CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION

7:00 P.M., TUESDAY, JULY 21, 1998

TOWN OFFICES

425-3533

Members Present:Chairman Al Moraska

David Allen

Jeff McDonaldJim Donovan

Peter Kunin

Dave Brown

Planner Charlie Burnham

Members Absent:Ed Melby

Guests Signed In:J. Clemmons

Susan Compton

Ceal Moran

Janet Yantachka

Mary Charlebois

Sue Patnaude

John Patnaude

Stuart Morrow

Steve Libby

Karl Neuse

Tom YeagerNancy Sabin

Louise B. Brown

Sandra Dragon

Francis Knowles

Vern Hutchins

Linda Radimer

Eric R. Benson

David Wulfson

William Sayre

Sandy Mayo

1. Stuart Morrow, representing Anthony Perry, Subdivision Modification and Application for Two New

Lots in Major Subdivision: Anthony "Tony" Perry described all the proposed changes on maps he brought to

the table. Earlier, at 6:30 p.m., Planning Commission members had accompanied him on a site visit.

The project has generally been described by Stuart Morrow, as:

• Lots 6 – 12 are unchanged.

• Add 7.6 acres of common land east of lots 3 & 4 for lots 1–5, labeled lot 17.

• Farm lot 1 is defined as 16.3 acres agricultural, and house lot includes ponds and existing

duplex.

• Retain previously given approval for farm stand on Farm lot 1.

• Enlarge old lot 2, to 6.4 acres.

• Note that Farm lot 2 (labeled lot 15) has no house site and no density — it contains all leach

fields for all lots except lot 1.

• There is a new access right–of–way to 122.7 acre, former Shelburne Partnership; this has no

density and there is an agriculture / recreation easement — this is not for future development.

Peter noted that Lot 4 was 5.7 acres — that goes down to 1.52 acres. Lot 3 was 2 acres — that goes to

2.97 acres. Lot 1 was originally 72 acres — that goes to 16.28 acres. Lots 14 and 15 come out of old Lot 1.

Stuart summarized by saying there are two new residential lots on the south. Throughout the complex there

are two new "common land" lots that won't be buildable, but may–or–not–be strictly agricultural. And there are

now – instead of one big, agricultural lot, two agricultural lots. No one can build on lot 15, 16 or 17. There was

no common land originally — there was only one big agricultural lot.

There are only two new residential lots: Lots 13 and 14, and the other ones on the south are re–configured.

The six lots on the north are unchanged, Stuart said.

Charlie Burnham observed that Common Lot 16 would be for the benefit of Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12

only, and Common Lot 17 would be for the benefit of Lots 3, 4, 5, and 13 and 14. Lot 1 would be agricultural

use. Stuart added that Lot 2 would be as originally proposed, and there is a stipulation that any residence built

on Lot 2 must be only for an employee or owner of Lot 1. Lot 15 is strictly agricultural use and no residential

possibility.

Jim Donovan asked why Lot 2's acreage was increased. The owner had said, according to Charlie, that by

doing this the land would remain open.

Peter asked if Lot 15 would be included in an Open Space Agreement. Stuart said it's not open space, but

would be an agricultural use lot. The Open Space will remain the same for Lots 1 and 15. Lot 2 will remain the

same — that is, the language will be the same; Lot 2 includes part of original Lot 1. Jim noted that the revised

Open Space Agreement does not mention Lot 2. Stuart said that part of Lot 2 is spelled out in the original

Minutes of the approval of the original subdivision.

Asked whether the Selectboard had agreed to the amended Open Space Agreement, Stuart said he thought

the Planning Commission could approve any changes to this. [At this point Jeff McDonald produced a copy of

the original approval.] Stuart agreed that the Selectboard did approve the original agreement.

Jim said it is his observation that Lot 2 is really being taken out of agricultural use now, since it is no longer

part of Lot 1. He noted that there is a significant reduction in land that is designated as agricultural use.

Al agreed: they are taking 73 acres in the original approval down to 22.65 acres in this agricultural–open

space agreement, so there is a drastic amount. Peter asked what's the reason for wanting to do that. Stuart said

the thought is, being a PRD, that some of the people may have horses. Members observed that, even adding the

two common lots in with the ag.-use lots, there appears to be a loss. Stuart said there is a net loss of 5–to–6

acres. He suggested that part of Lot 2 could be added as well. He said there would be separate documents for

the two common lots.

Jim Donovan calculated the total (including the controversial Lot 2) to be 61+ acres, making it 57% of the

107 acre development.

David Allen asked how the wastewater disposal will change, if at all. Stuart said they will be able to

revamp the existing system to add disposal for one house, and they have found a nearby area for the other house.

There is a community system for all of the lots except for Lot 5.

David Allen observed that Lot 3 was twice the size of Lot 4, and that Lot 4's building envelope appeared to

sit right on top of the hill. Stuart said the building envelopes were chosen first, then the lots were drawn around

them. The building envelopes are 100' x 100'. He said Lot 4 used to include the very peak of the ridge, but now

it is moved further to the west off the ridge. Jim observed that these three lots are now situated where originally,

two lots were approved.

David (Allen) added that, to him, the most offensive house site was that on Lot 4 because it sits up so high

that once a two-story house is built on that lot it will be quite visible from Route 7. Of course everything will be

visible from Greenbush Road. Looking to the south towards the Varney Farm, it's quite a view, but once there's

a house up there it will diminish that view.

Stuart stated that there are several new plantings along the southerly boundary that will probably fill in

5during the next ten years. Jim observed that moving the lot line away from the ridge will at least make some

backdrop for the home. Stuart said that from Greenbush Road, he thinks the top half of the second floor will be

very visible from Greenbush Road but did not think it would be objectionable from Route 7.

Jim asked Stuart if the building envelopes for both Lots 4, and 3, could be shifted closer to Lot 13. They

would still have a great view, but it would not spoil the landscape as much if they were moved further from the

high point. Al and David agreed that moving them even 10 feet lower would make a big difference.

The discussion shifted to the driveways. Stuart said they were added onto the existing farm road. Other

considerations were made for fire and safety, and steepness of access.

Peter asked about Tony Perry's previous comments regarding the Demeter Fund Park, and trails that John

Patnaude had agreed to let tie into the Demeter trail network. Stuart pointed out the area on the map where Tony

did agree to let the trails tie in up to a gate. Lot 2, when it had a previous owner, had a curb cut and a 60–foot

r.o.w. that led over to the other trails. Charlie asked whether the Wooly Bear, Inc. lot had a right–of–way across

to the Perry R.O.W., but Stuart said their access was from the Nature Way R.O.W., not across Lot 1.

Charlie asked about the Roadway Standards. Stuart said he had met with Chris Davis of the Fire Depart-

ment about this, and the notes are on the site plan. He indicated on the plan, the locations where the roads will be

widened. Charlie asked about the dry hydrants and ponds. Stuart said there is a pre–existing pond on the north-

ern section on Lot 9. There is water there, but Charlie said town standards require that the pond and dry hydrant

be able to supply at least 90,000 gallons of water. Stuart said he showed this one because it was approved in

1990. There are a total of 3 dry hydrants proposed. Stuart said the hydrants probably will not be installed until

the lots are sold and the building permits issued.

Charlie asked that Stuart submit a proposal showing all these road improvements, power lines, sewer lines

and hydrant plans, and showing a schedule of just when these will be put in; so as to avoid the instance that in the

future someone wanting a building permit such as for Lot 6, finds that nothing has been built.

Charlie noted that there are no amendment provisions in the Open Space Agreement, so Mr. Perry and the

Selectboard will have to agree on an Amendment procedure. The whole of Lot 2 isn't being taken out of the open

space, so part of Lot 2, it is hoped, will count in the total open space acreage.

Asked whether the Wooly Bear, Inc. lot will retain, or will give up, its access across Lot 2, Stuart was

unsure of the status. Linda Radimer said she thought they had just said the r.o.w. for Wooly Bear was from

Nature Trails. Stuart agreed to ask the Wooly Bear owners about this, and suggested that it would be asked that

it remain only for Wooly Bear and not to access the whole project.

Another audience participant asked about ownership of Wooly Bear; she was under the impression that

Tony Perry is the owner. Wooly Bear, Inc. is a separate group although Tony Perry is one of the owners of it

and may own a large percentage. Although it is not part of this project, some neighbors insisted, he is a major

owner of it.

Next, Stuart was asked where they are with the State of Vermont on permits for the sewer systems. The

septic has been designed for the two new lots, he said. Their engineers have said the soils are acceptable but

although they have been in contact with the State and let them know that they are going to apply for the permits,

their plan is to get local preliminary approval first and then go to the State.

Charlie asked Stuart if he could submit an engineering report regarding the capacity of the leach fields.

Some updated plans that may have some calculations on there, he said, but a letter would be appropriate. Asked

how many bedrooms would be attributable per lot, Stuart said he is pretty sure they expect all the homes would

have three bedrooms.

Al Moraska asked about the Lot 15 r.o.w.; there is a note that is on one of the maps that will be on the

recorded plat, Stuart said, that this section is strictly for agriculture and recreation.

Although there was no official motion in the April 7, 1998 Sketch Plan Review, this is classified as a Major

Subdivision; everyone agreed that it is. Al Moraska said there are provisions in the regulations that cover it.

An audience participant who is an abutting neighbor, Ceal Moran, asked if there were roads for all the

property lots. Stuart said he needed two permits for curb cuts, in 1989 and in 1990 and he showed on the map,

access roads for both the northerly section, and the southerly section of lots. Another road is just an emergency

farm/ agriculture access.

John Patnaude asked about the open space — after going through this process himself, and he gave up 80

acres to open space, he said it seems like the density is more than would normally be allowed. He had thought it

was something like 50%. Stuart said there were 107 acres and that there was something like 67 in agriculture

and open space, which is about two–thirds. John disputed that, because if Lot 2 is included and a building can be

put on it, it's not open space — and if Common Lots 16 and 17 are included even though they are restricted for

the use of the northerly and southerly neighborhoods they shouldn't be called open space, he said.

Stuart said the building envelopes are so small, and you can't do anything with the rest of the lot it should

still be called "open space." Al said if they take the 6 acres out of Lot 2 they still have 61 acres. But John said,

"I'm just a dumb old farmer, but will you show me that 61 acres?" Lot 1, Al noted, was 73 acres and is now cut

into 3 more sections. Jeff said that although Lot 2 is only for a farm employee, they should decide whether to

make it an official lot, or leave it in the smaller size it is, instead of enlarging it, it would be the best way to keep

it in agricultural and open space use and keep that 57%. Stuart said they had to have the possibility of having at

least a farm–type structure on those. But he said doing it the way Jeff suggested left two parcels, and "You're

obviously assessed more." Jeff said it should be one parcel, then. Dave Brown asked, "What if the employee

who lived on Lot 2 didn't move? (and no longer worked for the owner)" Stuart said it was written right into the

agreement that he would have to move. Jeff said they should scrap that condition — things have changed a lot in

the past ten years since that condition was written. Now they want two additional residences.

Because of time constraints, Al Moraska said this hearing should be continued to August 18th. The

other members agreed, and Al started to itemize the things Stuart should consider addressing:

building envelopes on lots 3 and 4

old business just discussed about lots 1 and 2

access roads for lots 3 and 4 possibly coming off lot 13

septic capacity letter

power lines

dry hydrants

adjustments to the open space agreement

formalizing the trail easement

2. A. Johnson Co. Final Plat Hearing, 3-Lot Subdivision (continued from June 16, 1998): Included with the

Hearing materials given to the Planning Commission was a copy of a letter notifying the A. Johnson Company

that the Selectboard had waivered the subdivision application fee and returning the $1,200 check.

Steve Libby and Atty. Karl Neuse represented A. Johnson Company. Atty. Neuse summarized his recollec-

tion of the previous meeting, at which he had written two notes regarding what he felt were concerns expressed

then. The first one was to show ways to minimize the view of the sites from the public highway. He expected, he

said, to find that was the only thing requiring a response.

It was disturbing to him that he did not have a copy of the minutes from the previous hearing, and found that

there was a recommendation to continue this hearing still further, to August 18, 1998. He said as far as they were

concerned they presented a complete application. No one has called to tell them that they didn't have a complete

application, he said.

He thought, he said, the only issues brought up at the other meeting had to do with visibility of some struc-

tures and the possibility of some soil erosion. He didn't expect anything other than those 2 items.

[For reference, the following is a recap of the motion and discussion before the vote on June 16, 1998:

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 meet-

ing so that it can be reviewed and copied to each member.

Al then asked for the vote, and the motion was approved, 7–0.]

The letter that was written to the Planning Commission was sent in 25 days prior to the hearing, Neuse said,

and no one had responded back to him that it was not responsive. He said they fully expected to get approval and

go on to the next step in the process and were surprised that they only had a short time allotted on the hearing

schedule.

Chairman Al Moraska apologized. He said, "You're right. And I'm sorry that had to happen, that you didn't

get notified earlier, because your letter is dated June 28, which is 3 weeks ago, that you didn't get some feedback

from us. Also that you didn't receive a copy of the Minutes from us. But in the Minutes, Steve said he would be

willing to submit a very detailed soil erosion plan and that wasn't included in your letter."

Steve verified if the Minutes were taken from tapes. He was given a copy of the minutes. Steve said they

should talk about what his intent was. He said it was his understanding the main concern was about soil erosion

and what he submitted is that there will be no construction within 10 feet of the brink of those slopes, unless there

is, at the time of the building permits — the design of the house includes some protrusion permit into the buffer

strip and at that time there would be a submission of a Soil Erosion Control plan to deal with that. What we're

saying is that we will stay 10 feet back from the slopes, and that's the erosion control mechanism.

Al asked Steve if he is aware of the Vermont Handbook for Soil Erosion and Construction Site. Steve said

that he is. Al asked Steve if that's what he was referring to. Steve said he is referring to the Site Visit and what

he heard at the last Hearing. There were concerns about specific erosion issues at the edge of the steep drop-offs.

That Soil Erosion Control Guide is a general guide for any number of soil erosion conditions, he said, while we're

trying to be very specific about the conditions at the site within 10 feet of any drop off, as defined as a 30%

declination in any 30-foot horizontal distance. Any time that we come within 10 feet of that type of situation, if

we come within 10 feet in that situation then we become very specific plan submitted, Steve said.

Al noted that Steve also had said he would submit wording that trees that are cut would be no greater than

an "x" diameter. Al showed him that portion of the Minutes. Steve said he did not recall the exact context where

he would have stipulated to that. From his understanding, he said, it was how this site would be viewed from the

public highways. We addressed that very specifically, he said, in this memorandum in that any clearing for this

site would be limited to a horizontal distance. Am I missing the point, he asked, wasn't that the spirit of the dis-

cussion? Jim Donovan said for that particular point, it was, but some of the issues are separate.

Peter Kunin asked, "How are we ever going to keep track of that?" Steve replied, "How is anybody going to

enforce these kind of proposals — given that it's not commercial logging?" I don't know what the enforcement

mechanisms are for something like this, he said. Peter said the enforcement methods, are kind of like taxes and

good–faith, duty and citizenship, that they adhere to it... But the problem is not so much the enforcement, but for

the landowner that's going to buy this, enforcement might be difficult.

Steve said they'd rather not have any restrictions, but he does understand that the town doesn't want to see

the sites clear–cut. He doesn't expect that any landowner would want to make massive clearing efforts; there's no

point to it. And there's no commercial authorization to do that. Dave Brown added, "–Unless they want to put in

solar heat, and then cut everything up."

Charlie Burnham said he hadn't scheduled more time because the Conservation Commission was there at

that meeting en-masse, and they had some concerns about certain things, and Steve had said he would submit

something that would assure that the cutting and clearing for the new homeowners would continue to provide

cover for the wildlife and he does not see anything that provide cover for the wildlife. And Steve had said he

would submit a very detailed soil erosion plan and a description of the areas that can, and cannot be cleared. I had

envisioned that it would take the form of a map of some kind, instead of a verbal description. "You're asking the

Planning Commission to approve something in the Subdivision Regulations on the mere speculation of something

that might be done in the future by some lot–owner. You're asking them to drop this into the Application for a

building permit. Does this stop–gap get put in the Zoning Administrator's lap for a decision? — or will this come

back to the Planning Commission for Planning Commission approval when they want to get a permit? I don't

think the Subdivision Regulations were designed to have each and every individual lot owner come back to the

Planning Commission for a building permit. So what the Planning Commission has to approve has to be clear

and sufficient for the Zoning Administrator to make the determination of whether or not to issue a permit in

conformance with what the Planning Commission has approved for the subdivision."

Atty. Neuse expressed disappointment at coming to this hearing and finding there was such a short time for

their part of the hearing in that they were only a phone call away, and there was ample time for someone from the

Planning Office to tell them what additional material was required. He had not received a copy of the Minutes.

[This Minute-taker apologizes, because with Gloria on vacation and the Zoning Administrator ill, I should have

given them to him via E-Mail.]

With a copy of the Minutes in front of him, he said he would have understood what additional material was

needed. It is disappointing to have to spend another month on this after twelve years, he said; because this

development has been twelve years in the making.

He suggested that someone could do "cruises" and determine the number of board feet in a stand in the area,

and use that as your base, and that can determine what can be done in over a 5–year period. In fact, he said, it's

pretty easy to do that in a 5–acre piece or a 10–acre piece, but might not be easy to do, comparatively if you were

to do it on a 100–acre lot.

Jim Donovan said he feels they have done a good–faith effort to address some of the issues, even though he

doesn't like everything about it. "Your approach seems to be that you take out blocks from the ridgeline entirely;

I would rather see that ridgeline maintained, and save all the trees that are over 8" or whatever (is decided upon),

let them remain, but you can limb them up, take out some of the understories so that you are creating a view; it

might not be a total block. But you definitely have a view that's open, through the vegetation and trees." This

way, he said, from a distance you might see a tree or something so that there's partial screening rather than giant

blocks that are open. The other thing that does is help maintain the slope. If the understory is totally disturbed

by clearing it out all the way across the edge, that land at the slope is disturbed, and may never completely

recover even by trying to establish something in there whether it's a lawn or something else. — There's a moment

in time where it's totally disturbed and you may not get it back where it's solid.

Steve said the visibility issue is from public roads. The new house sites are only visible from certain roads.

Jim agreed that, from a vision point of view it's not a problem — but from the erosion point of view, of opening it

up, it is a problem. Numbers 1 and 3 of the letter might be the same. Steve invited him to come out to the site,

and Jim offered, if it were okay with the other Planning Commission members, to go out to the sites and discuss

the issues with Steve. Steve asked for a specific diameter for the trees that could be limited, and he thought

between 6 and 8 inches would be good.

Al asked if it meant just lots 1 and 2, for condition 2. Jim said he is specifically addressing the areas near

the slopes. Jim said lot 3 has two slopes so it applies there as well.

Linda Radimer, from the Charlotte Conservation Commission, spoke about the wildlife issues. Linda said

she appreciated Charlie Burnham's comments and would like to reiterate that a lot of the talk was about func

tions. This is a critical wildlife area, she said, and you need to relate what we're doing to the functions in Lot 3

which is adjacent to a large turkey area. You have to consider the ground cover as well as the canopy. And you

are building in a forest area that has been managed very well, from a logging point of view, because it has main-

tained the canopy. You should consider the function of the lot in this application, Linda said.

Steve agreed, but said he was only considering at this time, the slopes. Tom Yeager, senior forester for the

lumber company, said they have never encountered any massive lumber removal in the last number of years. The

land, he said, was at one time pasture, and it reverted back to forest. The tendency is for it to go back to forest so

you'd have a hard time keeping the trees off the land rather than the other way around. He added that they are

only talking about a few trees, when there are hundreds of thousands of trees up there.

Al asked if Steve has other issues. Atty. Neuse said if there are continued issues at the next meeting, they

will continue indefinitely and he's wondering if something else will come up.

Dave Brown suggested all the members get together specifically for this issue and put it all together in a

letter to the applicants so that they know what to expect ahead of time. Steve said there were so many things

going on at the meeting in June that various issues were raised and different people on the Planning Commission

were answering them, so "We didn't feel we had to respond to it because it got answered."

Peter Kunin agreed that they will get everything itemized for them. Al asked which of the two next meetings

they would like to come in. Steve asked for the very next one, which is August 4, 1998. The Planning Commis-

sion, by consensus, agreed to waive the 10–day requirement as long as the responses are given to members prior

to that date, or even as Charlie suggested, a half–hour before the meeting on that date.

Al Moraska apologized again for the aforementioned problems in communication, and continued the

hearing until August 4, 1998. Jim Donovan will work with Steve Libby directly, so that the clearing and cutting

issues will be understood.

3. Vern and Rachel Hutchins, Major Subdivision at Riverview Drive and Carpenter Road, Final Plat

Review for 2 new lots (4 and 5) and Modification of existing lot (3): Charlie noted the articles that have been

received since last week when the packages were sent to the Planning Commission members: a final copy of the

Act 250 Permit, and the Subdivision Permit from the State (which was the only one required).

Mr. Hutchins showed the places where the roads and driveways must be widened, and he has designated

these on the map. He showed the turn–out lane where a 16–ft. width is going to be widened to 20–ft. as required

by the Fire Department's road standards.

He said #'s 1, 2 and 3 of the conditions would be done prior to requesting a building permit. The open space

areas are designated on the map as agreed upon during the preliminary hearings.

The area where the barn is, is still open and the barn is to be included in the building envelope, as agreed

upon. Charlie said Act 250 people had asked for a letter from the Agriculture Department. Vern will provide

that. Number 7 of the conditions talks about the road for Lot 5 and that will be done prior to requesting a build-

ing permit. Number is the 60–ft. right–of–way, designated on the map. The water lines and utility lines are also

designated on the map, as is two proposed wells (the engineering tests have been done), and proposed septic.

Number 8 has the conditions that if he decides to further subdivide it, he has to give up some land (to be

negotiated). Number 11 is in language which has been addressed. Vern continued with the rest of the conditions.

Al Moraska said it appears all the outstanding issues have been addressed. He asked if there were more questions

either from the members of the Planning Commission or from the audience, and there were none forthcoming.

Peter it appeared it was time to close the hearing for Vern Hutchins and ask the Planning Commissioner to

fold the Act 250 conditions into a final set of conditions and bring it up to date. Vern was asked if he agreed to

the conditions imposed by Act 250, and he said he didn't see any that were "show–stoppers." Charlie Burnham

noted that there was a new item coming from Act 250 lately: Once the house and certification labeled — that is

item 15, they would look at it again, apparently. Vern noted there were 66 conditions, and $15,000 in fees during

the past two years.

Peter moved to close the Final Plat Hearing for the Vern and Rachel Hutchins Subdivision at River-

view Drive and Carpenter Road, and to go into Deliberative Session to be held at a later date, to consider a

set of final conditions applicable to the permitting. David Allen seconded the motion. Peter said he sees it as

administrative, so that Charlie can incorporate the conditions. Charlie said the conditions are then placed in the

Land Records files. All the permits are filed with the land records, as well.

Vern verified that what is going to be done, is to document everything that has already been decided upon,

and that no one is going to give him additional items to work on. The motion was approved, 5–0 with two

members absent (Jeff McDonald had to leave before the vote).

4. Jackson Clemmons, 2158 Greenbush Road, Sketch Plan Review: Member Jim Donovan announced that

he, as an adjacent landowner, would recuse himself from any vote, but he would like to sit in on the hearing as an

interested observer.

Initially, Dr. Clemmons talked about creating a 5–acre parcel for his daughter. He is restoring and rebuild-

ing a 1750's barn that was recently moved from the edge of his property near the Priebe (formerly Taylor) prop-

erty line. That will be designated Lot 2. He said he is definitely not trying to create a development and still intends

to leave the pasture and farmland just as it is. Another family member planted a large garden back behind the

barn that is being made a residence. The pasture land extends in back of Priebe, Freese, and Roberts and back

beyond the railroad tracks behind Dr. Clemmons' Lots #1 and #2, way down past Pringle Brook.

He asks advice about creating instead, a PRD using existing farm roads as a border, perhaps, and having the

rest of the land that would make up 5 acres, be in conservation. This way all the pasture land would easily be tied

together in almost an "L" shape. Any way that this happens, and whatever he decides to do, will not change the

land in any way.

Because of the way the Subdivision Regulations are written, Dr. Clemmons would have to apply for several

permits and a conservation easement, and after extension discussion about the pros and cons of each method,

Dr. Clemmons said he is likely to — because of the lengthy process and expense of making a Major subdivision

and PRD and Open Space Agreement, the required surveys and all the State permitting as opposed to the rela-

tively short time line of creating the 5–acre parcel, — go with the shorter process.

He was advised that at this time he would be able to do the 5–acre imaginary line; then if at some later time

if he decided to do something different, then an application to re–design the boundary lines can be made along

with any new plans.

Linda Radimer asked about the wildlife corridors there. He is well aware of, and has assisted in, helping the

wildlife maintain their trails; in fact he has, over the years, planted many, many trees. The deer cross between the

houses and travel down the road across from his house towards Horsford's Nursery.

Dr. Clemmons said when he originally bought the property it was only 2 ½ acres, and then he bought the

additional larger piece. Nancy Sabin asked whether he had separate deeds, but Peter Kunin said it wouldn't make

any difference because they merged; they were of a common origin.

Jim said he could draw the line all the way down to the railroad tracks and that would make a little more

than the 5–acres necessary. He said that is the way he would do this.

Peter Kunin moved to classify the Clemmons Subdivision as a Minor Subdivision. Dave Brown

seconded the motion and it was approved, 4–0 with 1 person abstaining and 2 members absent.

Nancy Sabin suggested that people thank Dr. Clemmons for saving that beautiful old barn, and everyone

gave him a cheer and a round of applause.

5. Reaffirmation of George H. Bowers and Barbara L. Bowers Subdivision: This subdivision was

approved by the Planning Commission on June 8, 1982 but the mylar was not recorded until December 29, 1982

which was beyond the 90–day requirement. Atty. Maddocks had sent in the $100.00 fee.

Al Moraska moved to approve the reaffirmation of the George & Barbara Bowers Subdivision

recorded in Map Book 4 Page 58. David Allen seconded the motion and it was approved, 5–0 with two

members absent.

6. Response regarding recent activities at Barrett/Wulfson property on Ferry Road: Peter Kunin spoke

about the request to Zoning Administrator Charlie Burnham to reply with his reason for not requiring a Zoning

Permit for activities on land on Ferry Road near the railroad tracks. Charlie had written a response to that

request.

Peter Kunin stated that at the last meeting the members had talked about whether or not they felt Site Plan

Review was, or was not required at this stage of development on Ferry Road. Charlie was out sick. We felt that

we didn't have enough information as to who had said what to whom, and what was actually going on down

there, he said. We knew that Charlie had come to some kind of formal conclusion on his own, which is his job, of

course as Zoning Administrator as to whether or not Site Plan Review is required. We now have before us

Charlie's analysis, Peter said. I know that there has been an appeal filed with the Zoning Board of Adjustment

and that is not on the agenda.

What is on the agenda this evening is a continuation of the Planning Commission's discussion of whether or

not they feel that a Site Plan review is required or not. "We, as a Planning Commission don't really have any

power to say whether or not we believe a Site Plan Review is required. That is a decision of the Zoning Admin-

istrator. The Planning Commission is an interested party, or an interested person under the statute," he said.

"But I will try to lay out what I believe, personally," he said. "I do believe that Site Plan Review is required

right now, for what has occurred down there. In my view I'm not making a decision as to the merits of the review

— whether it would pass Site Plan Review or wouldn't, because we don't have an application in front of us. But

it's my view and I want to propose to the Planning Commissioners tonight, that we approve a very simple motion

that would say that we do believe Site Plan Review is required right now, and all this is going to do, is to put out

on the table for the landowner, and for Dr. Sheldon, who may or may not be continuing activities down there, that

we think a permit is required even though our Zoning Administrator has to make the decision.

"I want to stress for our Planning Commission that this can be done in a professional manner. We can

disagree," Peter said. At this point David Wulfson introduced himself. "I'm David Wulfson, one of the major

landowners and I'm heavily involved with the railroad. I was the bulldozer operator. This whole thing has gotten

way out of proportion, and I apologize to the Planning Commission. I apologize to the Recreation Committee for

not talking to them ahead of time, but I do that sometimes."

His children are involved in soccer. He said that is the fastest growing sport in the country. Charlotte has

one soccer field, at the school. But in the summer, it's a baseball field. Charlotte participants compete in the

Chittenden County events and need a place to practice, since there were conflicts at the school. So he got tired of

disagreements over which day which teams could or couldn't use the field and decided that he had a flat piece of

land and would make a soccer field.

He has just met with the Recreation and has gotten their support, and at this point in time, he said, he wants

to go ahead and do it right, with hopefully, everyone's support. Hopefully, he said, someone can get them another

soccer field before next spring.

Al Moraska said one of the problems is, that this is an Industrial District, and the regulations don't allow

this type of activity. David Wulfson replied that the reality of this situation is the soil won't support industry, the

soil doesn't perk, the neighborhood won't support industry, so someone sat down and drew a line around a piece

of land that can never be industrial.

Peter Kunin: "Apart from the merits of whether you meet the criteria or not, what you're saying is that you

are not going to be doing any more work down there at this point except to seed. Other than that, you will then

proceed to submit a Site Plan." David Wulfson said he would not agree to do that at this point, because he has a

bunch of different viewpoints about that, that he would rather not get into at this point.

Just so the dust settles and we get this thing off on the right foot, he said, it is in everyone's interest to do

this correctly.

Peter Kunin said that he did speak to Dr. Sheldon, and was told that the only reason he was involved was to

build a soccer field. Dr. Sheldon said he was going to plant sod, and if the sod took, and it would take until Sep-

tember or so to figure that out, they would make a soccer field. But if it didn't, then he wouldn't go forward with

the project. He asked, "Is that essentially the facts?" David Wulfson agreed.

Peter said he was not trying to pin anyone down, but verified that this was in no way an agricultural opera-

tion. "At this point it is," David Wulfson said, "and that is the original intent that I had, whatever happened, was

to grow grass. It was rented to Francis Knowles, and for whatever reason, not his fault, the land was left har

rowed, and that's it. You could hardly walk there; so what we did, is harrowed it again, and smoothed it a little

bit."

Peter asked; "From looking at it from the road, you also put in some gentle slopes as ditches and staked it

out — what is it, 350' x 160'?" David said that's true, but whatever it is, it's the wrong size right now.

Peter went on, that they had apparently decided that they wanted to build a soccer field, and went ahead and

cut the drainage ditches, and marked out the stakes. Wulfson disagreed; he said this was only a test, to see if it

was going to be feasible or not.

Peter repeated that in his conversation with Dr. Sheldon he was told that the sole purpose of all the work

they were doing was to build a soccer field. This conversation took place on July 17, 1998. That is what I told

Charlie in our meeting, Dr. Sheldon had said. "I am planning to build a soccer field. We are hoping to plant

grass now, as soon as it gets dry, and I need 90 days for the sod to grow, so we hopefully can place soccer in

September. There is some uncertainty as to whether we will actually go forward with this plan because we are

not sure the site is suitable. If the sod doesn't take because it's too muddy or it's too wet we will abandon this

project." Peter asked if that was right. They agreed. Peter said, "But you're planting grass, in my view, to move

forward your soccer project. This is development activity, and involves two things: what's actually going on, on

the ground, and what your intent is. So I think, at this point, you need to submit a Site Plan."

David Wulfson disagreed. "My view is this; if I want to invite 20 kids to play soccer on my land, where I

pay taxes, and if I want to plant grass to let them do that, it's my right."

Peter said there is a clear precedent for that: When the Charlotte school wanted to expand their playing

fields they applied for a Site Plan Review. When Mt. Philo State Park wanted to build a parking lot, where they

level it out, break it, and create a parking lot, they applied for a Site Plan Review.

Jessie Bradley spoke from the audience. She said she had football games, and she didn't come for a Site

Plan Review. She had 40 people there.

Peter said he believed this was different. Skip Sheldon had said he would set up a non-profit corporation.

David Wulfson answered that this would be a private club, private use, he runs it. But Peter said even with a

private club, it's a commercial use. Charlie said this is not the subject. Then some more people from the aud-

ience wanted to comment.

Linda Radimer said she is very glad that people want to make more activities for children. Soccer is terrific

and it's great. People should recall that during that last rainstorm it was a river down there. One of the reasons

that it should be sited, is that it's lowland. Francis Knowles (who used to rent the land) disagreed. Linda said,

"I'm sorry, Francis, but I saw water during the last runoff, literally flowing down the middle of that field; and if

you are going to site the soccer field in an area that's going to be flooding like that, you have to buffer it from the

flooding activity areas that are going to be saturated with water. It's bad for the river to have that grass and

quick runoff right there."

Jessie Bradley (from the Recreation Committee) observed that David has stated that he wants to follow the

process that you are asking him to do. She said when David puts in a Site Plan Review, if he hasn't put in a

buffer to protect the wetland area and doesn't follow the criteria, then during that process it can be decided.

Peter asked to respond to the football field. But Sandy Mayo wanted to speak first.

Sandy asked if that wasn't the Industrial District. All conditional uses of an industrial district, she quoted

(Section 4.4.C), were the conditional uses of a commercial district. It states under conditional uses, there can be

recreational areas. So it's a conditional use in an industrial district.

Peter said he didn't want to address the substance of it (amid the conversations of Sandy, and Francis

Knowles). Francis said that everybody considers it wetland, but there's no (*#&) wetland there. He said he had

owned it for a number of years. He said he can take United States Wetland maps and there's no wetlands down

there. He said he still owned land on the other side of the tracks. He said he'd grown crops down there and now

it has gotten overgrown. He said there is just hay there.

Nancy Sabin asked why no one was taking Mr. Wulfson to task for interfering with Pringle Brook, which

runs through that. Certain people get picked on, she said, for abiding by the regulations of 150–foot setback from

the high–water mark, and other people don't. "That's the most offensive thing that's happened," she said.

Peter Kunin said, "Our job is to review the site plans. We are not an enforcement body. I do think a motion

is in order for us to voice our viewpoint that a Site Plan Review is required. We start off with the concept that

under Section 7.1 of the Charlotte Zoning Bylaws, the duty of the Administrative Officer is to ensure that no land

development is permitted except in compliance with these regulations."

He read further, from the regulations:

Land development is any change in the use of any land...

What is "Use?" The definition of "Use" is on Page 8:

The purpose for which the land ..... is intended. (He paraphrased, but repeated the whole

paragraph.)

There's no doubt, that the purpose for which this land is intended, is a soccer field, Peter said; it is their

stated purpose.

David Allen suggested that if they are willing to now step back, go through the process, submit a Site Plan

Application, that we should let them do that. Peter said he is not into any enforcement here. Dave Brown asked

why they need a motion, then. Peter said it's because our Zoning Administrator, "with all due respect, Charlie,"

has made his own determination, which it is his duty to do. He makes his own independent determination, and he

has made the determination that this is an agricultural use — that the use is agricultural.

Peter invited Charlie to respond, and he said he would, when it was his turn to do so.

Mr. Wulfson said they were jumping the gun, because he still didn't know if the land could support a soccer

field. Peter asked, "Why delay now?" He replied, "Only because of my meeting with the Recreation Department.

If they did not think this was a viable project, we'd go full speed ahead. But I didn't want to mess up the overall

plan for what they decided might be a good project — otherwise, we'd draw our saber."

Charlie Burnham introduced himself. "For anybody who doesn't know me, I'm Charlie Burnham. I'm the

Zoning Administrator. I'm the only person empowered in this town to interpret and make rulings on the Zoning

Ordinance. At the request of the Planning Commission at their meeting on July 7th they asked me to provide

them with a written factual and legal basis. I had been out sick, but I had already been collecting information.

Gloria went down, and took a picture. She talked to somebody down there. Skip Sheldon came into my office,

and he was up front and forthright with me. I didn't feel that he was being less than truthful, and I didn't get any

indication at all. He'd said they were going to try to plant grass down there, and if they could grow grass down

there, "we'll come in here and talk about whether or not we can use that as a soccer field." I thought that was a

pretty straight-forward statement. It didn't indicate that they had planned that it was going to be a soccer field,

but they were willing to try to grow some grass down there and see if it might be an appropriate spot. He also

agreed that if they did proceed with it as a soccer field, that they would most definitely be in for a permit. He

didn't hide anything from me. I felt he was very truthful to me. I feel that it is unfortunate that anyone felt that

he was less than truthful.

"I am the guy who gets to make that decision. It's not the Board of Adjustment, who came in and asked me

to issue a "Cease and Desist" order. That's not their call. It's not the Planning Commission's call to tell me

what to do in cases like this. If you don't like my decision, there is a procedure for this outlined in this ordinance

which says you, or any interested person (technical term) can then appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment.

This board has no right calling in individuals in a process like this, telling them that they have to do this. That's

not your job. There's also an appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment, dated June 22, 1998. Their appeal is

that I didn't make a decision. They are appealing the fact that I didn't make a decision, so when they go before

the Board of Adjustment that appeal will be de novo. If somebody doesn't like my opinion (and he named

various people to whom he had mailed a copy of this decision), there is a proper, procedural way to take excep

tion to it. It is not in this forum and is not before this Board. This Board does not hear appeals, and it does not

consider matters like this. The statute doesn't provide for it. I think it's improper, and that's my opinion."

Peter Kunin said, "I appreciate that, and I respect. But I think there needs to be a mechanism between the

Planning Commission and the Zoning Administrator to disagree in a rational, professional, and mature manner.

That's what we are planning to do tonight. I don't want to get into your decision. I disagree with it, I don't agree

with the merits of it — because that's more of a personnel issue, instead of a planning issue. I think we, as a

Planning Commission have every right, we are not obligated to sit still when something happens in this town that

we do not agree on. I made clear from the beginning that the resolution I am proposing is non binding. We are

not an interested person. But we have no obligation to sit still when we believe, with all due respect, Charlie —

and I respect your judgement and I respect you as a professional. But in this case I simply believe that you made

an erroneous judgement. And we are not required to sit back and let that happen; we're not required to sit back

and do nothing. I do not want to get into the content of your letter. I don't think that's constructive.

"I said in the last meeting, that I thought that Dr. Sheldon had been less than completely truthful for what

his intent was. In that context, I was thinking, "How could Charlie have said that no Site Plan was required,

unless Dr. Sheldon had said that no soccer field was intended." I was under the impression, and I think we all

were, that when you had a conversation with him, that he had told you that no soccer field was intended. That

was my opinion at the time. And that's why I said, that it may be that Dr. Sheldon may have been less than

truthful.

"Now I've talked with Dr. Sheldon since then, and I have found out that he was totally truthful, and he was

totally up front with you. I have told Dr. Sheldon this, and for that, I do apologize. And he said, yes. A soccer

field needs a Site Plan Review. The second thing is, that you have accused us of acting improperly in calling

these folks in. I didn't call anyone in. I'm glad Dave Wulfson is here. You are right, we have no ability to do

anything if we disagree with you, within the statutes. But that's why I am proposing a non–binding resolution,

because it's crystal clear, in my view, that at this point Site Plan Review is required.

"And I just want to go on the record so that you, as a landowner, know what our opinion is, and so that

Dr. Sheldon who is putting this together, knows this as well. It's going to happen, we're going to disagree from

time to time. But I just don't want a landowner to be getting mixed messages."

David Wulfson said it's pretty clear. The message is that I need a permit for 20 girls to come over to my

house to play soccer. Peter said it's his view that if it's an intended permanent change to the property, he asked

Jessie Bradley if hers is a permanent football field. She said they use it every Saturday.

At this time Susan Compton introduced herself. She said she is the project manager for the Commuter Rail

Project. She works for the Agency of Transportation. She wanted to make people aware that the railway has not

abandoned their plans. There have been some complications related to that project but it looks like they will

resolve some of those problems. They do have a letter of intent to lease property from the Barrett/Wulfson

Corporation and she just wanted people to be aware that they still intended to do this, and everything will come

out in their reviews.

Dave Brown said he doesn't think anybody here is against a soccer field, but all we are asking, in making

the motion tonight, is that it be done right. We should just allow people to start the process going and have their

review. Charlie asked Dave if Mr. Wulfson would need a permit to plant grass seed down there. "If he's intend

ing to build a soccer field, yes," Dave answered.

But the thing is, Charlie said, if you don't approve it then he doesn't get to plant grass seed. "We're not

there yet, Charlie, we're not there yet. Let's avoid this personalization. Let's try to keep it amicable and profes

sional because I know there's a lot of animosities here and lets try to avoid that."

David Wulfson asked, "What the best thing he can do right now without a permit?" Charlie said, "Who are

you asking?" He said he didn't know. Charlie said the Planning Commission is not the group to ask that ques

tion. It should be asked of the Zoning Administrator.

Peter proposed to make this motion, "Based on the landowner's statement that a soccer field is currently

intended for the property, the Planning Commission believes that Site Plan Review is required at this time."

Vern Hutchins spoke, as an observer, that being involved in agriculture, it is quite natural that if somebody

wants to plant grass they don't need a permit, and he understands that Charlie gets pulled in this direction and

that, but if those people find the land usable, then they could come back for a review. Charlie said that is just the

understanding that he had with Dr. Sheldon.

Jim Donovan said he doesn't think there is any need to talk about it any further, and in the end, we're all

getting what we need. They are coming in for a Site Plan Review, and we do have the Minutes. And they will

come in for a Site Plan Review. Peter reminded that they are not coming in for a Site Plan Review. Jim said they

had said they would. But they haven't, Peter said, and they have gone out and have changed the use of the land,

and they have declared their intent to change the use of the land. They have qualified that by saying that they

might abandon the project if ... Well, go ahead, Peter said, go ahead and abandon the project. You can't start a

project without the proper procedure. Just because you might abandon the project in the future, doesn't all of a

sudden make it an agricultural intention. "And I feel extremely strongly about this. When we disagree with the

decision of the top, and only enforcement officer in the town, and that's Charlie, and he's the number one, and

he's the only one, that we can't sit back and do nothing. That is my view; and I respect your honesty. You are

not going to be penalized or anything. I just want it to be put on the record our view that you need Site Plan

Review," Peter said.

David Allen said he might disagree, and might side with Jim's point of view on this. If the landowners are

going to go to the expense to do this, without site plan review, they are investing a lot of money without knowing

what the outcome is going to be. So when and if they decide they want to play soccer there, then they should

come before us.

Peter said the key issue is the language: "a change in the intended use." You can't clear the trees, level out

the land, and say they are going to plant grass, and say, it's only an apartment building when I build the founda

tion. You can't put a square hole in the ground that looks like it's going to be for a foundation and say it's a cow

pond until you decide to pour cement.

Charlie used an example of that; just up on Church Hill Road, on the Wesson property, there is a project

that this board has reviewed, and this board has had a site visit and classified as a Minor Development, there is a

ditch running about 6–feet deep and running about 20–feet wide. It was done specifically to lower the water table

on the property to see if it could be a development. And they didn't come in for any permit for that ditch, as part

of the regular process to get permits for septic systems is to de–water and ditches to de–water. I don't know of a

single instance in this town where a developer or landowner to come in for a permit to do that.

"I've just given you an example," Peter said. The Charlotte School, before they even did a thing to the land,

when they wanted to expand their playing field they came in for a Site Plan review. Charlie said he's going to be

awfully busy in April and May every year when people start plowing their fields. But that's not the issue, Peter

said, with all due respect. We are not talking about precedents.

Nancy Sabin noted that there is a second curb cut, according to Junior. The new one is to the west of the

first one. She had thought there was a $500 fee for an additional curb cut.

Dave Brown said the problem isn't that — and Charlie interrupted Dave, saying that he thought Dave

should not say anything since he was one of those who had signed the petition. Then Louise Brown raised her

hand, saying she could speak, and she wasn't on the Planning Commission. But Peter asked that Dave Brown be

able to continue what he was going to say.

Dave said: "The problem, the way I look at it, isn't that they did anything wrong as far as putting a soccer

field. — I'd rather see it than a railroad station or whatever. I'm not against it. What I'm against — being on

the Planning Commission for six years, if you don't follow along with everybody with the rules, then what I'm

concerned about is that next week, somebody else does something and will say, "You didn't ask him to get a

permit, so I don't have to have one." That's just the what you get, Dave said. You get people who come in and

sit in the audience and see what you let other people get away with, and that's why for the last 4 or 5 years, we

have been working hard to make sure that no matter if you are Dave Wulfson, or the Governor or who you are,

you follow the process, and everybody is the same. You have to, Dave (Brown) said, or otherwise we're in

trouble. I think it's a minor thing, that they can plant grass, but the issue is the process. What do we have that

book for, and why does everybody else have to follow it?

Jim Donovan said he is not disagreeing with Peter; by making a resolution we're still not going to have a

permit. I'd like to operate on trust, and if they don't come in, then we can revisit. Peter said we are totally

operating on trust. This resolution is non–binding. I am just asking you to make a decision that it is your opinion

and the reason that I'm asking you to express that opinion is also directed to our Zoning Administrator – he needs

to know how we feel, and the community needs to know how we feel, in this one instance, and I want to empha-

size that it's in this one instance. There's got to be a way, for the Planning Commission and the Zoning Adminis

trator to disagree without finger–pointing, and personal attacks, and that's got to happen, he said.

Charlie said he hoped that he had not made any personal attacks. He only wants to do his job and to follow

the statutes, and he hopes that's their job, too.

Sandy Mayo said she had authored an article in the paper about it. Charlie started to respond but it was not

clear what either one said at this point. Sandy continued the sentence ending with "application." Charlie said

that was incorrect.

Peter asked, if he proposes a motion, whether people would support this. Most said they would, and Al

Moraska noted that Dave Wulfson said very openly, truthfully and honestly that the intent of the project was to

construct a soccer field, and he thinks that means that a Site Plan is necessary. So Peter said he would proceed.

Peter Kunin moved: Based on the Planning Commission's understanding, and based on the land

owner's statement that a soccer field is intended for the Barrett / Wulfson property on the north side of

Ferry Road, it is the Planning Commission's belief that a Site Plan Review is required at this time. Dave

Brown seconded the motion, and it passed, 4–1 with 2 members absent. David Allen stated that he objected only

to the part about the statement that a soccer field is intended for the property, and that the intent would only be if

the land would support it. And Dave Brown reiterated his earlier statement that they were not against having a

soccer field, but only wanted the regulations to be followed.

Jim Donovan thanked people for coming in.

The meeting appeared to be over, but Sandy Mayo asked to speak to the Planning Commission members.

She asked Charlie Burnham if he was executive director of the Charlotte Land Trust. He said that was incorrect.

So she lied, then? Charlie answered that it was incorrect. So Valerie lied? There was a lot of confusion as

people were leaving, people were milling around and the tape had not yet been turned off.

Peter Kunin tried to stop her, and moved to adjourn. The voted was unanimous, 5–0 with 2 absent.

Submitted by Nancy Lane

APPROVED BY THE CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION