CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION

THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2004

Charlotte Town Hall – 159 Ferry Road

Members Present: Staff Present:

John Owen Dean Block

Robin Pierce Others Present:

Linda Radimer Trafton Crandall

Gordon Troy Laura Crandall

Members Absent: Ellie Russell

Jim Donovan

Jeff McDonald

Al Moraska

Mr. Troy made a motion to call the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. Mr. Owen seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was unanimously PASSED. Mr. Troy then made a motion to have the PC decide who will act as chair of the meeting. Mr. Pierce seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was unanimously PASSED. Mr. Pierce moved to nominate Gordon Troy as acting chair for this meeting. Mr. Owen seconded. All were in favor and the motion was unanimously PASSED.

CONSENT AGENDA AND REGULAR AGENDA. Nothing to approve.

MINUTES. Due to time constraints, this agenda item will not be addressed this evening.

CRANDALL

Mr. and Mrs. Crandall addressed the PC. Mr. Crandall explained that they have made changes to their access in the site plan as per comments from the Selectboard; he provided the PC with updated site plans. He noted that the Road Commissioner had visited the property. The proposed access to Lot 1 has been changed to the area across from Shelburne Orchards.

Mr. Crandall said he wants to respond to the planner‘s notes. They feel that there are inconsistencies and inaccuracies and they would like to clarify some things. The Crandalls distributed a handout to the PC, which was the planner’s notes with their responses in bold print. Under BACKGROUND (referring to previous decisions), Mrs. Crandall said, in the first paragraph, Lot 1 is 10.40 acres and Lot 2 became 22 acres. Septic information not relevant at that point, they felt. Lot 1 was not considered a building lot and no septic information was provided or approved. Mr. Crandall said that there wasn’t any reason to provide septic information because they were not proposing it as a building lot. Agreed by PC.

Second Paragraph under BACKGROUND: The Crandalls stated that Lot 2 has been further subdivided and is now 19.47 acres. Lot 2 had a building permit and has a valid one still and a building envelope. There is also a valid septic permit. They said that they are proposing with this application that Lot 1 would be 5.35 acres, Lot 2 will become 14.1 acres. They have all the necessary permits for Lot 2 and have applied for a septic permit for Lot 1. They informed the PC that Spencer has reviewed it for Lot 1. Mr. Troy asked if Lot 2-1 corresponded to something because it was a different numbering system to which Mr. Bloch responded by saying that it was from the tax map. Mr. Troy went on to say that 2-1 is a combined lot. Mr. Bloch said they own two lots and on the tax map, it is labeled as 2-1. Mr. Crandall said that the issue is water rights to the lot.

Mr. Crandall said that they applied for a building envelope and the boundary line adjustment which is being considered as a subdivision amendment and subdivision modification. They have not asked for any waivers or any conditional uses. They have followed exactly the zoning ordinance for rural and Mr. Bloch indicates that in terms of setbacks and other impacts, that they met all the requirements. The proposed building envelope has a tree line on the back side of the lot. It will impact their building site as well as other adjoining landowners. They have done their best to mitigate visual impacts, it is set back from the road and meets all required setbacks (100 feet on both sides and 50 feet in back with additional room for wetlands). They did go before the Selectboard and got curb cut access. They had one hearing and were told that they needed to make modifications which they suggested (which included giving up a curb cut to the barn and allowing only one curb for their driveway for the house and barn). The Selectboard has continued it and not approved the curb cut but said that they meet the criteria for highway access. The Selectboard raised the issue of how water rights will work from one lot to the other and their attorney contacted the town and the town attorney is currently investigating what the situation is regarding the water access. When they purchased the property, the seller and the Crandalls’ attorney said that there was one tap for one building lot and accessory buildings; this was spelled out in a water agreement which allowed for 12 taps off the Shelburne water line in the Town of Charlotte. Mr. Troy asked how someone complies with those requirements. Laura Crandall answered, saying that one tap was allocated to Lot 2-1. Mr. Crandall said that there was the understanding that the building envelope was there and their assumption, as well as the attorney’s title opinion and sellers’ representation was that the tap would supply the building envelope.

Mr. Troy asked if the Crandalls are presently trying to figure out the justification for another tap on the Shelburne line. Mr. Crandall said no. Mr. Troy asked how water was getting on that property. Mr. Crandall said that there is a well proposed on the site plan. Mr. Bloch said that there may be problem getting water there (dry wells in the past). The Crandalls said that they understood that. Mr. Crandall said that Ten Stones have a well supplying 10 houses, so he doesn’t think it impossible to find water in that area. Mr. Pierce asked where the proposed well would be. Mr. Crandall showed him on the map. Mr. Pierce said he would be uncomfortable with anything until he was sure that there was water there. Mr. Troy reiterated the fact that the reason that there are taps into Shelburne in this location is because it is extremely hard to find water there. He said there is concern that there is really water there before the PC creates a building lot. Ms. Radimer asked if they had given any thought about accessing Ten Stones’ water supply. Mr. Crandall said no they had not, but it was a good idea. Mr. Troy said that they would have to cross wetlands to get to it.

Mr. Bloch reported that there were a couple of issues regarding this water item. The person who recorded the plan in 2003 is not in the office this week, so he couldn’t talk to that person to find out why the plan that was referenced in the agreement was recorded 7 ½ years later. The agreement settled in 1996 and both towns had the agreement recorded in the land records, the exhibit (tax map) was not recorded in either Shelburne or Charlotte and still is not recorded in Charlotte, but a map in October 2003 was recorded in Shelburne. If they do a boundary adjustment, they lose the Shelburne tap.

Mr. Troy said that the PC has read through Mr. Bloch’s notes and suggested continuing this matter because of outstanding issues as well as not having had an opportunity for public comment as yet. He asked Mr. Bloch if he had found the original subdivision file for this property and Mr. Bloch said no.

Mr. Owen made a motion to continue this hearing. Mr. Troy said that he wants to find the original decision to have the complete history of this property. The PC does not want to unknowingly “step on toes” of what has already been done. Mr. Crandall said that they are not asking for any new taps. The title opinion did not have anything in it regarding any covenants. Mr. Troy said that the general understanding is that the barn part of the lot was intended to be a farming lot. Mr.Crandall said that the reason that they have proposed this boundary line adjustment is to incorporate the barn into the larger parcel which they are creating for their own use and thus making a parcel which they feel is more sustainable for them to operate as small agricultural use. Mr. Troy acknowledged that. Mr.Crandall said that the price paid for this property was going to make it difficult to sustain if this lot has to remain open and unavailable to develop. There would be significant damage if there was a covenant which he was not aware of. Laura Crandall asked about the water issue. Mr. Bloch said that it came up at the Selectboard meeting and the town clerk raised the issue as well. Mr. Pierce seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was unanimously PASSED. This hearing will be continued to June 3 at 7:30 p.m.

There being no further business, Mr. Owen made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Pierce seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was unanimously PASSED.

Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.

O:\Planning Commission\Minutes\2004\May 20.doc