CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION

1. Greenwood America, Preliminary Plat application for a 6-lot subdivision creating 4 building lots, one common lot, and one retained lot located on Lake Road: Mel Hawley presented the map. He said there isn=t a great difference from the one presented during the Sketch Plan.

The delay was caused by the focus on the wetlands, Mel said; we are working with Charles and Cheryl Dooley on the restaurant project and through Trudell and Kent Kopiac of G.O. Environmental Services. We are working on wetlands issues on all of Greenwood America=s properties, he said.

He brought out a wetlands map, and showed the line that shows a 37 acre parcel, a 20 acre parcel and a 17 acre parcel. There is an application in the file for a boundary line adjustment, so that the 17 acres becomes joined with the other holdings of Greenwood America. The 20 acres is where the proposal is for a p.r.d. for 4 single family homes. This has some wetland close to the railroad which is Class II wetland.

On the subject property there is a small wetlands area along Lake Road. And he described an extensive area extending east all along the railroad tracks that is Class II wetlands. He said there may be an opportunity for some development down on that other piece (referring to parcel ___). On the creamery property there is a pocket in the corner and a couple of pieces in the back that appear to be open; there=s sort of a band down through the middle that is not in wetlands (referring to parcels _____).

They met with April Moulart from the State, and Mike Adams on June 7^th and June 8^th. There was an earlier map that just showed kind of a curve for the wetlands but that has been updated.

All of the four houses are being proposed as 3-bedroom homes. Earlier maps, Mel said, did not show building envelopes, but now this drawing shows approximate locations for the building envelopes.

Mel said it has been his understanding that it=s okay with the State to mow a buffer area. Under federal guidelines that require a 50' buffer zone. Jim Donovan said they had run into problems with that and Mel had better check with them because they can not only not construct anything in the buffer zone, they cannot mow in the buffer zone, either. Two other members of the Planning Commission agreed with Jim=s understanding of the buffer zone rules.

Dean said it was his understanding that their recommendation to the Town is not to situate houses that would encroach on Class II wetlands in such a way that mowing of the buffer would not be required. Jim asked if there is encroachment into the 50' buffer. Mel said yes.

Dean said there were some maps submitted that show the building envelopes. Jim wanted to see the relation. Mel pointed out the locations and those of all the neighbors, several of whom were present and looking at the maps. The first lot will be in front of a neighbor=s house.

Al Moraska said one of the reasons for creating a fire pond is that it draws water from the surrounding area; so with it being so close to the septic area, whether the purpose of the fire pond is to create a septic area; that=s still legal, but it is annoying that it would be the purpose. Mel said it would be purely for aesthetics although it is called a fire pond. Robin Simpson asked, in reference to the pond, with all the ditching that has been done recently they can=t maintain any water out front. She asked if the water was to be moving water or just sitting there. Mel said no, there were no plans to have the water moving. There were comments that it would draw a lot of bugs and would become stagnant, have algae. She said it would be nicer if they could keep it moving rather than have dead water. Mel said they would not have a way of keeping it moving.

Steve Mack asked about covenants. Mel said the restrictive covenants will be controlled by the owners of the houses in this p.r.d. Greenwood America and Country Home Products are not designing the homes. Greenwood America put together some draft covenants which could be changed by the new owners. For the public trails, he wants to know what the Town is looking for. On Lot 6 there was a proposal for a 20' easement. He wanted to know who would be running it and who controls it; they would need a trail easement as wide as 20', but there was some discussion that this was a flexible easement so that a trail could be within that. He wants to make sure that isn=t the main focus of the development.

Jeff said there is a trail document in Town; this is a general plan to go westerly with a trail. Jeff said it would be from a known place he pointed out on the map, in some general direction toward the lake. These four property owners will have a vote on how the common land in the back is used.

Dean said the 20' was based on VTRANS recommendation, and that doesn=t necessarily mean a total of 20'. The right of way would be there, possibly not even mowed, just if the occasional hiker were walking through. Steve Mack asked about a Asliver@ of land identified as common land, which Dean agreed was 30'. Dean had suggested that it could be 20' instead, to provide even more buffer to the house. Mel said he had a note which instructed Greenwood America to consider a trail easement to Ferry Road. Jim thought that could even be a Afloating@ easement. Mel said Greenwood America worried about deer hunters using that area and they may not want to let snowmobiles use it either.

Steve Mack said he is not against the trail itself; he has a snowmobile, and they have used snowshoes there as well. At times he has used a snowmobile to get through to the Old Lantern. He said he is not against a trail, and Laura Mack added that they have used the trail for snowshoes. Laura said she only saw one other snowmobile.

Dean Bloch said this comment was not intended to hold things up, but is mainly to be for the future. Mel said his only comment about this is that this is a p.r.d., there would be four property owners, and they would have an Association, and with their votes they would determine the use of the other land.

Laura asked more details about this: by Athe other land,@ does this mean the land out in back of their property line? Mel Hawley said he was referring to the common land. The four property owners would own their lots, and one-fourth interest in the land in the front and the land in the back. Those four owners would make decisions on whether anyone could use snowmobiles in the back.

Steve Mack asked about Lot 6; what are the future plans for that? Mel replied that this is all driven by wetlands though there is some potential development that will be on an open field near the railroad tracks; where the crossing is, to get over to the Old Lantern.

Greenwood America owns 7.7 acres (referring to parcels ______). Chip Kellner owns the building in the front (referring tp parcel ___). Greenwood America owns what we call CHP Mfg. (referring to parcel ____) and the farmhouse and barn property (referring to parcel ___) which wraps totally around everything. Then Greenwood America has purchased an additional adjoining property from the Burns property which is the subject of the present application.

These 4 lots and the common lot apparently don=t come under Act 250 review. Some neighbors seemed to think the Act 250 review is being interpreted differently now than it was when they built their homes. Gordon Troy asked, if lot 6, because its only access is through the main Greenwood America lot, is merged, would that lot then come under Act 250 regulations? Do we as a Commission have the capacity to require that they be merged, in that fashion? Gordon asked if we can make that as a condition, that the merger requires that it be subject to what=s in that permit.

Mel said that boundary modification application just hasn=t hit the table yet. Gordon repeated that he does not like to view all these applications, piecemeal.

Dean said, to be fair, it would be appropriate to do that application to be done in conjunction with, if this is approved, there is one more hearing for this subdivision, to do them together because a mylar would include both properties. The Planning Commission would look at both the residential, and the other at the Final Hearing. But this is an Act 250 question, not the Planning Commission=s question. Jim Donovan said he doesn=t think the Planning Commission can make it a requirement Then if the other property is indeed merged, all the conditions of the property will include the Act 250 review. Jim said he doesn=t think we can make a requirement that this particular piece of land be subject to Act 250 for the future of the other property, but it probably will be, because it then becomes part of that property. He added that he has not seen a property where a piece of it is not subject to Act 250. Act 250 covers the whole property and if the boundaries change, then it becomes subject to all the conditions of that property. Gordon said we would have to require it to be merged, and Jim replied that there is no other access to the other property.

Mel said there is no intention of building an access road across the wetland from the Ferry Rd. parcels. Steve Mack said, AYes, but you guys once told me that you weren=t developers, either, when you guys were talking about the Old Lantern and you said then, that you were Open Space people, not developers.@

Steve Mack stated that when they went through this for their house, the Planning Commission gave them a 75' buffer; a Ano build zone@ because they (the Planning Commission) said it=s too wet out here and said they didn=t want to see any houses further back than 400 feet. Steve and Laura Mack want to know why different rules are going to apply. Laura Mach showed that on the map; a Ano build zone@ from that point (pointing) back. AWhy is it different next door?@ Their septic is 2000' down from the house.

Jeff said this the first time that this Planning Commission has seen this and it is new information. Laura replied that the Planning Commission at that time wanted them to build closer to the road, and they are not permitted to put septic in back.

Laura Mack said her house (built 4 years ago) had to go through Act 250. She could not build back past a certain place, and her next door neighbor also had to go through Act 250, and that everybody else in single family homes within the last 15 years had to go through Act 250. There are four houses on one side and one house to the south.

The proposal is to add four homes that are set back, and the neighbors= concern is AWhy four houses?@ They couldn=t understand why in that narrow lot, when they expected one, there are four houses, further back than they (those that were built within the last 15 years) were allowed to build.

Jeff said the Town has 5 acre zoning, so there are 7 potential lots, theoretically, but there will be 4 homes. Laura said how that small section can have four houses where they had expected one, when they were not allowed to have one on the same knoll. Also when they had tried to get septic for two houses on that same knoll, they could not, with a backup system.

Mel said they did a lot of soils tests; in the area where they designed the septic system, where the best soils were, they tested to see if it would work, but it failed. When they found they couldn=t do a regular system, so they would be designing a mound system instead. The design for the mound system has been done and submitted by Trudell to the State on June 14^th, so it is still under review.

Gordon Troy asked if the developer will put in the fire pond, the road, the landscaping etc. or if the people who will be the homeowners will be expected to do that. Mel said that Greenwood America would not do that but the developer who takes over would have to do the infrastructure. The owner of the first lot would have to provide the curb cut and the landscaping. Jeff McDonald said that condition could be part of any approval.

Robin Simpson asked about the side setback for the first lot; it doesn=t appear to have enough. Mel said the setbacks are with the total p.r.d. Dean said in a p.r.d. there are waivers to certain requirements, once the common area is created. Mel said there could be two totally separate common areas. The minimum side and rear yard setbacks are 50'.

Jim said one of his concerns is AHow far away does this have to be away from the leach field?@ He would suggest that the building envelope be moved further front.

Mel said their interpretation that they could mow the buffer area, but if after checking with the State they find that they can=t mow a buffer area then they will have to move some things. He said they are protecting wetlands already.

Jim said he is not in favor of having a house coming right up to the buffer zone, so he suggests sliding that one forward. There are cases where lawn fertilizer goes right into the wetlands.

It appears the septic areas are right on the knoll, and the neighbors= houses are also right on the same knoll right across from those proposed septic areas.

Jim talked about the path. He wants to compare what we have with other recent developments regarding paths. If they go through wetlands, they want to make sure it is not disturbing anything. With Perry, there was a general right of way.

A site visit will be necessary. Probably on the 23^rd at 6:30 p.m.

Gordon Troy moved to continue this hearing to August 23^rd and schedule a site visit, and get input from the Charlotte Conservation Commission and the Recreation Committee regarding trail issues; and investigate the ANo Build Zones@ on adjacent lots. Jeff McDonald seconded the motion and discussion followed:

They need to clarify each of these issues. Jim said, while trails are an issue, setbacks are also an issue. The motion was approved, 4-0 with 3 members absent.

2. Ten Stones, discussion about allowing a duplex for one of the recently approved houses, which would be designated as affordable housing: Ron Miller reported that this is a new idea; to make one of the lots Aaffordable.@

There are two single parents with one child each. The Burlington Community Land Trust would take this project if the structure has two housing units. This would have a maximum of three bedrooms, so the total would be the equivalent of a single family unit. They would have one unit with 1 bedroom and one unit with 2 bedrooms.

There are 17 units, which, times 5 equal 85 of the total 87 acres. The Planning Commission suggested that some research be done by the Ten Stones people to verify whether they are already at the maximum density.

If it is found that the main house that was part of the original development has been broken out and is no longer part of the Ten Stones development, then the maximum density is not quite there, but otherwise they cannot do this. If it appears they can go forward, they will need a Subdivision Amendment.

3. General Discussion: The Conservation Commission and the Charlotte Land Trust, Dean reported, to discuss an open space plan for the Town.

Steve Brooks said there is nothing in official resolution form by either group, and suggested they decide on details and form a study group. Jim said this shouldn=t be done because there is public input needed before forming a group.

Dean said there is concern about t.d.r.=s (transfer of development rights), and some members of the Conservation Commission are interested in having a discussion about this. Kate Lampton has some research material on this subject, and it is noted that there is no t.d.r. program progressing in the State.

Planning Commission will explore t.d.r.=s but will not support them. The Selectboard has to have 2 hearings on the subject.

August 2^nd is the next Planning Commission meeting. They will revise those items that need correcting plus get a list of any others that haven=t been corrected yet. November 15, 2001 is the end date to make the revisions, so we have from the end of September to October 1^st and October 18^th will be a work session.

We will concentrate on structural issues vs. substantive issues, Jeff said.

The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. (Jim moved, Al seconded, unanimous.)

APPROVED BY THE CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION ON