TOWN OF CHARLOTTE

 PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES OF MEETING

JULY 18, 2002

Approved:  September 19, 2002

MEMBERS PRESENT:       Jeff McDonald, Chairman; Gordon Troy, Josie Leavitt, Martha Perkins, Dave Brown, Al Moraska.

MEMBERS ABSENT:         Jim Donovan.

ADMINISTRATION:           Dean Bloch, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Stuart Bennett, Christy Gahagan, Tony Stout, Clark W. Hinsdale, Jr., Stephen C. Brooks, Debbie Ramsdell, Gene Dion, Will Simonelli, Ben Campbell, T. J. Sauthoff, Bill Kellner, Linda Hamilton, Larry Hamilton, Jan Crabbet, Clark Hinsdale, Sr., Stu Bedard, Bill Bly, Bonnie Bly, Lynn Nurczynski.

 


1.         CALL TO ORDER

Mr. McDonald, Chairman, called the meeting to order.

 

2.         APPROVAL OF MINUTES

MOTION by Mr. Troy, seconded by Ms. Leavitt, to approve the minutes of the 05/16/02 meeting with the following corrections:

Page 1, note that Ms. Leavitt was not in attendance for the Knowles silo meeting;

Page 2, #3, add statements from the Town Planner about the deed to the discussion about the right-of-way;

Page 3, Section #3 – clarify Mr. Troy recused himself and spoke as an audience member not a Planning Commission.

VOTE:  unanimous; motion carried.

 

3.         VILLAGE PLAN

Mr. Bloch noted that the revised Village Plan, Sections 1-5, was sent to the Planning Commission for review.  A work session and a public informational meeting would be scheduled.  A letter from Charles Russell requesting two representatives from the Planning Commission to join the Burns property task force was received (this task force is a parallel effort to the town village task force).  It was noted there is also an economic task force.  Interested members should contact Mr. McDonald.  Mr. Donovan and Mr. Moraska were volunteered for the task force. 

 

E-mail on the zoning regulations was received from Sharon Murray for review.  Ms. Murray will meet with the Planning Commission early August or early September. 

 

The Town Planner sent Sketch Plan letters to Norm Bean, the Martins and to Jean Pecor regarding a boundary adjustment and subdivision amendment, respectively.

 

4.         WILLIAM AND CHRISTINE GAHAGAN CONSIDERATION TO RE-OPEN A HEARING REGARDING A SUBDIVISION APPLICATION TO CHANGE A CURB CUT FROM PAPPLEDUNGEON ROAD TO WHALLEY ROAD

Mr. McDonald stated a legal opinion was received from the Town Attorney regarding what circumstances were acceptable for re-opening a closed public hearing.  A hearing should only be re-opened if the parties showed there was factual information which was not presented during the original hearing that had a bearing on the discussion.  To reconsider the original decision required a warned hearing which could be invoked by a motion from the Planning Commission.  Mr. McDonald noted that letters requesting re-opening a hearing were received from Christine Gahagan and Stuart Bennett, representing neighbors. 

 

Mr. Stout, the Gahagan’s representative, said that the Gahagans were offering proof as to why the Planning Commission should reverse the June decision regarding the driveway location for Lot 2.  The basic position of the Town regarding shared access was not consistent with Town policy, and this ties into the issue of if there is justification for that condition of the decision.  The position was not a safety issue, and there is not any evidence of an aesthetic issue which would prohibit the Commission from approving the driveway going directly out to Whalley Road.  The Police power of the Town needs to be based on public safety or welfare before the Town restricts access.  There was no evidence to support such a restriction.  The neighbors do not want to share the driveway with Lot #2. Most land use planning professionals urge neighbors to work together which is what occurred, but the neighbors did not want to share the driveway.

 

Mr. Bennett explained that Whalley Road is a public road while Pappledungeon Road is not.  The lot that was created has frontage on the public road and is entitled to access to the public road.  Legally, the Gahagans are entitled to insist on frontage/access.  There is no other public road access.  The houses behind have access to the private road.  Those houses were given the right for an easement and the right to construct a road, which was done.  It was noted when Caldwell and Thurber made the arrangement, there was no anticipation that Caldwell was giving a right-of-way over what is now the Gahagan parcel, or that Caldwell reserved the right to use it.  It is a private road and there was no call for Caldwell or his predecessors to use it.  There was no provision to actually use the road. There was further discussion of the right to access a public road, and right-of-way and access to the lots being contingent upon a certain number of houses on the road.

 

Gordon Troy pointed out later deeds misrepresented the right-of-way.  There were deed limitations specifying which lots could use the road after the Caldwell deed that created the right of way across the property that is now owned by the Gahagans (the property where the right of way is located).  Also, the Town Plan clearly speaks to dissuading all curb cuts on town roads when there are other available means of access.  It was noted that Pappledungeon is not a town road.  It was argued if the road was not owned by the Gahagans, then there would be no alternatives, but because the property was actually owned by the Gahagans, there was merely a right-of-way across the property.  The residents do not own the land over which Pappledungeon Road runs. The overriding Town policy guides the fact that the Town does not want more curb cuts on town roads.

 

Mr. McDonald said the Planning Commission would entertain a motion to reconsider re-opening another hearing. The Planning Commission expressed concerns on how to pro-rate the use of the road.  The concern is other residents being compelled to share in the improvements to Pappledungeon Road.  Mr. Mossman responded to concerns regarding sharing costs of maintenance of the road by the users, noting he contracted for $2,000 in repairs to the road due to water collecting in the middle of the curb cut.  Mr. Mossman said he has been using the road for 20 years.

 

There was further discussion regarding subdivision approval, creation and conditions of the road, reservation of rights, the easement deed, intention of the grantor, and if the neighbors were compelled to share the right-of-way.  Ms. Leavitt argued for sharing roads and the cost of maintaining roads as good neighbors and community.  It was agreed all want the same, but polices are not mandatory, and discretion by the Planning Commission is needed in this case.  Town policies were written related to heavily traveled secondary roads, not shared access. Limiting curb cuts on busy roads is done by the State and by most land use planning.  Back roads were not usually subject to this policy.

 

Mr. McDonald reiterated the question of re-opening the hearing.  There was discussion of re-opening the hearing, two possible access points, location of the proposed house, and location of a wetland on the Gahagan lot.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Gahagan Public Hearing Reconsideration

MOTION by Ms. Leavitt, the motion was seconded, to re-open the Gahagan public hearing.

DISCUSSION: Mr. Brooks asked for clarification of the Town Attorney’s opinion.  Mr. McDonald read the Town Attorney opinion on reasons to re-open a closed hearing.  Mr. Brooks asked for a review of the factual information that has been presented (to warrant re-opening the hearing).  Ms. Leavitt said that the Planning Commission was going to require the driveway go onto Pappledungeon Road from the new subdivided lot.  Other neighbors used that road and it might not have been fair to make that decision without the neighbors being present to discuss it.  Mr. McDonald explained that the abutting neighbors were informed via letter from the Town Road Commissioner regarding the Planning Commission hearing.  The access discussed was from Whaley Road versus Pappledungeon Road.  The Town Road Commissioner approved the access.  The neighbors were not aware that Pappledungeon Road would be an access.  It was noted the neighbors were totally surprised about a possible access on Pappledungeon Road (expected access was on Whaley Road). The Gahagans said that they had attended the meeting during which there was a lengthy discussion regarding the access issue. There was further discussion regarding the access issues related to re-opening the hearing. Mr. Brooks asked what facts have come to light subsequent to closing the hearing.  Mr. McDonald reiterated that the neighbors understood the access was on Whaley Road.  The decision the Planning Commission made was that the access would be on Pappledungeon Road.  Ms. Leavitt read the Town Attorney’s opinion again, stressing “…factual information that had bearing on the decision that was not discussed at the original hearing.”  Mr. Brooks asked for the facts.  Impact to the neighbors was the reply.  Mr. McDonald said that legal information in the deeds, which was not available at the meeting, was discussed during deliberation.  It was clear that the public was not involved in the process, said Mr. McDonald. 

  CALL THE QUESTION by Mr. McDonald.  Discussion ceased.

VOTE: unanimous; motion carried.

 

5.         WILLIAM KELLNER, JOANNE WOLFE, LAWRENCE AND LINDA HAMILTON AND MARK FRANCESCHETTI & KATHLEEN FLEMING.  Lawrence and Linda Hamilton and William Kellner and Mark Franceschetti appeared on behalf of the application. 

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Kellner explained a boundary readjustment is being sought.  Mr. Kellner submitted a site map of the 28.11 acre parcel and reviewed the following:

 

A Planning Commission member asked why the Stone/Atwoods were not participating in the process.  Mr. Hamilton replied that the Stone/Atwoods had purchased a barn and had completed a boundary adjustment.  A non-conforming lot was not being created and the existing non-confirming lot would be made less non-conforming.

 

Mr. Bloch recommended the application be divided into two applications reviewed separately, but at the same meeting.   The Planning Commission said that it would be reviewed as one application.  There was further discussion regarding the length of the right-of-way, an existing farm road into the property, and that there is no house on the property at this time.  Mr. Hamilton said a septic was approved, sited within the existing lot, and setbacks were fine.  As far as the parcel division, the good pastureland would be on the Kellner lot.  There was brief discussion regarding the location of hay land, crop land, and wet/brushy areas on the site map.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Kellner/Hamilton

MOTION was made and seconded to classify the application as a subdivision modification.

DISCUSSION: Staff will research previous subdivision decisions for any problems/conditions.  It was noted the right-of-way lane is clear. It was clarified no new lots are being created.

VOTE:  unanimous; motion carried.

 

6.         INDEPENDENT WIRELESS ONE

Mr. McDonald reviewed an application by Independent Wireless One (IWO) Lease Realty Corporation, which was a continuation of an application for installation of two PSC antennas and associated equipment on an existing farm silo at 5292 Ethan Allen Highway.  Mr. Bloch reviewed a site visit, site view distances from nearest public uses, and locations of the proposed ground facilities.  Issues were location of equipment inside the silo, GPS antenna locations, and distances.

 

Mr. Sauthoff and Mr. Simonelli appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Sauthoff, IWO representative, submitted a packet of submittals to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Simonelli, IWO representative, explained the updated design which would conceal equipment inside the silo as presented in S-D1, and a detailed report from Chasen Engineering.  All equipment was inside the silo except the antennas and GPS. Antennas would be painted to match the silo.  The GPS location was noted on S-P2.  There was discussion regarding the current color of the silo (gray), an access door cut into the north end of the silo, a 4’x4’ pedestal board located between the silo and barn (not visible from the road), a concrete floor poured inside the silo, and required signage mounted adjacent to the proposed access door.  Mr. Simonelli said that power to the meter board would run overhead to the existing barn then underground to the pedestal and the silo.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Bloch asked if there were any pigeons in the silo.  Mr. Crabbe replied the pigeons were in the barn, not the silo. Mr. Campbell asked how far the silo was from the Lucette house.  Mr. Simonelli replied 472.4 feet.

 

Mr. Simonelli explained distances from Route 7 and public businesses as outlined in the engineer’s report.  The Planning Commission felt the stated location of the nearest hospital was incorrect.

 

MOTION was made and seconded to close the public hearing portion of the IWO application.  VOTE:  unanimous; motion carried.

 

7.         HINSDALE FARM PROPOSAL UPDATE

Mike LaClaire, manager Hinsdale Farms, stated he had spoken with the Selectboard last Monday regarding changes to the original proposal that included:

 

There was discussion of a statement from the Agricultural Commissioner that there would be a ten-day comment period, a 45-day period before a decision was provided, or if at the end of a 45-day period no decision was forthcoming, then the state level application was granted by default.  It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that staff would contact the Agricultural Commissioner regarding clarification of an acceptable comment period which was triggered by acceptance of a complete application.  Mr. McDonald said that the Charlotte Town Planner had contacted the Commissioner, who had stated the official comment period closed 10 days after the application was considered complete.  A decision would be issued after 45 days.  Also, regarding comments and Planning Commission conditions requested in a state decision, the state would likely only include conditions the state is responsible to enforce.  The Planning Commission noted that the Town’s role with the Hinsdale application was as an informal site plan review.

 

There was lengthy discussion regarding gathering public comments as well as Planning Commission comments, and obtaining information prior to a scheduled Planning Commission work session scheduled for 08/01/02. Mr. Bloch had requested typical information on site plan, types and scale of trips to the farm, landscaping plans, curb cuts, traffic flow, lighting, and such, with a goal to have material available prior to the work session.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Brooks summarized that he heard three discussions mentioned:

1.  Determining when the Hinsdale application was complete.

2.  A “casual/friendly” site plan review by the Charlotte Planning Commission.

3.  Issues regarding a state level public comment period on the Hinsdale application.

 

Mr. Brooks stated the Agricultural Commissioner could make a decision on the application anytime within the 45-day period.  There was agreement that discussion of items #1 and #3 could fit together, but it was not clear the Planning Commission would submit comments other than those related to a site plan review.  The Planning Commission process included a 10-business day comment period, conducting a site visit, holding a scheduled meeting for site plan review, and offering comments which would be forwarded to the Agricultural Commissioner.  Staff will prepare an executive summary of comments received. 

 

Ms. Nurcyznski expressed neighborhood concerns on how the community would fit into the process.  The Hinsdale plan would affect property values as well as mental and physical well being.  Ms. Perkins pointed out that the Planning Commission was limited to site plan review.  Mr. Troy noted that the applicant had volunteered to discuss the issues with the Planning Commission, and read the Town ordinance regarding Planning Commission site plan approval for development other than single family dwellings, home occupations, accessory apartments.  Mr. Hinsdale said that the farm was in the agricultural/residential district; a farm in a residential district only had to meet setback requirements.  Ms. Nurcyznski stated that (the Hinsdale’s operation) is the only cow factory in the State of Vermont placed in a dense residential area.  Ms. Perkins reiterated per the law, the Charlotte regulations do not have jurisdiction over agricultural buildings.  The law was a test case, and the citizens can take action which the Agricultural Commissioner will note.

 

A neighbor of the proposed large farm said that if Michael Jordan built a 60,000 square foot house (in Charlotte), he would have to go through a different approval process than the Hinsdales.  There was something wrong with the process if the only Planning Commission input was to recommend “window boxes on the barn”.  Ms. Perkins explained the Planning Commission process includes more than “window boxes”, such as review of lighting, traffic, and more.

 

Mr. Brooks commented the Hinsdales are coming forth through their good graces and the desire to develop a positive application.

 

The Planning Commission will warn a meeting for 08/01/02 with a site visit at 5:30 p.m. on the same date.  Mr. McDonald asked that the Hinsdale’s stake out the location of the proposed barn and manure pit.  Staff will have a Planning Commission packet prepared by Friday, 07/26/02.  Staff will send a letter of intent to the Agricultural Commissioner regarding the Planning Commission schedule.  Site plan criteria for traffic, parking, lighting, will apply in the “informal” process.  Route 7 access was not applicable. No fees would be required.

 

Mr. Moraska asked if the Hinsdale’s had considered re-cycling water which was practiced in the western states.  Mr. Hinsdale asked for further information. Mr. Moraska asked if high intensity lighting to stimulate milk production would be utilized.  Mr. LaClaire explained that cows needed 7-8 hours of darkness for optimum milk production.  A white ceiling would reflect light downward.  Mr. Moraska expressed concern light from the farm would reflect into the neighborhood during the winter.

 

Mr. Brown asked if the review process would start over again before any more cows could be added following the first 600-cow permit.  Mr. Hinsdale confirmed the process would start all over.

 

In response to questions regarding possible future damage from lighting and water table levels, Mr. Hinsdale explained that the Department of Agriculture was already sampling water to establish water quality and quantity baselines.  A test well was drilled that produced 35 gpm.  A 72-hour pump test will be conducted.  Mr. Brown noted that his water well originally produced 75 gpm, but since all the houses were built, it was down to 45 gpm.

 

A Planning Commissioner noted that letters of complaint (regarding the proposed cow operation) had been sent to the Agricultural Department, but no action was received.  Changing practices required changing rules dealing with facts versus emotion.  Mr. McDonald reiterated that Charlotte’s site plan review was an informal process.

 

There was further discussion regarding plans for interior and exterior lighting, ventilation, decibel levels from farm equipment, fans, vacuum pumps, and hours of operation.  Mr. Hinsdale said that information regarding the discussed items was not available.

 

8.         NEXT MEETING

The next meeting of the Planning Commission was scheduled for 08/1/02.

 

9.         ADJOURNEMNT

MOTION was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.  VOTE: unanimous; motion carried.

 

Minutes transcribed from audiotape and respectfully submitted by Kathlyn Furr, Recording Secretary.

 

THESE MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BY THE CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION.  CHANGES, IF ANY, WILL BE RECORDED IN THE MINUTES OF THE NEXT MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.