CHARLOTTE
PLANNING COMMISSION
THURSDAY,
MAY 6, 2004
7:00
PM
Charlotte
Town Hall – 159 Ferry Road
Members Present:
John Owen
Linda Radimer
Jim Donovan
Al Moraska
Jeff McDonald
Gordon Troy
Members Absent:
Robin Pierce
Staff Present:
Dean Bloch
Others Present:
Eleanor
Russell
Linda
Hamilton
Charlie
Stearns
Carl
Cole
Ed Merritt
Chair Jeff McDonald called
the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
Approve Consent Agenda and Regular Agenda
Consent Agenda: Titus Sketch Plan letter
No changes to agenda. Dr. Moraska said that he would like to take
the Titus matter off the consent agenda.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
Titus Sketch Plan Letter. Dr. Moraska
expressed his concern over discrepancies he noticed in the sketch plan letter
to Mr. and Mrs. Titus. One thing was that
the discussion which took place concerning the lots on Guinea Road across from
Mrs. Dykes house was not in the letter. Therefore, it should be noted in the
letter that there was a discussion about secondary sites.
He also recommended ending
the second sentence in Item 1 after the word “avoided.” Dean said that he remembers the Tituses
having interest in clustering in the north area and if need be that would be a
second spot. Dean said he spoke with Vermont Land Trust and his indication was
that prime soils are important, but he believed that there could be more damage
in spreading out the development, and the impact of the development on the
surrounding farm land could be greater if it was sprawled out in separate
locations than if it was focused in one area even if they used some of the
prime soils. Therefore, he wanted to
state that prime soils are important but he didn’t want to make it too limited.
Dr. Moraska said that his concern was about setting a precedent and he wanted
to inform the Tituses in the letter that the PC views prime agricultural soils
as important and that’s why he recommends deleting the words “to the extent
possible” after the word “avoided” in the second sentence.
Mr. Troy wanted to emphasize
in the letter that the PC did not want a driveway running parallel to Dolliver
Drive. Also the letter should indicate
that the northern cluster should be accessed from Dolliver Drive. Mr. Donovan
does not think that the PC should elude that two clusters would be ok.
March 11, 2004 – no minutes – work session.
March 4, 2004 – Following discussion, Mr. Troy made a motion
to accept the minutes of the March 4, 2004 meeting with changes as noted. Ms. Radimer seconded. All were in favor and the motion was
unanimously approved.
Ten Stones, Inc: Subdivision Amendment to move the common house, and Site Plan
Review for the common house. Property
located on Ten Stones Circle in the Rural District.
Ed LeClair from Ten Stones
gave a background on this matter, stating that the intent of their application
is to move the building envelope of the common house from its current location
to a position south of the loop. He said that the structure and concept has
been approved already and the plans they brought show a 1,000 sq.ft. building
with proposed clapboard siding and a standing seam roof. The primary functions
of the new common house will be a gathering place and a place for children to
play. Six parking places are indicated, two of which are handicapped ones.
Earlier they had proposed a
reduction in design flows on the septic system. The State asked them to do
measuring which they are still in the process of accomplishing, but it is not
part of this application.
Mr. Leclair said the only
question is the proposed well. Their engineer said it would be easy to put the
well in a different area and he asked the PC if it would be possible to include
this in the application before them now. Mr. Bloch said that the PC technically
does not get involved in wells as long as the applicant has the setback
required. Mr. LeClair said that they do and they are in compliance.
Dr. Moraska asked if the fire
hydrant was functional. Mr. LeClair said that it was functional. Mr. McDonald
asked for any other questions. There were none. He asked for comments from
neighbors. There were none. Mr. Owen made a motion to close the hearing.
Mr. Donovan seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion
was unanimously APPROVED.
Mr. Bloch advised the
applicants that the PC will write a decision and mail it to them.
CONTINUATION OF MINUTES
APPROVAL:
April 1, 2004 – Following discussion, Mr. Troy made a motion
to approve the minutes of the meeting of April 1, 2004 with changes as
noted. Dr. Moraska seconded. Four out of the six PC members
present were in favor of the motion, with Mr. Donovan and Mr. Owen
abstaining. Therefore, the motion
was APPROVED.
April 15, 2004– Following discussion, Mr. Troy made a motion
to approve the minutes of the meeting of April 15, 2004 with changes as
noted. Ms. Radimer seconded. Five out of the six PC members
present were in favor of the motion, with Mr. Donovan abstaining. Therefore, the motion was APPROVED.
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. Mr. Cole showed
a revised plot plan to the PC indicating changes from the previous plan
submitted. He said that it shows that Lot 6 has been shifted south in order to
leave room between the existing force main and the new line between Lots 6 and
7 so it won’t encroach on the force main. Lot 7 shifted south and enlarged; the
actual building envelope is in the area south of the existing barn.
Lot 2 is open land and Lot 8
is open land. Lots 2 and 8 will be
physically connected so all of it will become Lot 2 which will be
commonly-owned land. It was noted that Act 250 now counts lots from final
approval date not application inception date. Even though Charlie Stearns
subdivided in 1999, Mr. Cole said, the Act 250 representative he spoke with
said he was inclined to apply the new counting method to the lots and therefore
by combining Lots 2 & 8 as noted on the plan, he could avoid Act 250
jurisdiction. So, he said, his next new plot design provides a simple solution
to avoid having to deal with Act 250 and it eliminates potential liability
issues on the part of Lot 5. The roadway is not going to change he stated.
Mr. McDonald noted that the
difference between the drawing of February 13, 2004 and April 28, 2004 is that
Lot 2 becomes Lot 1, Lot 1 becomes Lots 2 and 8, Lots 3, 4, and 5 stay the
same, except Lot 5 is expanded to include the southern meadow and Lot 6 is the
same and Lot 7 is extended a bit more. The lot around the septic area is part of
Lot 2.
Mr. McDonald asked Mr. Cole
if the septic system was a mound or inground system. Mr. Cole said that it was
an inground system.
Mr. Troy asked about the
proposed affordable housing units discussed at previous meetings. Mr. Cole said that he was told by the
affordable housing people that they don’t have the money right now. Mr. Owen
clarified this statement by saying that the affordable housing association
received funds to build 4 units in the north end (Burlington), so their funds
were tied up and cash was strapped at the present time. Mr. Cole said that Mr.
Stearns has changed the proposed affordable housing duplex unit back to a
single-family home, which does not exceed the allowed density for the proposed
sub-division.
Mr. Cole said that he talked
with Habitat for Humanity and the Burlington Community Land Trust (BCLT) and
they haven’t gotten back to him. David Mullin was going to get back to him with
what they could afford to pay, but never did, he said. The only agency he has
spoken with was Habitat for Humanity. Mr. Cole said that he was under the
impression that the affordable housing committee would come to Mr. Stearns and
himself with a proposal. He did not understand the process, but noted that it
would not be in Mr. Stearns’ best interest to pursue this at this time.
Mr. McDonald asked for
questions. Mr. Cole said that he had heard the discussion earlier about Mr.
Stearns’ daughter wanting trees planted for privacy. He said they plan on
planting cedars or pines so the headlights from cars won’t shine directly
across the property.
Mr. McDonald asked for
comments from the PC on the revised layout. Mr. Cole explained that there was a
variation on the septic line because their engineers require an easement on Lot
5 for separation between the wastewater system, so he felt it easier to follow
the easement line. Mr. Bloch asked if the back meadow would ever be used for
horses, where would the barn be located?
Mr. Cole said that the way the Declarations are written, the new owners
would have to come back to the PC for approval. Linda Hamilton said that Lot 5
would have an open space agreement, as well as the common area. Mr. Cole
suggested having a separate section in the open space agreement clarifying the
two open spaces, instead of having two separate documents because Lot 5 would
be privately owned. Mr. Troy said that there would be a reason for two
different open space agreements, because there are two different resources—one
being open meadow land and the other being forest, habitat and wildlife. He
said that another issue is the difference in ownership and the possibility of
an agricultural structure being built. Mr. Cole said he could designate a
building envelope for possible future agricultural use.
Mr. McDonald asked for
questions about the open space issues. There were none.
Ms. Radimer asked about the
roadway being so far in the middle of the property. Mr. Cole responded by
saying that the right-of-way is 60 feet wide, but the road is being built as
close to the lot lines as practical. Mr. Donovan said that the driveway for Lot
1 needs to come off from the road, but because there is a wetland there, maybe
Lot 1 can be shifted.
Mr. McDonald said, in
response to concern over the affordable housing issue, that the PC can strategize
about this in their deliberations. He also advised Mr. Cole that the PC may
consider square footage when considering the size of homes to be built, i.e.
keep in character with the neighborhood.
Mr. McDonald asked for
questions. There were none.
Mr. Troy made a motion
to close the hearing. Dr. Moraska
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was unanimously
APPROVED.
Discussion
of fees and legal expenses
O:\Planning Commission\Minutes\2004\May 06.doc