Charlotte Planning
Commission
Minutes of Meeting of
July 2, 2003
Charlotte Town Hall – 159 Ferry Road
Town Office – (802) 425-3533
Gene Diou
Gordon Troy
Al Moraska
Linda Radimer
Staff Present: Dean Bloch,
Town Planner
Others:
Stephen
Brooks
Peter
Conn
Eric
Farrell
Peter
and Patrice Demick
Clark
Hinsdale, III
Linda
Hamilton
Kate
Lampton
George
and Lynn Reynolds
Ellie
Russell
Sylvia
Sprigg
Jim Donovan, in his
capacity as Vice Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA AND
REGULAR AGENDA (NOTHING ON CONSENT AGENDA)
Dean Bloch said he had a
request to switch the decisions and the minutes. The PC agreed with this request.
PUBLIC
COMMENT
None.
DECISIONS: POINT BAY MARINA, LEWIS CREEK ASSOCIATES
SKETCH
PLAN REVIEW: CLARK HINSDALE III (LOWER
OLD TOWN TRAIL, STATE FARM ROAD, RT 7)
Lewis Creek Associates –
The PC deliberated on this matter.
Point Bay Marina – The PC
deliberated on this matter.
The PC directed Mr. Bloch
to revise the decisions as discussed and prepare them for signature by the PC
to distribute to the applicants.
MINUTES: May 1, May 15, June 5, June 19
It
was decided that the minutes would be discussed later.
ESTATE
OF MARIETTE J. PALMER: SKETCH PLAN
REVIEW FOR A RESUBDIVISION CREATING 7 LOTS.
PROPERTY LOCATED ON ROUTE 7, EAST THOMPSONS POINT ROAD AND GREENBUSH
ROAD IN THE RURAL, INDUSTRIAL AND CONSERVATION ZONING DISTRICTS
Eric Farrell, a real
estate broker from Redstone Commercial Real Estate, addressed the PC on behalf
of the Estate of Mariette J.
Palmer. He explained that it was the
Estate’s goal to devise a plan to facilitate Sylvia Sprigg ( a significant heir
of the estate) to retain ownership of the homestead on Route 7 along with land
associated with that piece and to sell the remaining lands of the estate by
resubdividing it. He said that he was
directed by the Estate to come up with a simple plan that would not be a bulk
sale of all the land that was a single parcel.
He showed a blow up of the Town tax map. This land consists of 143 acres.
The homestead sits on 4-5 acres and there are a half dozen industrial
lots. There is a septic lot where the
community septic system is proposed to be built to serve all the parcels.
Next
he showed a map with the proposed plan.
He said that they propose to take all if of the industrial lots and
combine them in a single lot of 24.5 acres.
The septic lot is increased a bit in size on this map and it now
includes the right-of-way that will include the road. They propose to make a
more gentle curve than presently exists and upgrade it from a drive to a
private road serving 5 or more houses and they will meet the Town
specifications for a road, such as making it 18-feet wide.
He
showed on the map the total of 7 lots.
They have taken the western end of the property and propose a 66 acre
singe lot (Lot 1). They tried to focus
most of the development in the middle corridor and have kept most of the Demick
property open. They are in the process
of selling the 24.5 acre lot (as above mentioned) to Clark Hinsdale, III who
wants to conserve it.
In
order to meet the guidelines of retaining 50% of open land, they propose building envelopes on Lots 2, 3 and 7 and 2
building envelopes on Lot 1. 50% of Lot
5 will remain open. They propose a
building envelope on the farmhouse lot.
If Lot 5 is not conserved, 65% of the land would be open.
There
will be 2 community septic systems. The
66-acre lot has the option to have their own septic mound system (designed for
one house). Mr. Troy asked about
perkable soil. Mr. Farrell agreed that
there is not a lot of perkable soil on this property; therefore, he said the
system is sufficient to serve what they are proposing, based on the engineers’
work, and that’s why there is a separate system for Lot 1. Al Moraska asked if they considered a PRD
type of setup rather than dividing the property into large lots. Mr. Farrell said they looked at that and
they thought the cost appropriate way to preserve open space would be to do 2
large lots and building lots in the center.
Jim Donovan asked about septic: is there potential for other additional
single septic systems? Mr. Farrell said
no. Mr. Troy said that he is not
adverse to leaving the space open and subjecting it to review again at a future
date instead of defining it now. Mr.
Demick said that he has a long-term contract with Aurora Farms to use the land
for organic farming. Eric Farrell said
it is reasonable for the Demicks to consider a stipulation like on Lot 5 that
says to leave 50% of the land open.
Mr. Troy told Mr. Farrell that the PC will follow up tonight’s
classification with a letter. At this
point, Sylvia Sprigg showed on the map where the prime agricultural land was on
the property.
Mr.
Diou asked what will happen to the existing industrial lots on the
property. Mr. Donovan said that they
were gone. The PC then went through
Dean Bloch’s recommendations.
Recommendations
(comments)
Western drive should be eliminated.– Mr. Farrell said they are proposing to create a 6
acre building envelope and have left 100 feet frontage on Thompsons Point Road
deliberately. Mr. Troy said that access
to the building lot is different than ag access. Mr. Donovan said that leaning towards ag access is fine;
development access comes off the interior road. Mr. Moraska said that he would
like to see the western building envelope eliminated and the access would come
off internally.
Southerly building envelope on Lot 1
Lot
3 would be reduced to less than 10 acres in size, Mr. Farrell said. Mr. Troy voiced concern that from the
viewpoint if you have a 10-acre parcel and only 2 acres are going to be used
and 3 are defined as the building envelope, by taking that out of the larger
parcel, you would be dividing that part from the ag use by putting the boundary
there. Mr. Farrell said that potential
owners want the acreage to own.
Reduce the setbacks – Mr. Farrell said that they could marginally put a
house on Lot 2.
Provide a landscape plan – Mr. Farrell said that they will provide one to the
PC.
Lot 6 – Mr. Farrell said that with the farmhouse, they are endeavoring to
provide Sylvia Sprigg with as much land with the homestead as they can and
attaching to the farmhouse all the land that is left over (15.9 acres).
Building Envelope –Mr. Farrell said they want the house at the edge of
the woods.
As
far as the proposed covenants, Mr. Farrell said that he will provide all the
required documents.
Mr.
Farrell asked if the PC was going to classify this as an amendment or a major
subdivision. Mr. Troy said that he
would move to classify as a major subdivision and the rest of the PC
agreed. Mr. Diou asked the ramifications
of classifying it as an amendment. Mr.
Donovan said that it would not be possible to change the setback if it were
classified as an amendment.
There
is no deeded right-of-way on the 60-foot strip; it is part of lot 4, common
ownership. Mr. Troy asked if there were
any stakes in the ground on the property and the Demicks acknowledged that
there were.
Ms.
Radimer asked how thick the hedgerow was. Mr. Farrell said that it is sparse;
Sylvia Sprigg said it got thinned out a few years ago and there is a building
permit record in the planning office which indicates a septic system in the
ground to take care of 2 houses on the 10 acres off of Lot 1.
Peter
and Patrice Demick spoke and said that they disagree with the westerly drive
being eliminated. On the issue of the
building envelope on Lot 1 being eliminated, Mr. Demick said that a building
lot has already been approved, but they need to have some way to get to
it. He would like to see the
roadway moved closer to the edge to
retain more ag area. His desire is to remain in ag but needs access to the barn
and the house. Mr. Diou said that if
there is a barn there, it is ag use and access there is fine. Mr. Demick said the curb cut is inside Lot 7
currently and he would like to keep it there
Peter
Kahn said that if the building envelope for Lot 7 were moved to the western half
of the lot, there is a drainage ditch dug through there, so towards the woods
would be more realistic. Sylvia Sprigg
commented that Lot 7 had open pasture land and not prime woods of any sort; the
hole was dug to dig out clay and there is no drainage. Mr. Donovan asked Mr. Bloch to get copies of
the last subdivision for this property from 2000.
Kate
Lampton, representing Champlain Valley Greenbelt Alliance, said that that
organization was hoping to be one of the partners in conservation for this
property and she offered her comments.
She advised them to look at the ag land and the way the subdivision
helps or impacts that. She went on to
say that building envelopes are a great technique for donating areas and
conserving ag land. However, building envelopes
can interrupt ag patterns and create a disruption of field patterns; sometimes
building envelopes are two-tiered to deal with that. She also urged them to
keep the views in mind and also the changes that will come on the road from
proposed improvements by VTrans.
Mr.
Farrell respectfully asked the PC to consider that the Palmers have lived in
Charlotte for years and their mission is to strike a balance of keeping the
bulk of the land open, while allowing the estate to realize some return.
Ms.
Lampton said that she is not proposing opposition, just commenting.
Mr. Troy moved to classify this project as a major subdivision. Linda Radimer seconded. All were in favor and the motion passed
unanimously.
Mr.
Donovan said that a site visit needs to be done before finalizing the PC’s
recommendations.
GEORGE
AND LYNN REYNOLDS (PROPERTY OWNERS) AND CLARK W. HINSDALE III (APPLICANT): SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR A SUBDIVISION
AMENDMENT. PROPERTY LOCATED OFF OF EAST
THOMPSONS POINT ROAD IN THE RURAL ZONING DISTRICT.
Clark Hinsdale, III showed
on Mr. Farrell’s tax map where the property was located. He said that it
currently exists as a 9-lot subdivision and 2 open space lots. The modification that they are proposing is
to reduce it from 11 parcels to 5. He
then showed on a different sketch the proposed modification. Coming from west to east, the first parcel
(17 acres) stays the same, the next parcel (Parcel 4 – 13.7 acres) is an
amalgamation of 6 2.3 acre lots into a single parcel, then next the most
sensitive area that was pointed out in the meeting with the Conservation
Committee, is a corridor along the brook tributary,. This brook ran diagonally through. He proposes to make it open space and added to the lot in the
east (Lot 5 is an amalgamation of two smaller lots into one). All the way to the east, there is a
currently existing lot and another one with a proposed building envelope. There is an unapproved right-of-way (a 60
foot owned strip) which was originally Dan Palmer’s access into this
property.
All of the lot lines
currently exist. All the survey pins
are there ready for a site visit. All
wetlands have been mapped. Mr. Troy
asked about the western most parcel and what the squares on the maps were. Mr. Hinsdale said that they were septic
easements. No structures are on the
property. Mr. Donovan asked him if he
wanted to have Lot 4 permanently designated as open space in the proposed
subdivision. Mr. Hinsdale said no. Mr. Donovan said that then he will need a
building envelope on it, to which Mr. Hinsdale agreed.
Mr.
Moraska asked about the right-of-way going from Greenbush Road across Lot 3 on
the map. Mr. Hinsdale said there was no
development access proposed. The
neighborhood desire is for Lots 3 and 4 to be their own piece of open land with
no formal rights-of-way and the neighbors would share this space for trails,
for example.
Mr.
Hinsdale said the subdivision was created under modern regulations and
reaffirmed recently. Residential subdivisions do not require that the person
commence construction within any given time – permits run with the land.
He
also said that the septic location is the same and the road is the same. They just need a plat to memorialize
it. Mr. Moraska said he agrees with Mr.
Bloch in that it should not be classified as a major subdivision.
Mr.
Donovan asked Mr. Hinsdale to explain a bit about the history of the legal
court case he is involved in which relates to this property. Mr. Hinsdale explained that he was formerly
married to Carol Aube and lived in their brick farmhouse. In that house were 2 dwelling units that
existed at the turn of the century. He
got a permit to make one into a real estate land use marketing office in the
late 80s, early 90s. After he and Carol
Aube got divorced, there was a third unit. In 1991, he obtained from the PC and
Zoning Board approval to convert what had been the office into an
apartment. All conditions of the permit
were met except for one. That unit of
density was conveyed from the subdivision by virtue that it was a 9 lot
subdivision in 50 acres and the 10th unit was conveyed to the
house. As a result, the third unit was
a conditional use in a building and because the fact that the final condition
of the apartment permit hadn’t been met in the late 90’s had come to the Town’s
attention, the Town look legal action against Carol Aube. Because the density came from the
subdivision as part of the PRD, that 10th unit was never perfected
so as a matter of settling the court case on an apartment that has already been
approved by the PC and Zoning Board, the proposal to settle the matter with the
Selectboard was to kill 2 lots in that subdivision. Lots 5 and 6 that had the
brook running through them and wildlife habitat that are mapped as Town
resources were viewed as the most sensitive lots in the subdivision, so the
agreement with the Selectboard in settling this case was to take those 2 highly
sensitive lots and kill them. But this
proposal today goes beyond that in terms of reducing the number of lots in the
subdivision, Mr. Hinsdale said. So it
is a 9-lot subdivision (maximum could be 7 that he could ask for because he had
dealt away 2 of those rights). The
reason this isn’t a matter for the PC, he said, is because the PC already approved
it and the Zoning Board already approved it.
He is giving up 2 lots in settlement of a legal action.
Mr.
Hinsdale said he is proposing 3 buildable lots. Mr. Troy asked if they would be visible from Route 7 and Mr.
Hinsdale said no. They are on a major
slope. Mr. Troy suggested that Dean Bloch is correct on his classification
issue to identify this as an amendment.
Mr. Donovan said that Mr. Hinsdale has also convinced him of the same.
Ms. Radimer asked about Lot 5 and siting the house. Mr. Hinsdale said he would consider moving the building envelope
some more, but a pretty place to build is slightly into the woods because you
can look under the branches of trees, it has southern exposure and it is
protected with the land wrapping around it.
Mr.
Troy suggested a combined visit of this site and the previous application.
Mr. Troy moved to classify this application as an amendment of the
pre-existing subdivision subject to verifying the prior decisions which are in
conformity with what’s been represented.
Mr.
Hinsdale said the minutes of those times are missing.
Ellie
Russell said Clark Hinsdale said the Selectboard has settled; Ms. Russell said
they discussed it and they have not taken any formal action on it (the 12 acres
to be conveyed as well as killing 2 lots). She said that needs to be
clarified. Mr. Hinsdale said that it is
also conditional upon the Town attorney reviewing it.
Sylvia
Sprigg said that in previous discussions between Marietta Palmer and Lynn
Palmer about Dan Palmer’s estate and her subdivision of her 10 acre lot, there
have been concerns about the use of the right-of-way getting to this parcel as
well as concerns from the community about loss of ag land and suddenly all this
objection has disappeared. Mr. Troy
said that is why they need to do a site visit.
Mr. Hinsdale commented by saying that the people who are concerned about
the riparian areas and wildlife habitats have grown to the point where they are
at least equal partners in the conservation movement and so the riparian
resource through the property has been adjudicated by the CCC to be the
superior resource and the decision was away from the brook, away from woods, so
it seems to be a sense of the community that the wildlife and riparian
resources on this particular parcel are the more important resources.
Mr.
Bloch asked Mr. Hinsdale to address the timing of the right-of-way through the
Mariette Palmer Estate parcel. He said
he has a contract to buy 24.5 acres of commercial land for the purpose of
conserving it. That contract also
includes the purchase of the right-of-way to the Kingsland project. Mr. Farrell said Mr. Hinsdale can close tomorrow if he wanted to
on the 24.5 acre lot and he could close on his access across the right-of-way
regardless of subdivision approval.
Patricia Marcoux asked Mr. Hinsdale if his deal with Eric Farrell took
away from the open portion that the Demicks have. Mr. Hinsdale said he plans on conserving all of Lot 5 so it would
more open space.
Sylvia
commented regarding the 60 foot right-of-way.
They want to keep what is access to Lot 1 as an alternative to building
roads through the northern ag area.
That was kept as access to the back acreage. The proposed other alternative was one that was included in her
subdivision along the north (which is now Conn property).
There
was a discussion about the conservation of Lot 3.
Mr. Diou seconded Mr. Troy’s earlier motion. Everyone, with the exception of Jim Donovan, who abstained, was
in favor and the motion was passed.
There
was 5-minute break at 9:30, with the meeting resuming at 9:35 p.m.
MINUTES
May
1 – Upon
deliberation, Mr. Troy moved to
approve the minutes of the meeting of May 1, 2003. Mr. Diou seconded. All
were in favor and the motion was passed.
May
15 – Upon deliberation, Mr. Troy moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of May 15,
2003. Ms. Radimer seconded. All were in favor and the motion was passed.
June
5 – Upon
deliberation, Mr. Troy moved to
approve the minutes of the meeting of June 5, 2003 with changes as
discussed. Ms. Radimer seconded. All were in favor and the motion was passed.
June
19 – Upon
deliberation, Mr. Moraska moved to
approve the minutes of the meeting of June 19, 2003 with changes as
discussed. Mr. Diou seconded. All were in favor and the motion was passed.
LEWIS
CREEK
POINT
BAY MARINA
DISCUSSION
OF PROPOSED RUTHERFORD SUBDIVISION IN FERRISBURG
Mr. Diou said this matter
concerns the use of Charlotte facilities without payment. Mr. Donovan said that right now the
right-of-way is ending approximately 600 feet north of the property line. Chet
Hawkins, the planner for the Town of Ferrisburg went to the Act 250 District
Coordinator and was told there is no jurisdiction. Mr. Donovan directed Mr. Bloch to check on that as well and ask
him if it affects their determination that there is no jurisdiction. Mr. Hinsdale said the big thing is that Mr.
Rutherford is purchasing septic capacity and the Town of Charlotte has a
substantial conservation interest in this property. He is not preserving any
creek frontage and he is not following PRD regulations, Mr. Hinsdale said. Mr. Diou said that the highest concern is septic. Mr. Donovan said another concern is open
space. Ms. Radimer said that many
people have worked very hard to try to conserve this lot with Rutherford and
Stearns unsuccessfully to acknowledge that it does have resources. It has been warned for final – it is
currently in preliminary. Mr. Hinsdale
thinks that the Town’s interest in this situation is analogous to continuity of
the Nordic corridor in the southern part of Shelburne. Mr. Bloch said that the PC had little
information about this matter and now they are being asked to approve it. Mr. Donovan noted that it had open space
while it is not preserved, they were told that it was going to be staying as
open space (hay field). He also said
the PC needs to have a good understanding as to why the Rutherfords now want to
change that and put the road through the middle of a hay field.
Ms. Radimer noted that the
Rutherfords would be moving ahead at their own risk knowing that the Town of
Charlotte is not likely to approve it.
Mr. Hinsdale said that he thinks that the PC should be a party to the
hearing and ask that any final approval include that this doesn’t mean that the
Rutherfords have approval to come through Charlotte. Mr. Donovan said that the Town could reply by stating: 1) why we
have problem with the proposed road; and 2) as an adjoining landowner, the Town
is asking them to look at the entire parcel as the PRD directs.
Mr.
Hinsdale said that, at a minimum, they have to do what Stearns does. Both
conservation commissions should weigh in on the issue of open space.
Mr.
Bloch will draft a letter to be reviewed at the next meeting. He reported that Chet Hawkins from
Ferrisburg has no problem keeping the matter open.
DISCUSSION
OF LETTER TO VERMONT LAND TRUST RE:
HINSDALE APPLICATION
The Vermont Land Trust has requested a letter from
the PC about the Hinsdale property, as well as the DeVos property.
The
letter needs to specify what resources are being protected. Mr. Bloch will draft a letter referring to
both properties for circulation to the PC for review and their comments.
Ellie
Russell said that the PC needs to assign someone from their board to be a
member of the VELCO team. Linda Radimer
volunteered to do this.
ADJOURN
Mr. Diou moved to adjourn the
meeting. Ms. Radimer seconded the
motion. All were in favor and the motion was passed. Meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.