CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION

7:00 P.M., TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 1998

TOWN OFFICES

425-3533

Members Present:Chairman Al Moraska

Ed Melby

David Allen

Jeff McDonaldJim Donovan

Dave Brown

Planner Charlie Burnham

Members Absent:Peter Kunin

Guests Signed In:Sandy Mayo

Atty. Karl W. Neuse

Jeff Wallin

Steve Libby

Clark W. Hinsdale, III

Sue MoraskaNancy Sabin

Atty. William Sayre

Kathleen LaLiberti

Tom Yager

Louise Brown

John Hammer

1. General Business: Changes to tonight's agenda are as follows: Review & approve minutes from July 21,

1998 and July 7, 1998; also, the Joint Meeting with the Zoning Board of Adjustment the date is Wednesday,

August 19, 1998 at 7:00 p.m.

Charlie announced that the Perry subdivision has been postponed until the meeting of September 21, 1998

due to inability to gather the required material in time for the September 7th meeting.

At first there did not appear to be a quorum, so approval of minutes was postponed until the next meeting on

August 18, 1998.

Jeff McDonald asked when the next meeting would be for more planning work. Al Moraska asked that there

be at least an hour blocked out during the next meeting. In the meantime Charlie will put together a draft schedule

for some of the topics to look at in preparing to upgrade the Town Plan.

Jeff, Charlie, Jim Sheldon–Dean were at an MPO meeting recently at which they discussed wanting a "wish

list" relating to all transportation for the town: including Rte. 7, overpasses, underpasses, bridges, and overall

improvements for the purpose of tapping into any federal funding that may be available. There used to be a

District Highway Office that had a close relationship with the town. They are looking for town–wide input.

Ed Melby said the railroad committee skipped a meeting during the summer, so there is nothing new to add

except for some news about Shelburne near Windmill Bay that was reported in the local newspaper. There has

been some discussion about new technology such as using some self–propelled cars, or a locomotive with 2 cars.

There is some good equipment available that will be investigated including some cars with bathrooms. They are

still considering noise abatement. Their next meeting is August 26.

2. Steve Libby and Atty. Karl Neuse, representing A. Johnson for a continuation of the (warned) Final

Plat Hearing for a Minor Subdivision. Al Moraska noted that Steve has been addressing some of the issues

that were discussed at the last meeting. Steve said it was mostly the erosion control they were talking about.

Atty. Neuse acknowledged receiving the criteria the Planning Commission asked for regarding the issues

from the June meeting via E-Mail, and has addressed some of these in his discussions with the representative

from the Planning Commission. In particular it was the third issue about wildlife. Jeff Wallin will elaborate on

that. There is an agreement with the town which contemplated the two ten-acre lots and the third, large lot, and

that agreement took into consideration the protected area along the creek. This agreement clearly is subject to

forestry management standards and the applicant wouldn't anticipate any conditions being attached to this sub-

division permit which would modify or impact that agreement with the town.

"We feel that agreement reflects the concerns that the Planning Commission may have regarding all of the

criteria under the subdivision plans. We feel that we've addressed those, particularly in the fact that from the

original submission we drew back the house site that was way out on the point, and have now totally clustered the

three dwelling unit areas," Atty. Neuse said. "Under those conditions I think we have responded to all of the envi-

ronmental standards that appear in your subdivision regulations particularly as it impacts wildlife."

Al Moraska accepted that and asked Jim Donovan to discuss his written comments about it. Jim said the

applicants have covered a lot of the concerns and thought the other issues could be addressed tonight.

"In terms of lot–cutting language, what I wasn't sure of was, when you are talking about not clearing in

excess of 8" diameter trees in a 10–foot buffer strip, is the location of the 10–foot buffer strip in those areas, that

are visible between the area of edges of the hillside where the houses would be, whether it's at the edge of the area

at the hillside or further in, or was it going to be floating," Jim questioned. Steve Libby replied that it was his

intent to have it written in a way that would locate a strip of this vegetation between the built structures on the

three building envelope areas and place them on either Lewis Creek Road or Spear Street that would be visible.

Not knowing exactly where the houses would be placed within the envelopes, it was difficult to write a specific

note on the plan of the location of that 10–foot strip.

However, Steve said, he could describe to the Planning Commission, lot by lot, where he would see that strip

being located. The visible lot of Lot #1 would be between 480 and 490 on the elevation contours of the map on

the western side of the northwestern boundary of the building envelope. That one is the only one where, if there is

no vegetation it could be seen from either road.

Jim said it would seem that they could combine that somehow with the language of the erosion control strip,

and make sure that it is always occurring at the edge, rather than further in and having clearing between that and

the actual end of the building envelope. Charlie interjected and asked if they could just modify it so that it says

the building envelope does not include any land that's down over the bank?

Steve said they can do that on lot #3, but it would be more difficult on lot #1 because it's not as extreme a

drop–off; there's actually a couple of steps that go down. "Would you leave that up to the Zoning Administrator?"

Charlie asked. Atty. Neuse chuckled at that.

Steve said if they need language that says that on Lot #3 the building envelope will not extend over the edge

of the obvious drop–off on the west or to the north. "On Lot #3 the building envelope will not exceed the brink of

the bank to the west and north of the current building envelope."

Jim asked if the markers in the field could be replicated on the plans; they wouldn't have to worry about any

wording, it would be there on the plans. Steve agreed with that; it's very clear, he said, where the drop–off is for

lot #3; it's also clear for lot #2 for the western boundary. Atty. Neuse said it can be drawn on the map for lot #1

as well, so that they won't have to have another meeting.

Steve said he was considering the more gentle slope that's only 5 feet. Then there's the more significant

drop–off; but if we want to mark it on the plan tonight, he said, and have language that says there is an assump

tion that these lines depict the edge of the significant drop-offs and those would be included in the final plat...

And in all three of the lots it's only the western and northern sides of building envelopes that are of concern,

Steve said. The southern and eastern sides are either flat–pitch or they are actually a positive pitch. Jim asked if

that included the south side of Lot 2. Steve said he'd be glad to include the south side of Lot 2 for the clearing

restrictions.

Al Moraska reaffirmed that the cutting restrictions were to apply to the south, west, and north sides of Lot

#2 building envelope, and to the west and north sides of Lots #1 and #3. Steve said there would be a 10–foot strip

in which there would be no cutting of trees in excess of 8'' in diameter. Jim asked, if they are able to cut things

below 8", how do they see that working to maintain natural vegetation. Steve said they would still have in the

10–foot strip, maintenance of some type of native vegetation for erosion control purposes. In addition there

would be no cutting of the larger trees. Jim just wanted to be sure they would limb trees up, but would leave the

smaller vegetation and the trees that are 8" or larger; he asked if Steve knew how many there were.

Steve said he couldn't give an exact number but thinks it may be around 15 on one side and perhaps 4 or 5

on the other. He said he thinks the cone of visibility, even without the cutting restrictions is very narrow. In

addition they had brought the building envelope on lot #1 back into the cluster in order to address the wildlife

concerns. He said there is very little likelihood or motivation for anyone building up there to do any major cutting

outside of the buffer strip. They feel that placing restrictions on cutting on lots 2 and 3 would hamper sales of

those two lots so they did not want to put that restriction in the deeds.

Jim replied, "Having seen a number of properties where this has happened, and even though the possibilities

are small, I still believe they exist, and they happen." He asked how they would feel about a simple limitation

that says there's no clear–cutting outside the building envelope. Atty. Neuse asked if that meant they could still

selectively cut and trim, and Jim agreed; it would just mean they couldn't clear–cut.

Steve said they would have to have a clear area for whatever kind of septic system is made and that is an

area that they don't want to be trapped by. Another scenario is that if they do end up having to use the approved

site down in the lower field there will have to be a force–main that will have to go down through. Jim agreed that

those concerns are valid.

Charlie noted that in the agreement with the town that they currently have, there is a condition that "no

cutting of trees shall occur without (in one of two options):

explicit consent within 100 feet of the mean high–water mark of Lewis Creek. We would also like to

formalize that in relation to the draining functions of the sewer disposal.

It would simplify it if it were separate, Charlie said. And Atty. Neuse said, As long as it's not inconsistent

with the agreement.

Jim said that still leaves out a big portion of it. Not covered, or covered? – Jim asked. Not covered; well

actually it doesn't even leave out 25 acres of it, Atty. Neuse said, because a portion along the creek has a 100–ft

buffer, so it's what remains of the 20 — plus the 5 acres. The agreement covers everything outside of two

10–acre lots plus a 5–acre building site; everything else is covered by the agreement with the town. So the only

thing that's not covered are the 25–acres less the 100–ft. strip. So it's not even the 25–acres.

Al said, "But A. Johnson is responsible for the timber management for this whole area except for the 2

ten–acre lots plus the five–acre building site." Steve said his concern about any kind of language that would be

of such a nature that it would preclude the lot–owners from cutting of firewood and trimming out and cleaning up

damage that was caused by the ice storm. Atty. Neuse asked if there was a specific section in the subdivision

regulations that the Planning Commission was relying on. He said the balance of the subdivision addresses the

wildlife issue and this is not a wildlife issue; it is aesthetic one but he does not see an aesthetic criteria specifically

in the subdivision regulations.

Charlie said this refers back to the PRD section in the Zoning Ordinance. Jim said he does not know exactly

what part of the Zoning Ordinance talks about this, at this evening's meeting. Al Moraska asked if anyone else

has some questions of the applicants.

Sandy Mayo questioned Charlie about where in the Zoning Ordinance that would be. Charlie said the PRD

section of the Subdivision Regulations refer to the PRD requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. She asked what

the actual section was. Charlie went to get the document.

Nancy Sabin asked if a person buying that property and paying the taxes could not do as they pleased on

that land. "Is there a new ordinance in town, or is it because it's a lumber business?" she asked. Jim said the

answer to the first question, is that it's beyond the building envelope. At the previous hearing there were many

town residents who expressed a concern that there shouldn't be clear–cutting up there. People expressed a

concern that from various places in town, they would like to preserve, as much as possible, the visual appearance

of the site as it is now. The applicant would like to have the owners of these building areas enjoy vistas and

views that they have. The Planning Commission is trying to satisfy both sides.

Nancy asked if this was going to be a pre–requisite on a building permit from now on. Jim replied that this

issue was brought up by others at the meeting. But he said he thinks it's a valid concern — trying to maintain the

visual character of the Town. That is one of the things with a PRD — that they maintain the visual resources of

the Town.

Charlie came back with the Zoning Ordinance document and Sandy again asked in what section that require-

ment appeared. Charlie said that in Section 5.15 which is Planned Residential Development, which this applica

tion is,

Any subdivision creating building lots and involving 25 acres or more shall be evaluated under the

standards applicable to PRDs contained in these regulations.

In Section 5.15 D, Open Space Standards for PRDs, it goes into detail as to character, size and shape of

open space land — protecting resources, habitats, etc. In relation to Atty. Neuse's question about Jim's concern

about cutting is that:

Management plans for forestry and wildlife habitat may be required.

That's in Section 5.15 D.3. In their agreement with the Town they are supposed to comply with USDA

Forest Service (named Guide). So they have the standards. Sandy asked if the State's standards supercede the

Town's standards, but was told there is no Town standard. Atty. Neuse said if this is approved all of this in the

State standards will be incorporated in the total agreement.

Bill Sayre asked to speak. The person who will spend the money to buy this lot has every incentive, more

than anyone in this room, to maintain the value of this property. A person who wants an open lot is not going to

buy a woodland, never mind that there doesn't seem to be the same standard of being able to see the same if it's an

open lot. They are just not going to buy this lot when they cut everything down; but what I'd like to add is, look

at what's around this property. There's pasture on one side, there's pasture that goes deep and if someone wanted

to find a little open area if they could find a piece that wasn't ledge, he said, "I just don't see the problem." But

from a marketing standpoint we need to be able to give that prerogative to anyone willing to spend that kind of

money to buy a lot in this project. It would scare away potential buyers if they see too many restrictions.

Jim still wants to have something documented within the two lots in question.

Dave Brown asked, if they have to use the area at the bottom for the septic, how much is to be dug out.

Steve said they addressed that in the agreement with the Town. The covenants provide for the right to construct,

maintain, repair and replace the septic system outside the homestead outside the 100–acre lot, serving the resi

dence within the homestead area and two other residences located on the lots excluded in the description set forth

above (that's lots number 1 and 2). This right includes the right to construct as minimal a road as necessary for

constructing, maintaining, repairing and replacing said septic system. The location of the force main is down an

existing logging road pathway. It's down in a gully. Either side is against a cliff.

Ed Melby said he would expect that from a marketing viewpoint they would try to get on–site septic. Steve

agreed that it would be to everyone's benefit to try and get on–site septic. Tonight, for the purpose of this appli-

cation that we are going to use this area down by the river. But we are going to be looking at the sites up above.

Charlie commented about the septic. In research, he found a precedent in the Lazar decision on Lime Kiln

Road in 1995. There were 3 lots proposed along the edge of the highway and across the town highway over to

the Laberge Farm with a leach field. The conditions were that, if prior to any building on the lots they could find

onsite sewage for the lots, they could have the Zoning Administrator approve the house sites. We did that today,

he said. It was a similar condition and was pre–approved by Brian Roddy.

Al reiterated with other Planning Commission members about what they meant about the clear–cutting.

They all said that meant no clear–cutting outside the building envelope except for driveways and utilities. But

Bill Sayre said the trouble in the past was that "No one can define clear–cutting." Dave Brown said, "That's

easy, if they cut everything down it's clear–cutting. If you leave something, it's not clear–cutting. That's pretty

simple." Al said that sounds good. Bill said he is assuming that was for the two 10–acre lots.

They addressed the issue on erosion by the statement that they would abide by the rules defined in the

Vermont Handbook for Soil Erosion, Al said. The wildlife issue came up, and Jeff Wallin addressed this in his

letter. Al asked Jeff Wallin how he is defining "minimal" impact to wildlife.

Jeff said that the prime habitat that where the building sites are right now are buffered to a very large

extent, to prevent any human activities from disturbing the principal habitat which extends further down this

ridge. We can argue over squirrels and chipmunks but in this piece of property the impact of these houses on the

overall wildlife picture is probably immeasurable. You will not be able to measure a loss in deer, in turkey, in

other wildlife that are passing through this property with the configuration of the housing as it presently exists.

You are not going to have massive pullback or avoidance of habitat because of the houses that exist here. The

more valuable habitat extends around the edge in the riparian zone along the creek. The bulk of the habitat is

isolated and reserved.

Al agreed that when you build a house you do get a kind of inhibition, in a certain zone around that building,

is that right? Jeff agreed; these people will have deer eating their perennials, guaranteed. Al asked about the

migration corridors mentioned in the letter.

Jeff said most wildlife travel near the water; also the deer are prevalent along the easterly base of the hard-

wood slope and you can follow it over to the hemlocks. Where the cover extends, the flagging extends up against

the high outcrop. A prime example is at Sugarbush where there are condominiums built right on the ridge; and

the deeryard is right up against the back of those condos. He has taken pictures of 7 deer beds right up under the

heating vents of those condominiums. There's the affect of them hiding from the noise and that same effect works

in reverse when you have animal noise up above and human activity down below. There isn't a better situation

for separating habitat from the housing activity than what we've got here, just from the topography. There is a

drainage that cuts through, providing a natural break and the steep slope on the north side provides a natural

break. The prime examples of this habitat being disturbed are the houses down near the covered bridge with their

grassy lawns, etc. extending right down to the creek. Here we've got nearly a mile and a quarter down to the

creek beds and that is probably the most valuable wildlife habitat on this property.

Dave Brown agreed that if you're going to do any more for the wildlife then you won't have a lot there;

you're caught between a rock and a hard place. Jeff Wallin asked folks to keep in mind that the original plans

were to have 13 lots there. It has really been brought in and preserved and there is an incredible amount of

habitat that is being preserved here. Dave said it's a lot better than what they started out with.

Al asked if there were any more questions from the audience, and there were none, so he thanked Jeff Wallin

for coming. Al brought up the septic issue and asked for Steve to summarize that.

The State Subdivision permit for septic in the lower field can accommodate 13 lots. The leach field that can

be used is the default, but they will look for alternatives.

For the utilities, Steve asked for latitude in the town's requirement for underground utilities, because while in

some areas the soils are deep, there are other areas where it is ledge and they won't be able to dig and would have

to blast. There was a lot of discussion about this, but that requirement is in the regulations and Jeff McDonald

suggested in the areas of ledge, that the underground requirement could be fulfilled by covering the lines with

either fill, or with concrete encasement. Other Planning Commission members agreed with this requirement which

is clear in the regulations.

Charlie said they can waive that under Chapter 8, Section 4. But Al said they have already invoked that for

the setbacks on the building envelopes. Atty. Neuse said he assumed that would be spelled out in the order. Then

he asked for a waiver for above ground utilities in one section of ledge for 100–to–150 feet. The requirement is

for 4–feet deep according to Green Mt. Power. Jim said he didn't have a problem with the line going in, but Jeff

McDonald still did not want to go along with giving a waiver for this. If there's a hardship they can come back

and see if, with Green Mt. Power's backing, they might have this discussion again.

Clark Hinsdale, III, suggested they allow Charlie Burnham the flexibility to allow a waiver in order to get a

better finished product. He suggested they just give him some guidance.

Sandy Mayo asked who documents whether it should go underground. It is a very formal process with the

power company in the form of a several–page–long document, Clark said. Charlie said the applicant would have

to do that in a formal application to the Planning Commission for a waiver. Sandy said she thinks they should do

that.

Al questioned the turnaround for the fire trucks, and Steve pointed that out on the map. This is for Lot 3. If

he had another day, Steve said, he would have changed the drawing of the driveway with a 60–ft ROW but would

change the 20–ft. width to the required 14-ft. width. The only thing that changes in a driveway that is over

500–ft is the width. The turnarounds are the same. Charlie answered Jeff, that if it's over 800–ft. is that the

turnarounds are called turn–outs.

Then Charlie addressed the setbacks for the building envelopes. The minimum setbacks for the side yards

and rear yards is 50', and they don't say anything about the front yards, so they can assume they are at 100'. The

Planning Commission can waive the interior setback lines, in this case specifically it looks like they are asking for

a waiver on the setbacks for the right–of–way and it should be spelled out clearly for the Zoning Administrator

when it comes time for the building permits.

Al Moraska asked if there were any further comments, and there were none, so he said they must now close

the hearing. Al Moraska made a formal motion to close the hearing and go into Deliberative Session to

consider the Application for the the A. Johnson Lumber Co. 3–Lot Subdivision on Lewis Creek Road.

Jeff McDonald seconded the motion and it was approved, 5–0 with 1 member absent and 1 member abstaining.

The follow up required, is that the Final Plat be submitted within 45 days of the date of the Final Plat

Findings.

2. Hutchins, Vern & Rachel, Application for 2 new lots (#4 & #5) and Modification of existing Lot #3.

This is a deliberative session to review the Findings of Fact and Final conditions.

David Allen moved to go into a Deliberative Session to review the Findings of Fact and Final Condi

tions of the Vern & Rachel Application for a Modification of a Major Subdivision. Ed Melby seconded the

motion and this was approved, 6–0 with one member absent.

After the deliberative session Al moved to accept the Findings of Fact and Notice of Decision as written

by Charlie Burnham. David Allen seconded, and that motion was approved, 6–0 with one member absent.

3. Al Moraska made a motion to go into executive session to talk about personnel issues. Dave Brown

seconded the motion and it was approved, 6–0 with one member absent. That lasted for 10 minutes.

It was reported that the executive session has ended and no action was taken.

4. GIS discussions relating to the Municipal Plan Update and integration into the Town database.

Charlie Burnham referred to a memo that was circulated regarding the mapping budget. The listers will be going

in and discussing the cost aspect of this next week. Jay Appleton has worked with the listers on putting together

a request for proposals on putting together a Parcel Map, updating 10 years of Planning Commission approvals.

They are ready to put that out to about 6–to–7 firms. Part of what they will be doing in the Parcel Map is to

integrate this into the GIS System so that all the data sets within the Parcel Map. This way all the property

numbers will be cross–referenced in the database. That's part of the overall layers. The information on the GIS

will essentially reside on the Planning Commission computer, to be accessed throughout the building. That is, the

Town Clerk will have access to it and the Listers will have access to it.

We have $2500 in the budget for a computer upgrade. The Listers currently are upgrading from CAPTAP I

to CAPTAP II, which is the nomenclature for the Listers' proprietary software which is in DOS and is being

converted into WINDOWS for GIS. That probably won't be completed until December or January. Then we can

coordinate all the unified mapping of things. Monies are already budgeted for this. We have $1500 identified for

mapping for the GIS applications and software. The software alone is $975. The balance of that, we were going

to ask Mischul Brownstone to coordinate and make sure that these get integrated into this, including the Ground-

waters study that was done 10 years ago for the Town Plan. The Planning Commission monies are earmarked.

The Listers have money that was earmarked as well; their $1500 will go toward the upgrade of the actual

tax maps, which is in process now and will then go the vendor to do the GIS layer. They have money through

Act 60, expected to actually be between $7,000 and $9,000 from the State of Vermont. The Conservation

Commission has $700 budgeted in the Town Report for GIS mapping of the wetlands. Charlie said he is a little

concerned that the Conservation Commission would like to have the Planning Commission's mapping money to

help with their Wetlands layer. In order for that to happen they would have to go to the Selectboard and ask them

to take away the Planning Commission money and give it to the Conservation Commission.

I don't know if the Selectboard has been asked to do that yet, Charlie said. I don't know if that's asked, I

would hope that they wouldn't go along with it. That would put the GIS on hold for another year and maybe next

year they would give us the money.

Al asked why the Planning Commission should not go along with it. Charlie said they shouldn't give the

Planning Commission's mapping money to anybody. They are going to need that money to do the Town Plan

maps. The Conservation Commission, he said, is going to need 6–or–7 thousand dollars and they are going to

have to explore other sources for their money.

Dave Brown said the Conservation Commission really only needed $1,000 to pay for the wetland mapping.

That's being done in Massachusetts. They did apply for one grant that Charlie had advised them to do, but they

had been turned down for that one.

Ed Melby said it would seem they should go to the Selectboard and ask for the money; that's where we have

to go to get our money allocated. Charlie said he believes the Selectboard should wholeheartedly endorse what

the Conservation Commission is doing; it's very important and is badly needed, and if they want the money to do

that then they should budget that in and ask for it.

Al asked what the maps are that they need. Charlie suggested some of those that we have now. There are

agriculture, soils, and was looking at the different types, when John Hammer asked to say his piece as one of the

members of the Conservation Commission. He said the Conservation Commission feels what they need to have

done is important for what the Planning Commission needs for part of the Town Plan update. Wetlands and

Environmental and Wildlife Habitat mapping is seriously deficient, just as it was found to be in Hinesburg. And

after a lot of discussion in the Conservation Commission, John said, wetlands are really the root source of where

everything lies as far as wildlife. Certainly woodlands is one as well. So in looking at it, the Conservation Com-

mission felt that there is a great deal of risk to the wetlands in the Town, as they presently stand and as they

presently exist in the national inventory.

"Look at this land out in the back of the Town Hall, for instance, which has variously been termed as

'wetland' and 'not wetland' and 'developable' and 'non–developable' and all the rest. What needs to happen is for

somebody to decide, somewhere along the line, whether that piece of land, or that over there (across the road), or

where the soccer field is, where you all are being torn apart all the time is in fact what it's supposed to be. This

all came out in Hinesburg and they finally decided that, after all, that land inventory isn't complete. So the Con-

servation Commission got this person from Massachusetts to come down. What came out is that the product that

will come out of this conservation project is going to provide to you, the Planning Commission, and the Town

Plan ultimately, the ability to make those judgement calls in a better sense.

"Now what Charlie's talking about, and the question I would raise is that there are 7 targets that you all

control out of this budget. Charlie's talking about some sort of software that will put everything together so that

all of them look like that — that anybody can go anywhere in the building and they could pull up the different

layers that all come out of the GIS mapping project.

"My proposal is that you ought to spend some of that money if not all of it, towards doing the wetland.

And Charlie is going to try to convince you that the money should go towards whatever it is he's doing. But the

Selectboard in its wisdom is going to decide 'Who gets the baby.' I don't know all the things Charlie wants, but

the question is, timing. Can, or is it necessary to spend that money now, to put it all together in the town now in

that Master Plan, or to get the wetlands done, what part of wetlands and what part of networking, listing or

property lines, whatever. I don't have the answers. I'm here to listen and make a plug for the Conservation

Commission in that, it will help all of you in your decision–making sooner, rather than later, and it's going to

ultimately work its way into the Town Plan, and it's right, because when you start screwing around with wet-

lands, once it's screwed–up, it's hard to get it back. Ultimately the Selectboard will make the decision."

Charlie asked John to check the Conservation Commission mailbox in the Town Clerk's office. John said he

had not, and he apologized for not doing so, yet. Charlie said he really supports the work of the Conservation

Commission 100% . John said he normally works at home, and he hasn't even read Linda Hamilton's letter yet.

Al said it appeared that the groups were fighting for the monies. But both Charlie and John agreed they were not

disagreeing at all. They were just trying to make their points regarding the mapping.

Sandy Mayo had some comments. She was of the opinion that it was the Town Planner had in his job

description, that he was supposed to assist the Conservation Commission in gathering data, and in research, and

in getting grants. She doesn't think that it's his priority is to work to get the GIS mapping. To her it was the

spirit of what they were leaning towards, and it doesn't seem to her that the Conservation Commission should be

left on their own to gather those grants. When she looks at the Demeter project, to the soccer field, to all the

other areas that should be designated she thinks that should be the priority.

Charlie said he is here every day, and is available to discuss mapping, GIS and everything and no one from

the Conservation Commission has talked to him regarding the GIS mapping. Linda Hamilton presumes, in her

letter, we have ArcView, the software that runs GIS. We do not have ArcView. Sandy said she was concerned

with wetlands, did Charlie think the wetlands study could be done with ArcView? Would he be able to study all

the wetlands in Charlotte with ArcView? Charlie said that's not what you use ArcView for. That is the operating

system for the GIS. Typically you hire consultants to do the wetland study just like Linda is proposing and I

would assist them, 100%, he said. Sandy was protesting.

Jeff McDonald interjected here. "Charlie is not working directly for the Conservation Commission, and any

request like that would need to come through here, so I disagree with what you are saying, that it's in his job des-

cription to write grants for the Conservation Commission or even if he can be available for that, but that has to be

prioritized through the Planning Commission." Sandy still protested that she thought it was in his job description

to work with the Conservation Commission and wanted the Planning Commission members to look at his job

description again because she was sure that's what he was supposed to do. Charlie said he hadn't asked for any

help.

Jeff said to Sandy, that the only reason he wanted to point that out, is that "When we did the interview

process we had less than 40 hours per week to work with and we're doing Zoning, Planning, Conservation,

Health Officer, etc. and it's just an impossible thing, so that's why you have to come and coordinate so if that's

what needs to be done, it should come through the Planning Commission and we have to agree that it needs to be

done.

"I just have a question, Charlie," he said, "in Item 7 on page 2, monies budgeted and approved by the voters

of the Town, these dollar numbers, was that the breakdown?" Charlie said that was from the Town Report.

They asked for $300 and they got $300, so if they had asked for $6700 maybe they would have gotten the

$6700, he said. He doesn't know. But in the Selectboard Budget hearing, this is what the Selectboard sent to the

voters after the budget hearings. John Hammer said he was pretty sure more was asked for. But Charlie said,

"Well we asked for a lot more, too. And Sandy was here to act in that process and we all asked for more money."

The Selectboard said, "Until you have a totally unified mapping plan, we are reluctant to give out the

money." They need to have that for people to follow and to use as a basis.

Sue Moraska asked if the GIS was a computer program that will tie in everything. Charlie answered that

GIS stands for "Geographic Information System." In Vermont they have the VGIS. There is a State Agency

that administers the standards. The University of Vermont helps with the promoting and putting forth the

standards. The Regional Planning Commission acts, in our case, he said, as the repository for all our data. The

Regional Planning Commission helps us write contract specifications which conform to all that, for example the

contract specifications should have gone through the Town Mapping Committee and the Regional Planning

Commission to make sure that everything that relates to Conservation Commission proposed projects conforms

to the standards that the State puts together, and when it comes to the need at the Town level, the Planning

Commission needs for the Town Plan. This is an effort to get everybody together and to get everybody working

on the same wavelength and promote the overall goals of the GIS for the town.

Louise Brown verified, that it means entering in any data that they have for the Town, so that they would

know where they started and where they stand. Charlie said that it would have to be GIS–compatible. Louise

asked if that meant entering in old stuff. Charlie said they can enter in old stuff, because a lot of it doesn't

change, such as, "Are you in a flood plain, or are you not in a flood plain?" That's the kind of thing that goes

into this, he said. They have to ensure that the people who come from the University of Massachusetts applies

the same standards of mapping that every other town in Vermont is using. So that our maps, if you go to the

Regional Planning Office in Essex, you see on the wall, matches all the towns in Chittenden County. If they all

use different standards you'd have a hard time making them come together. It's essential to make sure that all the

towns are using the same standards.

Sandy Mayo said there is only this basic one wetland map and yet through the years, she said, we've had

agencies and private consultants do wetland studies and we've had our Town Plan, and at the time all the wet-

lands were not put on the Town Plan at that time because we hadn't found all the wetlands at that time. And as

we have developed properties in the Town and we do find particular areas that are conservation and agriculture,

we then put them on our map. So these people when they come in with their applications to develop property

within the town we can integrate that in our Town Plan. That's what she thought they were doing with the Town

Plan.

Charlie said that to do a proper Wetland Study for example, with the property out in back of the Town Hall,

it would cost in the neighborhood of $10,000. What will a proper wetland study for the whole town cost? he

asked. Sandy asked if they use those individual studies, who says that these are not accepted.

Al said they have in their office, some wetlands maps. And in the files is the federal wetlands maps. David

Allen, at this point, said he thinks everybody is in favor of having wetlands identified in this town; but the

question is, if we are going to do a mapping project in this town, he said, we have to have a foundation to start

from, and I think Charlie and people that he has worked with on the GIS Standard have identified a foundation to

start with. I personally support their work, and feel that foundation will support having wetlands information to

the Town Mapping Project. The question is, do we take money away from building a foundation in order to fund

identifying wetlands? I don't think so. "I think we need to find more money somewhere. I don't think we can find

it, but I think we should all work together."

Al remembered that Linda Hamilton had given them some information on a grant that might be available, a

couple of months ago. Dave Brown said that they had applied for that grant, but had been turned down.

Charlie said if they don't have the basic system set up they cannot use the data that they come up with —

unless it goes to the Regional Planning Commission. And then they produce the data.

John Hammer said that's the question that they would raise — whether or not the need is great to identify

and be able to handle the questions on wetlands sooner, rather than later, and whether it fits into the Town Plan

scheme of things. Presently, he said, the federal wetlands study is incomplete, which is reflected by the dilemmas

that we find ourselves in. The idea of the Conservation Commission was to generate a study which would

identify these wetlands and provide a "kickoff" so that if somebody were to decide to build out there in the back,

for instance, rational people would determine that the development was "at risk;" and therefore force the devel

oper to do that $10,000 study. Obviously the town would not be able to do that study, or any other person in a

wetland situation. So they are going to have to foot the bill, just as anyone would have to foot the bill. That's the

way it's supposed to work anyway. As far as meeting the State's criteria I don't think they have all been written

yet; but it's getting close. Certainly it's going to get close, because that's what Hinesburg has done.

Charlie said he believes Monkton has done this, as well. John said Charlie and he have discussed this

recently and they've agreed that this is no good if done without a foundation because then, you have to change

it all over again. What the Conservation Commission is putting together is not a "slapdash" kind of thing,

because they are going to be working with the VGIS people to digitize and being done by a nationally recognized

person. But, John said, we've got to find the money for all these things. The town is struggling as it is. Al said

his tax bill doesn't reflect that. But John said a large part of the town's budget is for the school system.

John said that two wetland studies have been applied for, and have been turned down; he doesn't know why

that is. Ed Melby said he'd had some experience in the past, applying for grants. You can't give up, he said, with

only 2 applications. It may take many to finally get one that gives you the funds you ask for.

Charlie said he didn't anticipate taking all evening to talk about wetlands. John suggested that the two of

them could get together and see how they could work on this goal. Ed said they should identify what they need

and sit down and write some applications.

Al asked what would happen if they took the $1500 and divided it up. Charlie asked, "What part of the GIS

project don't you want to do?" Ed Melby said that's the problem. We don't want to go at it that way; we've got to

identify what your needs are and then fund it. Al said even $1500 isn't going to do the job.

Charlie said they need $975 just to get the software, just to get it out of the box; and then we need to get it

up and running. Al asked if the other $500 would help the Conservation Committee. John said that isn't the

answer for them either. John said then they'd need to find the money for the rest.

Charlie said, "And we're not going to run that on our system until we can get it up and running. We don't

have, (a) the computer, and (b) the system to run it. John asked what kind of system they are buying. "ArcView"

– Charlie replied. The new one. John suggested that they sit down on this.

Next week, Charlie said, the Selectboard is meeting regarding the listers' GIS layer. Theirs isn't going to

drop off the chutes until January or February. When they walk in the door with it, we need to have a system to

run it on. David Allen said we need to find more money, we don't need to divide what money we have, even

further.

Charlie agreed with that. He said there are some people out there who just love maps. John again said they

would get together soon to discuss this further.

Al Moraska made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Dave Brown seconded, and it was quickly voted,

6–0 in the affirmative with one member absent. John Hammer protested, jokingly, that "it's not even ten o'clock."

(It was close to that.)

submitted by Nancy Lane

Approved by the Charlotte Planning Commission