big project in the near future and any help that Lewis Creek can offer in that area would be appreciated. Ms. Illick asked if there were any voids in zoning. Mr. McDonald said they have an “oops” list that shows where gaps are. Mr. Donovan said that a way to help the PC would be a methodology to evaluate equally the non-similar items of visual resources, water protection, wildlife resources and ag land conservation. Ms. Hamilton said that communities have developed models for weighting the public values and there are several models. The immediate thing that is helpful is a map that was the open space map. It layers graphically when an area has the resources so the PC will have a graphic cue as to how important that area is. Ms. Illick said it is important to state what is valued most and be consistent. She also expressed her concern for the water supply in the town. She said that buffer overlay districts are the most important thing for the town. Mr. Moraska said that the question of property rights should be put into the equation.

7:55 MINUTES: January 2, February 20, March 6, March 20

Mr. McDonald said that this item would be moved to the end of the meeting; time permitting.

7:55 CHRIS BOFFA: FINAL PLAT HEARING FOR A 3-LOT SUBDIVISION, CREATING TWO BUILDING LOTS AND ONE LOT FOR AN EXISTING DWELLING. PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6307 MOUNT PHILO ROAD IN THE RURAL ZONING DISTRICT.

Chris Boffa addressed the meeting and went over the plat and notes. He said Lot 1 has the existing house and existing driveway and that will remain. Lots 2 and 3 – he has an agreement to come off of Stearns development with a 60 foot right of way. Waste water – all three sites are going to have new septic systems. There is an easement in place for wastewater, which has been submitted to the town and state. His one comment for consideration is that Mr. Bloch talked about moving the building envelope to the south side of the hedgerow (Lot 3) and that whole area is planted with alfalfa – it is not a large ag area, but to have it as such was his concept. Mr. Moraska asked how much acreage would be for ag land. Mr. Boffa said that the proposed building envelopes are oversized, so he guessed it would be a judgment of how much area each house site has. There was discussion about designating the western side of Lots 2 and 3 as ag. Mr. Donovan said it doesn’t have to be named as ag use, but that ag use could be possible. Mr. Moraska said that they would want to retain some sort of ag land. Mr. Boffa said that in terms of this parcel, there is potential for that. Mr. Donovan suggested putting an ag easement on it; an inter-party agreement between the applicant and a future lot owner. Mr. Boffa proposed a 200 foot envelope. Mr. Donovan said that, in terms of the building envelope for Lot 3, if Mr. Boffa wanted to maintain the same size, he suggests modifying the envelope so it is a rectangle so it would be all on the north side of the hedgerow. Mr. Boffa said that he is agreeable with that. Mr. Troy suggested to make it smaller as well and that the building envelope is inapplicable to farm structures. Mr. Boffa said his intent in the deed would be to have more specific language in terms of where they would like the house to go. The PC recommended to shrink the building envelopes. Ms. Hamilton said Mr. Boffa could designate a no-build zone that runs with the title of the land. Mr. Troy said he could do a combination of the two between the dwelling unit footprint needing to be within the building envelope and then have a much larger area that is a non-build zone which would be the area where you could put the farm structure. Mr. Troy recommended another site visit. Mr. Donovan asked about the 30-foot easement around the south and east sides of lot 2. Mr. Boffa said it was a sewer easement. Mr. Donovan asked if it was possible to move it out because it was going through the hedge and it would destroy the eastern line of the hedgerow. Mr. Boffa said that he is agreeable to that and it can be moved out. Mr. Donovan also suggested shifting the 10-foot trail easement so the hedgerow would not be destroyed and Mr. Boffa agreed. Mr. McDonald asked Mr. Boffa to put something in writing about protecting the hedgerow.

Anita Royer, a neighbor, said that, in terms of the building envelope, being behind the hedgerow is favorable – her house is a farmhouse on the road and so the hedgerow is visual protection. She also said that she is pleased to hear that it will be protected. She asked about the septic and Mr. Boffa responded by saying that there is an easement so that wastewater will be disposed of on the Stearns’ land. New systems will pump out all septic systems to Stearns, which Mr. Boffa said he has reviewed with the State. There are three independent pumps out to where the Stearns have the big field and each one has a replacement area. All three pipes will be put in at once and there will be three leach fields.

Steve Brooks asked if the lot in front of Mr. Boffa’s house was preexisting and if it was a legal building lot. Mr. Boffa said that it is preexisting and that he is under contract with the owner to purchase it. Mr. Bloch said it may be a building lot but doesn’t know the answer to that. Mr. Brooks asked if there was any impact if it is or isn’t? Mr. Bloch said that the applicant has an easement over that lot for the individual, existing house. Mr. Brooks said he was speaking about the Clark lot and whether it is a legal building lot or not and if there are any implications on this if it is a legal building lot. And he furthered his questions by asking if it was possible for the applicant to meet its economic objective by creating a really nice 2-unit condo in one building. Mr. Boffa said that was not his intent. The neighbor that was present said that she bought over an acre from the Clark trust and was told by the Town that even though it was over an acre, it wasn’t a buildable lot.

Mr. McDonald asked if there were any other questions. Mr. Moraska asked if there were individual wells. Mr. Boffa said yes; there is a setback issue with the state relative to the septic system so the location of the wells is based on septic design. Mr. Bloch asked if there was water in those particular spots and Mr. Boffa answered by saying that an engineer placed it based on the setback for the well and he has spoken with Vermont Well and they’ve seen the plan and are confident. Mr. Troy expressed the concern that the well for Lot 2 is in an area that they want to keep in productive use and perhaps it can be moved somewhere else. It was noted that there was an ag zone around the well, e.g. you couldn’t put fertilizer around it. Mr. Boffa asked the definition of “ag use.” Mr. Moraska said that it is an issue of manure possibly spreading E-coli, as well as an issue with fertilizer and chemicals having a potential to contaminate wells. Mr. McDonald suggested specifying the location of the wells to be located within the building envelopes. Mr. Boffa said it could be looked at and he will investigate it. It was suggested to continue this matter due to all the issues discussed.

ISSUES:

Building envelope – Lots 2 and 3. Clarify whether building envelope is just for residential use or outbuildings for farm structure as well. Potential of making no-build zone. Place easements so as not to disturb the hedgerows. Mr. Boffa wants to find a well location which minimizes agricultural impact. He asked the PC for an appropriate envelope size and said that the height is something he is interested in limiting. PC said that limiting the square footage of the house is not an issue, just the height (35 feet is the requirement for that zone and 28 feet is what is used more in the neighborhood). Sylvia Sprigg expressed her concern over the difference in the value of the lots, i.e. vast difference in economic value and suggested not putting as many limitations as on single family development. Mr. Moraska said the goal is to preserve as much of the ag land as possible and that would be accomplished by making the building envelope smaller or moving it back a little bit (Lot 2). Mr. Donovan asked Mr. Bloch to confirm that it is a 28 feet height limitation for Stearns before the next meeting. Mr. Bloch said that the view sheds should also be compared with Stearns and he suggested moving the building envelope to the south side and extending the hedgerow through. The neighbor said that it was not an issue. Mr. Brooks posed the question can many of these issues be more favorably resolved and can the applicant’s economic objectives be met and exceeded in a scenario where the applicant owned the front lot and instead wanted a permit for one building envelope to build 4 really nice condo units.

Mr. Troy moved to continue this matter to May 1^st. Mr. Donovan seconded. All were in favor and the MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY PASSED.

8:50 JOHN AND SUE PATNAUDE: SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR A RESUBDIVISION CREATING NINE LOTS WITHIN A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD) FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES: SIX BUILDING LOTS, TWO LOTS WITH EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLNGS, AND ONE LOT FOR FOUR-FAMILY DWELLINGS IN AN EXISTING BARN. PROPERTY LOCATED ON GREENBUSH ROAD IN THE RURAL DISTRICT.

John and Sue Patnaude addressed the PC. Mr. Patnaude explained that he is no longer farming and they need to do something with the large parcel on his land. He has a 16-lot subdivision which he proposes to cut back into 4 building lots including a rail crossing. He would like to see the railroad crossing signalized. He explained that he is trying to save the barn; he would have to take the roof off from it and put a new top on it and he envisions putting 4 apartments on the second floor of it. Mr. McDonald asked him about the original subdivision and Mr. Patnaude said that 16 lots were originally proposed. Mr. Donovan asked about an easement because previously there was a neighbor there; Mr. Patnaude said it is not an issue now. He said the 16-lot subdivision never went through Act 250. Mr. Moraska asked about the proposed apartments in the barn. Mr. Patnaude said he would just use the top floor and would like to aesthetically model the Nordic Holstein barn. The existing farmhouse would be located on a lot and the raised ranch would be located on a lot. Mr. Troy said that another option would be to create 10 elderly units in the barn. Mr. Donovan suggested putting the building envelope back so that the force main isn’t running through it. Mr. Patnaude said that if the driveway gets changed, that will fix it and Mr. Donovan agreed. Mr. Troy said that in addition to the 4 dwelling units, you could put in a professional business office, home or commercial farm stand, home occupation, restaurant, bed/breakfast, library or an antique shop and it would fall into the “adaptive re-use of historic structures” category, assuming it could qualify as a historic structure. Mr. McDonald brought up the issue of the fire pond and Mr. Patnaude said that there is an existing one. The fire department has a distance requirement; Mr. Bloch said the existing fire pond is spread between the upper and lower section. Mr. Bloch suggested that part of the PC’s recommendation would be to discuss this issue with the Fire Department to see what they would prefer. Linda Hamilton asked if the wetlands were mapped out. Mr. Donovan asked Mr. Patnaude if he would move Lot 1 to the other side of the proposed stream and Mr. Patnaude had no objection. The State has done a wetland delineation. Mr. Troy moved to classify this as a major subdivision. Mr. Donovan seconded the motion. All were in favor and the MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY PASSED. It was decided to wait until the ground thawed (end of May) to have another site visit to the property. Sylvia Sprigg said that the carriage house was a potential use, i.e. density. Mr. Donovan said the goal is to try and preserve the farm cluster.

9:30 DISCUSSION OF ITINERARY FOR “TOUR DE CHARLOTTE” ON SATURDAY APRIL 12TH.

The Tour de Charlotte will be Saturday, April 12^th at 9:00 a.m. A 20-seat van is rented. Mr. Troy said that specific things should be identified that need to be seen and reviewed and the purpose. Viewing from the air was also discussed.

Mr. Troy moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Diou seconded the motion. All were in favor and the MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY PASSED. Meeting adjourned at Gordon adjourned at 9:45 p.m.

O:\Planning Commission\Minutes\2003\April 3.doc