CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION 7:00 P.M., TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 1998 TOWN OFFICES 425-3533 Members Present:Chairman Al Moraska Ed Melby David Allen Jeff McDonaldJim Donovan Peter Kunin Dave Brown Planner Charlie Burnham Guests Signed In:John Quinney Steve Libby Kevin King Steve Mann Andrea Grayson Woody Keppel Marty Illick Karl W. Neuse, Atty. Yvan Plouffe Louis CoxLinda Hamilton Larry Hamilton John Hammer Michael Rubin Gail Glance Thomas Yager Mischul Brownstone John Barlow Ruah Swennerfelt William Sayre 1. A. Johnson Co., Site Visit (6:20 p.m.): Planning Commission members Jeff McDonald, Ed Melby and Dave Brown, Planner Charlie Burnham, Conservation members John Quinney, Gail Glance, Michael Rubin, Sue Moraska, A. Johnson representatives Steve Libby, Atty. Karl Neuse and Bill Sayre, and several neighbors were there to see the three proposed house sites. 2. (7:45 p.m.) A. Johnson Co., Final Plat Hearing for Minor (3-lot) Subdivision on Lewis Creek Road: Steve Libby showed a map of the area up on the display board so members of the audience could see the three house sites as they are now proposed, on the southernmost plateau. The previous proposal placed one of the lots on the northern plateau, but due to wildlife concerns they moved it. He also described the 8500 ft. of river front- age that the 100-foot buffer strip is part of, that is for the purpose of public access (believed to be only by canoe) and on which there would be restrictions on lumber removal. The same buffer strip is also on the other side of the creek, but that is not part of this subdivision application. The septic area that is included on this application is one that was designed several years ago for the then- proposed 13-lot subdivision. Steve said they are proposing to make this site, which is far down in the lower area of the land, a part of this with the understanding that they are investigating on-site locations for septic, or at least a site that is much closer to the three house lots. He said it is certainly in their best interests that this be done rather than the extensive piping by use of a force-main to the site that is presented. There would be pump-stations at each of the house sites with that plan. There is a shared driveway, ending up as a single driveway to Lot #3. There is no crossing of the ravine with any driveway. There is still a logging road access that would cross the ravine, but there would be no residen- tial access across it. Some neighbors had questions about the driveway location, and Steve showed them on the map where is would be and why it had to be changed when they changed the location of Lot #3. Chairman Moraska asked Planning Commission members what comments they have on the new proposals, based on their Site Visit. Jim Donovan voiced concerns about what levels of clearing might be done within the building envelopes. Understanding that the land where the houses themselves are built, and that some additional trees will be removed for viewing purposes, he wanted to bring attention to the fact that excess clearing, especial- ly near the edges of the ledges, could cause soil erosion. Allowing some cutting beyond the building envelope, yet encouraging them to use caution as to the amount of cutting that will be done. To this, Steve said because of past experience it would be virtually unenforceable to make too many cutting restrictions regarding a viewshed. He said they've taken a major marketability hit by moving that building lot off of the previous proposed location to this one. Al Moraska said enforceability may be a problem, but having something in writing might at least make people think about this. We don't know, of course, which way they will react. Peter Kunin commended Steve and the A. Johnson Co. for the new proposal. They have done a good job in moving the proposed lot, and the previous location was a lot more intrusive into the wildlife habitat. Ed Melby said, for the record, that during the site visit they had checked the driveway access and concluded that there was adequate visibility. The site distances were good. Peter Kunin verified with Steve, that at this point there has been no analysis of the soils to see if there is a possibility of having the septic disposal on the lots rather than down in the lowlands. Steve acknowledged that they had not yet done that. When they originally planned 13 lots 10 years ago, it didn't make sense that they would find 13 locations for separate septic disposal for each lot because of the fact that the land was so full of ledges. However now that there are only three, this may be possible. He realizes that now there may be some changes in the environmental protection rules and in Charlotte's bylaws, and new technology that would make individual systems possible for these lots. Peter said it would be nice to be able to leave the cliff totally untouched, rather than have the force main go all the way down there and possibly cause soil erosion around it. He asked when they would do the soil testing. Steve said they would start as soon as they got approval for this application; the system is approved and permit- ted and they know it will work, however it is in their best interest to save construction costs and materials by not having to do it. Knowing that it is in everybody's interest to find other sites, they would pursue those other sites. He said they can't afford to spend any more engineering money until they have approval for these lots. Jim Donovan said they had observed that the building envelope went over the 100-foot setback on Lot 2, and Charlie verified that. Steve said that this was a PRD and he didn't think that would apply. But Charlie said they had not applied for this as a PRD; it was classified as a 3-lot minor subdivision. Steve thought it was just an automatic PRD because it was more than a 25-acre lot. Charlie said it would have to be reviewed under the PRD requirements. Steve said he thought they were being reviewed as a PRD and subject to those conditions. Charlie said he believes Steve is referring to Section 9 of the PRD Standards about open space: " The PRD/PUD should be met in land subdivisions greater than 25 acres." But under "Lot Layout, Section A of the Zoning Bylaws," Charlie said, "The layout of the lot shall conform to the requirements of the Zoning Bylaws" and that includes setbacks. Steve said he thinks that distinction is difficult for the applicant to see; between the application having to meet the "standards of PRD's," and yet not be afforded the flexibility of PRD's. He said it appears to be splitting hairs in that they have worked so hard to get to this point. He wanted to know if there is any way to change those requirements and waive them without it being a PRD. Al said he believes there may be a waiver condition in the regulations. Steve suggested that in the event they could not use those building envelopes in this way, they might have to go back to the beginning; it would make such a small building envelope that it wouldn't be worth it. Al said they would have to research this; he could not remember using that waiver previously. What they are looking at, on the map they pointed it out, is the setback off the common driveway, not the setback off the road. Al Moraska discussed the Subdivision Regulations: Page 29, The Commission may waive or vary, subject to appropriate conditions, the provisions of any or all improvements and application submission requirements as in its judgment of the special circumstances of a particular subdivision are not requisite in the interest of the public health, safety and general welfare, or which in its judgment are inappropriate both in the short and long term. In granting waivers or variances, the Commission shall require such conditions as will, in its judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the requirements so waived or varied. No such waiver or variance may be granted if it would have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of the Town's Plan or varying the Zoning Bylaws, Capital Budget and Program, Zoning Map or other town bylaws. Jim Donovan proposed that we allow these building envelopes, subject to the conditions on erosion that he had discussed earlier, to remain as is, closer to that right-of-way. Ed Melby said he would concur, based upon what he had seen on the site visit. Jeff McDonald said he also agreed. It appeared that there was a consensus among all of the Planning Commission members. Charlie noted, to Steve, that in the agreement that the Town of Charlotte has with the A. Johnson Co. it calls for restrictive covenants, substantially in the form attached as Exhibits A and B, and public access easements attached as Exhibit C. Those were attached to the Purchase and Sale Contract with the Town and were not part of your Subdivision Application. He asked if Steve is going to be submitting separate proposed covenants to cover those areas and in addition cover the terms and conditions about the shared driveways and the leachfields. Steve said he believes they would use the same wording for covenants for this application. Steve thought the documents made with the Town covered the requirements under "other documents." Charlie verified that it should be the Town's assumption that the A. Johnson Company will do all the power, common driveways, septic system. Peter Kunin said it appears there needs to be documentation for all of this, and Steve said that won't be a problem as long as it's clear exactly what they want. There is a reference to a research paper. That is NE-603 from the U. S. D. A. Forest Service Agricultural Guide for Cutting. in the Northeast. Only Lot 3, Steve said, is covered by that. Lots 1 and 2 are not covered. Charlie noted that when the agreement was made between A. Johnson and the Selectboard, some of the Select- board members were not familiar with requirements for planning and zoning bylaws. Steve, when questioned about cutting restrictions on Lots 1 and 2, said there are none. However it would take away from the sales value if they were to do anything except clean out debris from the ice storm damage. Bill Sayre and Atty. Neuse concurred with this statement, that any revenue from lumber would be disproportion ate to the sale value if they do not cut. Some of the lower areas also have storm damage but at this time cleanup is not intended there. Al Moraska asked about cutting for roads. Steve said the road alignment is with the old logging road access. The intent, put on the map, is for a 14-ft. driveway with 4–6-ft. shoulders. There is under an acre, total, for the driveway. He promised they would maintain alignments. Jim Donovan asked what provisions are made for the buffer zone. There is a 100-ft. strip overlay showing the buffer zone, with Lot #3 under restriction. The easement deed will be recorded. There is a reference in the deed for Lot #1. Any re-subdivision, these restrictions apply to any new lot owners. Al asked if some of the Conservation Committee members wanted to make their views known about this subdivision. Linda Hamilton said this new proposal is a big improvement, but asked how it can be assured that the cutting and clearing for new homeowners would continue to provide maximum cover for wildlife. Steve said as he understands the cutting issues, there are 3 things to keep in mind especially for the two ten-acre lots without the restrictions: • viewing from offsite • protecting wildlife • clearing for solar access Dave Brown suggested that what Linda may be referring to, is when someone drives around by the covered bridge and looks up at the surrounding hillsides, it would be startling to look up and see a house clearly in view out of nowhere. Linda said there is a visual impact and not only is it the aesthetics, but the concern of keeping some continuous forest cover. Steve agreed that they could approach it from that point of view, that there not be a clearing of the whole viewshed from the house site. Linda added that they are concerned with soil erosion when too many trees are cut. Steve said he would be willing to submit a very detailed soil erosion plan. Part of the reason for cutting is to provide some offsite views, yet he is open to suggestions for a compromise agreement such as a description of the areas than can or cannot be cleared. When the building permit is applied for, they will submit an Erosion Control Plan after they know actually where the building will be. Jim Donovan proposed that something be written on the plat — that way there is full understanding when people want to do some clearing, that it's right there. Too often the information can be overlooked when there is only a reference to a document somewhere. Charlie Burnham added that the Zoning Administrator should not have to make this decision. So Steve suggested that the wording on this agreement could be, that these trees that are cut shall be no more than "x" diameter. Peter said they could put in language that said what the general standards to be expected. And it could be stated ahead of time that in the event the building spot is chosen in one spot over another, they don't get to clear both areas; they must choose. Steve said with the house design, they might figure maximum, using a performance approach. Jeff asked to see some further detail on the design of the road. Charlie noted that the typical road detail showed a wider measurement than is required, but Steve's detail is taking into account the turn-around require- ments of the fire department. The driveway is over 1000 feet long. All common infrastructure will be put in by A. Johnson and maintained by the three project owners. Any common elements will be maintained by the three lot owners. Each lot has a septic tank and its effluent at this time, would be sent to the disposal system down in the lower area. Al said it appears that Steve is asking for a deferral of the requirements for a final design. Steve said he doesn't see it that way — they want to submit a final design when the application is submitted for a building permit. Steve said it isn't cost effective for them to submit a final design for the septic system that they hope is not going to be the one they are going to use; instead they are continuing to look for a closer alternative to that and do the complete engineering plan for the site when the building application is submitted. It was now 9:00 p.m., so Al asked if there were further questions from the audience. Larry Hamilton, in observing that the restrictions on clearing in Lot 3 are the same as the US Forest Service' guidelines in 1987. The Forest Service is changing policies. Is there any chance, he asked, of re-wording the covenant on Lot 3 so that it will continue to be with the current policies? Bill Sayre (for A. Johnson) asked whether Larry really means that. Sometimes because of politics or other reasons, the policies and instructions become even less restrictive than they are right now. He thinks Larry may be disappointed if that happens and more cutting is done because it is then allowed. Larry wanted that only to be put on the new lot owner. But Bill said he didn't think it made sense to enter into wording that is unknown in the future. Charlie said the Planning Commission has to look at the design. They don't have the personnel to go out and look at ongoing project such as an organization with a stewardship does. Marty Illick observed that Charlotte has a Conservation Commission and very dedicated people involved who know what is happening and continue to be concerned. She said she agrees with Larry that we want to stay with current standards. Steve Libby said he's not willing to go back into the agreement to add that wording. At 9:10 p.m., Al moved to continue the application of the A. Johnson Co. to July 21, 1998. The motion was seconded by Dave Brown. In discussion, Jeff asked that items Steve was expected to work on be described. Peter itemized: • conceptual plan for cutting to limit offsite visibility • minimize soil erosion • minimize impact on wildlife, and if they have done any soils testing, they should bring any report along. If this is approved this way and research moves the location of the septic system, he will have to submit an amended plat. Every applicant must submit a sewage plan, along with a description of the sewer line corridor and any changes will be considered a Subdivision Modification. Peter Kunin said that this group will confer on the issues. Charlie asked that any new information be submitted 10 days before the meeting so that it can be reviewed and copied to each member. Al then asked for the vote, and the motion was approved, 7–0. 3. General Business: Minutes for 19 May 1998 were reviewed. Ed Melby, David Allen and Peter Kunin had some clarifications to add, and then Peter Kunin moved to approve the minutes with these corrections. Ed Melby seconded the motion and it was approved, 7–0. Minutes were reviewed as revised by Charlie, for the 2 June 1998 meeting. The paragraphs needed to be redefined. Ed Melby moved to approve the Minutes for 2 June 1998 as they were presented. Peter Kunin seconded the motion and it was approved, 4 for approval and 3 abstentions from the people who weren't there. 4. Deliberative Session: At 9:30 p.m., David Allen moved to adjourn to a separate room for a deliberative session. Peter Kunin seconded the motion and it was approved, 7–0. 5. At 9:50 p.m., Peter Kunin moved to approve the Findings of Fact and Notice of Decision for in re: Application of John and Helen Sheehan and Clark W. Hinsdale, Jr. of Sheehan Green, Charlotte and authorize the Chairman to execute the Findings of Fact pending minor revisions as discussed. Al Moraska seconded the motion and it was approved, 7–0. 6. Peter Kunin moved to approve the Findings of Fact and Notice of Decision in re: Application of Luther, Elizabeth and Sarah Bridgman of Wings Point, Charlotte and authorize the Chairman to execute these Findings in the form presented to us at this meeting. David Allen seconded the motion and it was approved 7–0. 7. General Business: Charlie passed out some information on the possibility for towns to apply for certain grants, and asked if anyone could think of pet projects that needed to be funded, but could not be funded in the normal budgeting process. Peter Kunin asked if some funding could be requested to put towards improved mapping. Dave Brown agreed that this would be a good plan and would pursue this idea regarding the needed funding to put the wetland and wildlife layers on the GIS maps that are being done for the listers. Linda Hamilton has a written proposal with that request. Ed Melby agreed that all of these items could be tied together in a request for a grant. Charlie said UVM is doing the GIS part of it. Everything must meet the standards. Dave said as part of the wetlands part of this study, they want to in particular, do more study about this part of town where the town offices is. They want to do some test pits — 50 yards from the wetland and do soil tests, then another 50 yards away, etc. so that these areas are finally on a map. This area is not on a national map, yet anyone knows they can't walk out in back without boots. They would get the same individuals that have just finished doing Hines- burg, so that all this could be tied in together. Also under General Business, Dave Brown and Charlie noted that someone has been under contract, apparently, to plow and seed the land where the owners of the previously proposed site for the railroad station had planned to put a road. Charlie has been in contact with the person doing the work, in that he had not gotten a permit to prepare for that road. At 10:00 p.m., Al Moraska moved to adjourn the regular meeting as they went into executive session on personnel matters. Ed Melby seconded the motion and it was approved, 7–0. APPROVED BY THE CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION ON Chairman Date