Charlotte Planning Commission

Minutes of Meeting of

May 1, 2003

Charlotte Town Hall – 159 Ferry Road

Town Office – (802) 425-3533

 

 

 

Members Present:     Jeff McDonald, Chair

                                    Linda Radimer

                                    Al Moraska

                                    Gordon Troy

                                    Robin Pierce

 

Members Absent:      Jim Donovan

                                    Gene Diau

                                   

Officials Present:       Dean Bloch

 

Public Present:           Stephen C. Brooks                               John and Dru Oren                  

                                    Sylvia Sprigg

                                    Ellie Russell

                                    Jim Sector

                                    Catherine Hughes

                                    Lee Weissman

                                    Dr. and Mrs. Richard Bernstein

                                   

 

 

Chair Jeff McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.  He welcomed new member Robin Pierce to the Planning Commission.  He reported that the PC had just returned from a 6:00 p.m. site visit of the property related to the Orens application/sketch plan, located behind the Charlotte Health Center on Ferry Road.  In attendance

were:  Planning Commissioners Jeff McDonald, Al Moraska, Gordon Troy; Dean Bloch (Town Planner), Richard Bernstein (seller), John and Dru Oren (prospective buyers), Dottie Waller (sellers' realtor) and Jim Sector (buyers' realtor).

 

 

APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA AND REGULAR AGENDA (Nothing on Consent Agenda). 

 

Mr. McDonald asked if there were any changes or additions to the agenda.  The letter concerning the DeVos property needs to be addressed and it was decided that the PC would do this at the end of tonight’s meeting.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

 

Clark Hinsdale, III commented on scheduling; his research of the statutes and precedents indicates that the timetable for scheduling public hearings is that after an application is being completed and submitted, the application submittal date is the next regular meeting of the PC (grace period) and then the PC is required to hear the applicant within 45 days following the next PC meeting after the complete application has been submitted.  He talked about how this rule has affected his application and he wanted to bring it to the Board’s attention.  Mr. McDonald said that he was not aware of any statutory requirements and directed Mr. Bloch to check on it.   Mr. McDonald said that the PC is planning on scheduling an additional meeting this month on May 29th in order to catch up on the backlog.

 

JOHN AND DRU OREN d/b/a VERMONT OPTECHS:  CONTINUATION OF SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A BUSINESS OFFICE.  PROPERTY LOCATED ON FERRY ROAD IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

 

Mr. Bloch said that both the applicant and the property owner seemed agreeable to moving the curb cut at the site visit.   The Orens addressed the PC; they brought sketches and a new site plan.    Representatives from the Charlotte Health Center (Drs. Bernstein and Weissman), another neighbor, Katherine Hughes, and Ellie Russell looked over the sketches as well.   Mr. Troy expressed concern and suggested that the driveway not be constructed in a way that would make it long and straight with a cluster of new buildings.   Dr. Weissman said that the land adjacent to it is currently used as a place for horses in the summer and that use needs to be preserved.   Mr. Moraska asked about landscaping. Mrs. Oren said they plan to cluster it. 

 

The warned hearing will be site plan subdivision modification and it was suggested that it could possibly be May 29; this date was satisfactory with the Orens.  Mr. Troy asked if they planned on throwing up the right-of-way for the new right of way.  Dr. Bernstein yes that they were going to file an amended right-of-way.  Because of the width, Mr. Troy asked if there would be room to deal with the bike path and for not making the driveway perfectly straight.  Dru Oren said that there was ample width; 20 foot easement and 5 foot temporary easement.  Mr. Bloch presented the elevation drawings to the PC and asked if they were adequate for the site plan hearing.  Mr. McDonald said that the PC would need to know landscape planning for the final hearing.   Mr. McDonald asked for questions from the public.  There were none.   There was a brief discussion on the curb cut permit and it was noted that this happens at the same time as the access permit, then it gets reviewed by the road commissioner and goes to the Selectboard.   Mr. Troy suggested that the PC can go ahead with the curb cut, but it is recommended that the final curb cut approval be in hand before the final site plan hearing.

 

ALMA T. CLARK JUNE 29, 1995 REVOCABLE TRUST:  FINAL PLAT HEARING FOR A 2-LOT SUBDIVISION.  PROPERTY LOCATED ON MOUNT PHILO ROAD IN THE RURAL ZONING DISTRICT

 

Tony Stout and Jean Townsend, Trustee for the Trust, addressed the PC.   Mr. Stout explained that they had been before the PC twice before (once for sketch plan review and once for a discussion on the driveway.   He said that the property location is at the corner of Mt. Philo Road and Spear St. Extension and is comprised of a little over 10 acres.  The applicant is proposing to divide it into 2 lots.  He showed the plan for septic and the road.  He said that they have been approved by the State for the proposed wastewater system.  The road commissioner has encouraged them to move the driveway 30 feet south and Mr. Stout said that they did that on the new plan he was showing to the PC.  Mr. Troy asked if this change negatively affected access to the proposed lots and Mr. Stout said no; the  shape of the easement changed to triangular and you can see daylight under an approaching car instead of just the top of it and the road commissioner wanted that change for safety reasons.  The driveway would be shared and Mr. Stout showed where driveways would go.   He explained the slope of the property to the PC and that they tried to keep off the steeper areas.  He showed pictures of the site from various points.  He superimposed a 2-story cape house with a garage off to the side to give a sense of what it would look like with a house on the property.   He showed pictures of views as well.  

 

Mr. Troy asked if they were covered as far as the 600-foot frontage issue was concerned and Mr. Bloch said that they were.  Mr. Stout showed on the sketch where the Hagar and Claflin houses were, as well as other neighbors, and he said there are 2 primary mound systems and 2 replacement mound systems for the future.  He said that they have located two primaries on the slope above the green meadow and have tried to put them in away to fit into landscape.    Ted ____, a neighbor at 5972 Mt. Philo Road and Mr. Advani, another neighbor, were there as well as Don and ____ ________.   Mr. Stout said that they are not proposing any restriction on tree cutting.   There is a mandatory separation distance downhill.   The access easement starts at 60 feet and goes down in triangular angle, Mr. Bloch said. He also asked if perhaps it should come in for a portion of the driveway that runs straight and square off and then go at an angle.  Mr. Stout said it can; it is arbitrary.   Mr. Troy asked how many feet there were in the driveway before it splits from the edge of the road.   Mr. Stout said approximately 50-60 feet.   Mr. Troy explained that his concern was one of safety, e.g. if someone decided to plant a hedgerow in the “V” before the driveway split, there would be a site distance issue.  Ms. Radimer asked about drainage and Mr. Stout said that there is no watercourse at all on this property.   There was a question on how fair the building envelope was from Mt. Philo Road.  Mr. Stout answered and said it was 100 feet in the front yard setback and an additional 15 and 20 feet to the actual edge of pavement (Lot 2).

 

Mr. McDonald asked for comments. Mr. Moraska asked Mr. Stout if they would consider height restriction for the house on Lot 2.  Mr. Stout said that he didn’t know, but wouldn’t rule it out; it’s going to block the physical view from the road.  He showed a potential house on photos he had brought.  He also said that a single level house would be awkward because of the slope.  Both Mr. Bloch and Mr. McDonald clarified that the definition of the 35 feet height limit is from the average grade. Mr. Troy explained that the concern is not to have a 3 ˝ story house.  Mr. Bloch acknowledged that the setback is less than a front yard setback and the easement for the driveway required a front yard setback, so this is a non-issue.  He said the other issue is the access permit.  Mr. Stout has not gone to the Selectboard, he said, but has had Junior out to the property.  Mr. Bloch said he has also spoken with Junior.  Mr. Troy, on behalf of the PC, directed Ellie Russell of the Selectboard that the PC has approved the access permit.

 

Mr. Stout said the maple tree is now in the center of the driveway; it was a pine tree previously before the move of the driveway, Mr. Troy asked about building envelopes; Mr. McDonald asked Mr. Stout his thoughts on this issue.  Mr. Stout said he wasn’t proposing building envelopes, but could do so.  Mr. McDonald said that since the buffer to the east is going to be preserved, it would make sense to do a building envelope. Ms. Radimer asked about maintaining the open space; Mr. Stout said they could put language into the deed to do so, i.e. respect the building envelope and steep slope and keep natural the open space, but not prohibit anyone from cutting a tree if needed. Mr. Moraska said there would be erosion issues on any extensive cutting on a slope of that degree.   

 

Ms. Radimer moved to close this hearing.  Mr. Moraska seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was approved.

 

The PC will deliberate and issue a written decision.

 

PETER J. COLEMAN & LANTERN VISIONS, L.L.C.:  SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR A SUBDIVISOIN MODIFICATION TO ADJUST BOUNDARY LINES ALLOWING A CONVEYANCE OF 4.52 ACRES.  PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 3176 AND 6260 GREENBUSH ROAD IN THE VILLAGE ZONING DISTRICT.

 

Peter Coleman addressed the meeting.   He gave an overview of this situation; when the property was originally conveyed, it was what was left over from the other 2 lots (Lot 1 and 2) and 5 acres that the Town received as a town park area.    He showed on drawings the Old Lantern and farmhouse and office building behind it and the storage building behind that.  He is proposing to take that shape and lop off a section and put it with the Old Lantern.  There is a further dwelling allowed from an MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) from the Vermont Land Trust on the property, Mr. Coleman said.  The MOU states that another further dwelling is allowed to be used in connection with the Old Lantern.  Mr. Coleman said that the size of the current lot is 9.54 acres and it will be reduced to 5.01 acres.  A question was posed if there was a new house on the site, if Mr. Coleman was allowing for proper septic.  Mr. Coleman said there is a tremendous amount of septic already.  Mr. McDonald said that adjusting the boundary does not impact any changes.    There is no septic review because no building lot is being created.  Mike _____ said that his only issue is that if all the property becomes one lot, somebody could knock the existing house down and put it in a different spot.  Mr. McDonald said that that could be done now.  Mr. Troy asked if this was within the setbacks for boundary lines for the pool and shed.   Mr. Coleman said the pool house is 50 feet.  Mr. Bloch interjected by saying that swimming pools are considered structures.  Mr. Coleman said the apron of the pool is 45 feet, so there is a 25 foot setback because it is in the village zone.  Mr. McDonald asked for any other questions.  Mr. Coleman asked the PC what the next step would be.  Mr. Bloch said that the PC will write a letter with recommendations. Mr. Coleman will need to submit a new survey with his application and there will be a warned hearing.  Ms. Russell asked the PC if they wanted to verify setbacks; Mr. Bloch directed Mr. Coleman to take care of that.

 

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

 

Mr. Troy directed Mr. Bloch to draft a letter for the PC to review. 

 

 

Christopher Boffa: Continuation of Final Plat Hearing for a 3-lot subdivision.  Property located at 6307 Mount Philo Road in the Rural zoning district.   

 

Mr. Boffa addressed the PC; he distributed paperwork to the members at the table.  Mr. McDonald explained that this is a continuation.  Mr. Boffa, per the PC’s request, is here to clarify the building envelopes, farm structures and hedgerows.

 

Mr. Boffa explained as follows:

 

Building envelopes.  They were changed to half acre size.  He brought some proposed language to identify the building envelope, which stated that the outside building envelope is for ag use including accessory ag structures, such as a horse run. The ag use barn would have a footprint no bigger than 20 x 36.  A larger building envelope has been established by the existing house. Ag use gets defined at each lot.   Mr. Moraska asked if there was a house on the Curtis lot and the answer was yes, it is close to the road.

 

Force main/hedgerows.  All easements have been adjusted so they are out of the hedgerow to insure that it doesn’t get disturbed.  

 

Mr. Troy asked about the road agreement with respect to the Stearns.  Lots 2 and 3 from the Stearns right-of-way (Elise Lane) – continuation of Elsie Lane – Mr. Boffa said they will become part of that association.   Mr. McDonald said that language needs to be crafted because the association maintains the road and people don’t contribute anything towards that.  Mr. Boffa said the proposed two lots would join the association.  Mr. Troy said that that needs to be included in the deed.  Mr. Boffa’s intent is to create that as a condition.  It was noted that the Stearns allowed in the final plat that there would be a right-of-way to this parcel.  

 

Mr. Boffa went on to say that everything outside the envelope falls into the ag use category.  Bob Titus will continue to use it.  Mr. Moraska said that there is a 10-foot wide trail easement on the south border, but it doesn’t connect to anything else.  Mr. Boffa said that it was put in to assure ability to access the Stearns’ farm.   Mr. McDonald said that Mr. Boffa has presented proposed language that covers the building envelope and areas outside the building envelope to preserve land for ag use. 

Waste water permit.  Mr. Boffa there was a review from the state and at first glance, there were some issues, but all concerns have been addressed.  He does not have the permit as of this evening.  Ms. Radimer asked if the state’s concerns were mostly about drainage. Mr. Boffa said that presumptive zones around the wells in the original plan weren’t defined cleanly enough so the revised plan shows that wells were moved to maximize ag areas and are clearly defined.   Mr. Moraska asked the well location in Lot 2.  Mr. Boffa showed where it was out of the envelope and up high and not it is in the building envelope. 

 

Another issue from the state for wastewater concerned details about trenching, as well as an issue with monitoring data.  With the new house, Mr. Boffa will be putting in a new system and with that will have to abandon the old system and that is stated in the letter from the state.

 

Mr. Bloch asked about the well for Lot 2 and Mr. Boffa said that the location will fall within the building envelope.  Mr. Bloch asked if the PC wanted the well head to be more southeast.  Mr. Moraska said that regardless of where it is on the building envelope, it still has to have a 100-foot zone around it for ag.   Mr. Moraska brought up the issue of height restriction or limit on square footage.   Mr. Boffa said he doesn’t feel there will be a significant impact/benefit by lowering the height restriction, but he has taken it on a lot by lot basis.  Lot 3 positions itself 5-8 feet; he doesn’t see it making a big benefit by restricting.  On Lot 2, he has slid the building envelope to the east and in effect lowered the elevation.  Mr. Moraska said the Stearns do have height restriction and square footage and Lot 6 is close to Mr. Boffa’s Lot 3.    Mr. Troy prefers to try and keep scaling of area (can go 30 or 31 feet).   Mr. Moraska expressed concern with the envelope on Lot 3 (closest to Stearns).  Ms. Radimer asked what the visibility would be from the east from Stearns Lot 5 or 6.  There is a hedgerow through there, Mr. Boffa replied.  He said that the Stearns Lot 6 is going to see his Lot 3.  Sylvia Sprig asked the height of the Royer house (the original house in the neighborhood).  Mr. Boffa said that if you look at the Royer.  The concern of the PC is a combination of both height and square footage.   Mr. McDonald asked for more questions.  There were none.

 

Mr. Troy moved to close the hearing.  Mr. Moraska seconded.  All were in favor and the motion was unanimously approved.

 

MINUTES 

 

March 6, 2003  – The PC noted their changes to the minutes to the recording secretary.  Mr. Troy moved to approve the minutes of the March 6, 2003 meeting with the changes as noted.  Mr. Moraska seconded.  All were in favor and the motion was unanimously approved. 

 

April 3, 2003 – PASS

April 17, 2003 – PASS

 

COORDINATION OF PATNEAUDE SITE VISIT

 

Mr. McDonald asked for the status of this site visit.   Mr. Bloch said that it would be preferable to have the site visit included in sketch plan review.   He suggested formalizing it in a new regulation, i.e. when site visits are done, it is part of the sketch plan process.   Mr. Moraska noted that the site visit at the Patneaude property will take some time, so he suggested considering doing it on a Saturday.

 

It was decided that the site visit would be June 5, 2003 from 6:00 – 8:00 p.m., followed by a meeting to discuss it, as well as the VELCO issue.   

 

Mr. McDonald asked for any other business.

 

Mr. Bloch said the PC needed to discuss the DeVos letter.  The main part of the farm is in Ferrisburg and the property is currently being used for agriculture.  Mr. Bloch said a standard letter could go out tomorrow.  Mr. McDonald asked the PC if they concurred with this action.  Mr. Troy said that it is open property and should be kept open, because it is a gateway into Charlotte, and he suggested putting this in the letter.  Mr. McDonald asked Mr. Bloch to sign this letter on behalf of the PC. 

 

ADJOURN

 

Ms. Radimer moved to adjourn.  Mr. McDonald seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was unanimously approved. 

 

The meeting adjourned at 9:12 p.m.

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Kimberly L. Johnson