CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION

THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 2004

7:00 PM

Charlotte Town Hall – 159 Ferry Road

Members Present:

John Owen

Linda Radimer

Robin Pierce

Gordon Troy

Jeff McDonald

Al Moraska

Members Absent:

Jim Donovan

Staff Present:

Dean Bloch

Others Present:

Dianne Leary

Alex LaBerge

Marlene Mansfield

Marty Illick

Lynn Mansfield

Robert Titus

Jeff Titus

Eleanor Russell

Peter Curler

Kim Spadaccini

Michael Faith

David Miskell

Linda Hamilton

Charlie Stearns

Jenny Gundy

Carl Cole

Chair McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m., following site visits for Robert and Denise Titus and Charles Stearns and deliberations on certain pending decisions.

APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA AND REGULAR AGENDA (Consent Agenda: Sketch Plan Letters to Crandall and CVCH)

Chair McDonald asked for comments. Mr. Troy requested moving Crandall to the regular agenda. All were in unanimous agreement to do so.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Chair McDonald asked for public comment on anything that wasn’t on the agenda. There was none. Mr. Moraska gave a report on the Burns Committee. He gave the background stating that in the purchase of the Burns property, the Land Trust set forth conditions that the Town must fulfill as part of the purchase agreement. So a committee was formed to study those areas. They hired a septic consultant to check out the septic capacity, monitoring and delineation of the wetlands. They also hired a facilitator to work with the committee to form a program to present to the public. Some nearby residents are also forming a group outside of this committee. He said that the Burns Committee hopes to get things ready for a public vote for next year’s town meeting.

ROBERT AND ~~DENISE~~BERNICE TITUS: CONTINUATION OF SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR AN EIGHT-LOT SUBDIVISION. PROPERTY LOCATED ON SPEAR STREET AND GUINEA ROAD IN THE RURAL DISTRICT

Mr. Troy commented on the site visit done prior to this meeting; he said that the idea of having two rows of houses as originally suggested by applicant does not seem to him to be the optimal way to utilize the land and/or maximize the applicant’s return. Discussion centered on different alternatives for placing the houses. Mr. Titus said that no matter how they do it, if you cross the driveway, there are electrical lines underneath. After discussion, it was agreed that that would not pose a problem. Linda Radimer asked if the southwest corner of the property was a place that Mr. Titus was trying to preserve as pasture. He said yes. She also asked about the area adjacent to the north of the gravel pit. Mr. Titus said he could put a house north of the shale road. Ms. Radimer was concerned that there may be a wildlife corridor near there. Mr. Troy asked if the land north of the gravel pit was used for grazing; Mr. Titus said yes. Ms. Radimer suggested putting some of the houses closer to the septic area and noted that if doing this as a PRD, they could cluster the houses tighter.

Linda Hamilton from the Charlotte Conservation Committee asked how much land that Mr. Titus could lose to houses and still have a good base for the farm. Mr. Titus said 7 or 8 1±-acre lots could be used for houses and the rest would be used for the farm. Ms. Hamilton asked Mr. Titus if they kept away from the prime soil, would he still have enough land? Mr. Titus said yes. Chair McDonald asked for the total acreage of the parcel. Mr. Bloch answered that it is 75.9 acres. Chair McDonald next asked about the agreement the Town has for use of the gravel pit for the shale. Mr. Bloch answered that the Town has it until 2010.

The discussion next centered around prime agricultural soils, identified by the state, and resource overlay, as well as deer crossings. It was noted that Mr. Titus ~~does not farm~~pastures the prime agricultural soil areas.

Mr. Pierce suggested keeping the farm operations as compact as possible without splitting them up.

Mr. Bloch asked for Mr. Titus’ idea for a combination of using a single row above and two houses off in the vicinity of Guinea Road. Chair McDonald said that it was a good idea. Mr. Moraska said that, if the applicants could get some driveways off of Dolliver Road, so they wouldn’t have to build a parallel road, it would make more sense and they could tuck the houses a little closer to Dolliver Road. Linda Hamilton said it would be worthwhile to see if the farm could be kept as a unit through the help of the Land Trust to purchase some or all of the development rights and have very limited housing. Mr. Titus said that he had already ~~went~~gone to the Land Trust and they didn’t come anywhere near the $125,000 figure.

Marty Illick asked about affordable housing. Mr. Titus said that he didn’t have any figures on it. Linda Hamilton thought would be great on all sides, as an alternative to putting 8 regular houses on it; that is, going through the Land Trust and giving them development rights and putting a few houses (some affordable) on the land. She went on to say that it is not the Land Trust’s usual kind of project. Mr. Troy agreed, but added that the Vermont Housing Conservation Board could get involved if they used that option. He said that it is an opportunity to link affordable housing and land conservation together. Ms. Radimer noted that they are trying to preserve the footprint for the land itself, so they wouldn’t want to exceed the amount of land taken up for houses.

Marty Illick asked Mr. Titus his feelings about this new approach. Mr. Titus said he wasn’t sure about it, but if affordable housing gives him enough money, that’s all he needs.

Mr. Troy said that the next step is to classify this and write a letter and in the meantime, he suggested that there are people to help, such as the Charlotte Land Trust, and the Vermont Housing Conservation Board. The economic objective is to reduce the burden on the farm and to keep farming. Ellie Russell said she would help the applicants in this venture.

Mr. Troy moved to classify this application as a major subdivision. Mr. Moraska seconded. All were in favor and the motion was unanimously PASSED.

DELIBERATIONS – The PC continued their deliberations for a brief period while they waited for Mr. Stearns and Carl Cole to arrive for the next agenda item.

CHARLES STEARNS: CONTINUATION OF 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.

Charlie Stearns and Carl Cole appeared before the PC. Chair McDonald illustrated on the sketch what happened at the site visit earlier this evening. He showed different options for placement of the proposed houses by using yellow sticky notes and arranging them on the sketch. Ms. Radimer said that the PC has had issues of privacy come up before and when you’re building you can remedy that issue by putting in trees, etc. Mr. Stearns’ daughter ~~expressed concern about planting of trees and the practicality of that and how it would work.~~said that she wanted to ensure that trees would be planted to ensure her privacy. Mr. Cole asked Linda Hamilton what impact she thought would happen. She responded by saying that the concern of the Charlotte Conservation Committee was for the wildlife that use the Lewis Creek corridor. Mr. Cole said he didn’t think that it would be that much impact there.

Different options were discussed. Mr. Stearns expressed his desire to not cause problems with neighbors. Mr. Cole remarked that property values need to be considered as well as everything else. Mr. Troy suggested that if the front yards were reduced, the lots could be configured in a way that would maximize each person’s backyard, which is more valuable. Marty Illick asked how much land stays in open space and Mr. Cole answered that 26 acres out of 33 stay in open space.

Chair McDonald asked for comments on the layout and the alternative. Mr. Troy said there is one other way. If one of the prospective buyers wanted to have a house and a barn for horses, by doing the kind of configuration they are talking about, it is not allowing for that kind of flexibility, so the common area is going to be no build. That would mean that agricultural buildings would have to be owned jointly by people who were in the association. So he asked what would be the viability of the open pasture in the future. He went on to hypothesize that maybe in the future, if they went with the option they were contemplating, people would want to buy, but since they hadclosed the opportunity for that flexibility, the value of the property was diminished. He explained that this was not a solution, but an idea.

Linda Hamilton suggested making a common area with one house out in the middle, so one owner of the house owns down to the creek, but there is an open space agreement on it, so Lewis Creek is protected and that person can manage the land. Mr. Troy said that a right-of-way could be granted to use common land.

Mr. Moraska said that the agricultural potential of the lot that extends down to the creek is much better than it is in the front part. Mr. Cole said it is, but being practical and trying not to say anything bad about Charlotte, agriculture is not a big issue. The area is too small for people who are actually farming, he said.

Linda Hamilton said that people are interested in neighborhoods and with this land, they would be adding to something that is already there. The houses are clustered loose enough ssoo it feels like a neighborhood, and if you are interested in keeping the option for some kind of agricultural use, it would be more productive in single ownership and not common ownership.

Chair McDonald asked if they should continue with the layout presented here or look at alternatives. Mr. Stearns said he is open to either one. Mr. Cole said that, because they are not resolving it tonight, he proposes that he will get out and look at where the houses could be put and they will come back in two weeks with a proposal that the PC could live with and move forward with the next stage.

Mr. Stearns’ other daughter noted that the house in the middle of the field does impact the view from the Webb property. The other thought is that if it is right in the middle, then the field can’t be enjoyed, but if it were against the woods, it wouldn’t be as bad, she further stated. The other daughter said that, even ~~what is proposed for the~~though the roadway is far ~~roadway for a buffer, she would like more (trees) to block the lights from the cars in the road.~~away, she would like landscaping done to create a buffer. Chair McDonald said that the hedge should be filled out a bit more, also. Mr. Bloch told Mr. Stearns and Mr. Cole that a formal landscape plan is a condition of ~~final approval, and he directed them to come back with a landscape plan.~~preliminary approval.

Mr. Troy moved to continue this hearing to May 6, 2004 at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Cole gave an update on the status of the proposed affordable housing duplex unit; he talked with David ~~Monk~~Mullin of Habitat for Humanity and they are having a meeting next Tuesday night at which time they are going to figure out where they are concerning funding and are not in serious discussion. Mr. Moraska seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was unanimously PASSED.

ANTHONY PERRY: REQUEST FOR A COMMUNITY WELL TO SERVE APPROVED SUBDIVISION

Mr. Perry was not present. Mr. Bloch said this issue involved the question of whether to come in for an application to use the common well rather than individual wells. A condition of the subdivision was to use drilled wells and not Shelburne water. Mr. Troy asked what the problem or issue was. Mr. Bloch said that the Town attorney recommended that the PC address this as a formal hearing and to give adjoining property owners notice. The property is subject to Act 250. Mr. Troy suggested that, if they have to amend the Act 250 permit, that they do that first and the PC will ~~approve~~consider it. After discussion, it was noted that the well is located on protected property and they will need a common easement. Therefore, it would be a subdivision modification amendment and they would have to come before the PC.

DELIBERATIONS

The PC continued with their deliberations.

MINUTES: MARCH 4, APRIL 1

Due to time constraints, the approval of minutes was tabled.

ADJOURN

O:\Planning Commission\Minutes\2004\April 15.doc

O:\Charlotte Homepage\pc04152004.htm~~O:\Planning Commission\Minutes\Unapproved\April15.doc~~