CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING AGENDA
Thursday, August 7, 2003
7:00 PM
Charlotte Town Hall- 159
Ferry Road
Approved on October 2, 2003
Members Present:
Robin
Pierce
Gordon
Troy
Gene
Diou
Linda
Radimer
Staff
Present:
Others
Present:
David Marshall
Steve Buscher
Steven Brooks
Linda Hamilton
Jake Callery
Holly Callery
Robert Mesaros
George Connelly
Chip Patello
Sean Flaherty
Neil Buxton
Sylvia Sprig
Sheila Braun
Before the meeting, a site visit took place on the Patnaude
property. Present were Gordon Troy,
Gene Diou, Linda Radimer, Dean Peirce and John and Sue Patnaude.
Chair McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:40
p.m.
APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA AND REGULAR AGENDA (NOTHING ON CONSENT AGENDA)
Done
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Brooks reminded the PC
about the map issue. He said that in
April, he had brought up the issue of making some maps and taking a look at the
current maps. Mr. McDonald asked what
maps in particular. Mr. Brooks said it
was a discussion about inventorying and considering what maps are here for
resources. Mr. Bloch said his
recollection is that the PC was going to come up with a map which depicted
parcels being conserved. Mr. Bloch
said that he was in the process of updating public and conservation lands; he
has been talking with Pam Bragan about it and determining what lots are
actually in existence. Mr. McDonald
directed Mr. Brooks to discuss this matter with Mr. Bloch.
DISCUSSION OF SITE VISIT TO JOHN AND SUE PATNAUDE
PROPERTY
Mr. Troy remarked that the
PC shouldn’t be thinking what is going to occur on the other side of the
railroad yet until approval comes through.
Legal requirements to cross it are not known as well. Mr. Donovan suggested checking because an
approved plan helps applicants obtain the crossing. Mr. Troy asked for a
request to defer issuing a letter to the Patnaudes pending an answer to that
question. Mr. Bloch said that the
issuance of a sketch plan letter is dependent on this discussion. Mr. McDonald said that approval of the
railroad crossing is the preliminary step, but in order to act further, the PC
needs an application. Ms. Radimer said
it would be legitimate for the PC to say that it has concerns and would like assurances
that the railroad crossing is approved before a lot of time and energy is
invested.
There was a consensus
regarding the following concerns:
§
House lot locations
§
They are not proposing to put close to fence line to
provide for necessary trail easements connecting Demeter as it goes north
Mr. McDonald strongly
recommended that this development be to the weste side of the tracks and not on
the east.
Items for letter:
§
Safety concerns crossing the railroad
§
Low land where water collects
§
Draining concerns where they want to have dwellings
– close to Demeter – the trail system – whole siting
§
Problem of getting there as well
It was suggested to get
more clarification as to where the corridors are on the property, as well as a
recommendation to cluster houses together on the north side.
Also, it was noted that a
signalized railroad crossing should be a requirement for the subdivision.
It was noted that the only
way that Lots 1, 3 and 4 are viable sites is by tree cutting and there is
concern about the effect on wildlife, runoff issues and visual appearance and
viewability of the houses. Therefore,
it was suggested to change the location of the lots, especially Lots 1 and 3.
It was mentioned that
coming across the swale would be a large project, which would include building
a bridge.
The relocation of the
driveway was discussed and it was suggested to use the existing access from the
north to the berm, go behind the barn where the gravel roadway is now. This would eliminate the need for making a new
road cut.
Mr. Bloch will prepare a
draft letter. Mr. McDonald directed him
to put this matter on the consent agenda for their next meeting.
SKETCH PLAN LETTERS: MARIETTA PALMER ESTATE; REYNOLDS/HINSDALE
Marietta Palmer –
Mr. Donovan expressed his
concern of trying to preserve as much of the open land as possible. He would eliminate Lots 2 and 3 in their
current location and would not eliminate Lot 1. He would divide Lot 7 into 2 envelopes instead of 1. This plan would maintain the current
proposed number of lots.
The PC discussed these
options further.
Mr. Troy asked Mr. Bloch
to rework the letter. Mr. McDonald
asked if this should be a zoning issue.
Mr. Troy said with respect to paragraph 10, the boiler plates “provided
by the Town” should say “available by the Town.”
Jim Donovan departed the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
ROBERT AND KATHRYN MESAROS: Subdivision Amendment to move building
envelope. Property located on Converse
Bay Road in the Rural District
Mr. Mesaros addressed the PC, explaining that he had
recently purchased the Koch property on Converse Bay Road. He would like to do 2 outbuildings and said
that the envelope was already defined.
The approval of the original subdivision was in 1992. He would like to construct a wood shed
generator house; a 14 x 20 foot propane generator will be housed there. He said his plan has already been submitted
and approved. The other structure he
wants to build is a boathouse/barn and would like to site it in a way to1) not
be visible from the road or lake and 2) to be able to not have to cut down any
trees or the fewest number of trees.
The area has already been plowed out.
It is 1344 SF – 28 x 48 for barn/boathouse – elevation 25 feet for barn
with weathervane on top of it. He
showed the location on the map.
He plans on only cutting
down 2 small cedars. The stakes are in
the ground for both structures. Mr.
McDonald asked the purpose of configuration of the original building envelope. Mr. Bloch said it ws where the clearing
was. Mr. McDonald has no problem with
it, but was making sure that they didn’t “step on” previous Planning
Commissions’ decisions. He completely
supports this application. He asked for
the resources map for this area, to which Mr. Bloch responded that the whole
parcel is wildlife. Mr. Bloch then read
1992 PC minutes regarding this property.
Mr. McDonald asked about
cutting. Mr. Mesaros has no problem
with designating a no-cut zone. Linda
Hamilton, on behalf of the Charlotte Conservation Committee (CCC) said that, if
the property owners were interested, a wildlife habitat management plan may be
developed for that area. Mr. Mesaros
was very interested in that.
GEORGE CONNELLY (APPLICANT) AND CLARK HINSDALE, JR.
(PROPERTY OWNER): Sketch Plan Review
for a Subdivision Amendment to move building envelope. Property located on
Upper Meadow Lane in the Rural District
George Connelly addressed
the PC. He would like to build his
house closer to the access road and Lot 7 to improve the view. The current envelope calls for a 100-foot
setback. He proposes a 50 foot setback
from the access road and 25 feet from Lot 7.
He has spoken with neighbors.
He wants to make it 50 feet from the front yard and 25 feet from the
side yard. Mr. Troy asked if this was
a PRD. Mr. Bloch said that it was hard
to say; lots are smaller than minimum lot size. He did say that this was a major subdivision done in 1993. There are 8 lots. The final decision did not say it was a PRD, he said. Mr. Troy said that would be a technical
problem being that the previous decision didn’t say if this was a PRD. Mr. Bloch said lots themselves are less
than what minimum lot size was in 1993.
It is considered a PRD but with standard setbacks (Lot 8). Mr. McDonald said that there is a
precedence for this, e.g. Stockbridge – a setback ws changed for a bran on a
lot and not applied to all lots, but raises the question if it should apply to
everyone. It should be a zoning issue.
Mr. Troy said that the PC
can do this because it is a preexisting major subdivision considered under PRD
review. However, the PC would need
indication of other lot owners in the subdivision that they accept these
changes. After discussion, it was
decided that this “letter” to be signed by the other lot owners will come from
the applicant.
Mr. Troy made
a motion to amend this application to classify it as a subdivision. Mr. Diou seconded. All were in favor and the motion was unanimously APPROVED.
Mr. Connolly asked about
the process. The PC will give Mr.
Connolly a letter telling him what it needs and what they want him to do and
then the applicant goes from there, Mr. McDonald said.
Mr. Connolly read his
letter to the neighbors.
CONTINUATION OF JAMES CALLERY (PROPERTY OWNER) AND
CHAMPLAIN VALLEY CO-HOUSING, INC. (APPLICANT):
Final Plat Review and Site Plan Review for a Planned Residential
Development creating 26 dwelling units and accessory common buildings which
include a common house, parking sheds, an office, a workshop, a barn and a
greenhouse. Access from Greenbush Road will also be reviewed. The property is located at 4255 Greenbush
Road in the Rural and Conservation Zoning Districts.
David Marshall from Civil
Engineering Associates, Sean Flaherty from William LeClair Architects and Chip
Patello from Champlain Valley Co-Housing (CVCH) addressed the PC.
Mr. McDonald suggested
that they finish final plat review, close it and continue onto sketch plan
review.
FINAL PLAT REVIEW
Mr. Marshall said that
there had been concerns at the last meeting that the most southerly lot
extended into wetlands. In response to this concern, he said that the applicant
has come back with 2 alternatives – one of the options is similar to the
original layout where lots have been shifted but specially shifted in a manner
that gets them farther from wetlands.
The second option is to where that southernmost lot was brought into the
south end of the green area and flip-flopped with the proposed greenhouse, so
that the greenhouse slips back to the southernmost location, he said as he
pointed it out on the map. In order
to facilitate the proposed relocation, they did a double check with the
Charlotte Volunteer Fire Department (CVFD) to ensure that the pumper trucks
could maneuver the curves. He hasn’t
heard anything adverse from them.
It is the preference of
the applicant to go with a more modified option where both of the other lots are now facing on the central green
area. It would create a better neighborhood
and eliminates one lot sitting by itself at the far end. Option 2 where the greenhouse moves to the
south is the preferred option of the applicant.
Everyone then compared
previous drawings to the newest ones (before and after the duplex was removed).
When asked why the duplex came out, Sheila Braun from CVCH said that 1) when
looking at the duplex for the affordable housing idea, with the planned duplex
on the detached side (financially), Burlington Land Trust did not like it; they
didn’t want affordable housing families to be building their own projects –
wanted affordable housing to build it and they only build attached; 2 fire –
all attached houses have sprinklers so that put CVCH in a position to require
families to have sprinklers which would take those houses out of affordable
range, so possible solution was to have affordable units 3) once had done all
that, have more income if have 2 lots totally separate – sell for greater
amount of money . Units 7 and 11 will
be affordable units. Both are 2-bedroom units and part of multi-family
structures.
Mr. Diou asked about access
to the greenhouse. Mike Buscher said
that a 10-foot easement (right-of-way) would be proposed.
Mr. Bloch brought up the
issue of the school. The Town attorney
drafted proposed language which Mr. Maclay has accepted. CVCH would rather use a formula which
provides the most flexibility (Item No. 7 in Dean notes on page 2). The PC and
the applicant disagree with the Town attorney’s opinion/suggestion that they
should be setting a number.
Dave Marshall went through
the following items:
Item 2 of Dean’s notes-
easements. Concerning Clark Hinsdale –
more southern portions of project area – how to deal with easements in vicinity
of pond. Bill Maclay reports in 2a
that one of the concerns at the last meeting was a proposed motorized easement
from Wildwood West across the property and it did seem to be a very good
easement. However, based on additional
investigations, the Wildwood West easement does not have motorized access on
this property. The cross-hatched
sections on the drawing are pedestrian rights, but not motorized rights. Wildwood West can use most of the site for
pedestrian use. Mr. Diou asked how
CVCH proposed to stop unauthorized motorized action. Mr. Marshall said that there will be a larger group of neighbors
and there is hope that they will want to ensure that this doesn’t happen, i.e.
other than being a good neighbor, he doesn’t have a solution to policing
this.
Leashed dogs only.
Ms. Radimer asked about
access – Mr. Marshall said that they will have access outside of the proposed
development area; adjacent to the development area, they would follow the
easement to gain access. Ms. Radimer
asked if it would be reasonable to reduce the crosshatched area to just that
proposed walking area? Jake Callery
said that the property is not posted, so people can walk on it. Sheila Braun said that throughout this
project, CVCH has been very vulnerable to appeals and Wildwood West can claim
party status. She went on to say that
Wildwood West has been combative during this process and the way to soften the
blow of creating this development, they have offered them this usage.
Mr. Bloch said that two
property owners can make an agreement between themselves without requiring Town
approval, so even if the plat didn’t show an easement to Wildwood West, he
believes that CVCH could offer an easement to whomever they wanted. Linda Hamilton said the CCC would like to
pursue encouraging people to use the public path when it is available. She said
that rather than grant an easement to use all the property forever, maybe this
could be thought of more as an interim solution until the public access is
developed.
Mike Buscher from T. J.
Boyle & Associates said that through this solution, the positive outcome is
that they would be eliminating the use of motorized vehicles.
Mr. McDonald asked for
questions or comments on the final plat review. There were none.
Mr. Troy made
a motion to close the hearing on the final plat. Mr. Pierce seconded. All
were in favor and the motion was unanimously APPROVED.
Ms. Radimer asked about
the ag easement. Mr. Marshall said that
the applicant is amenable to the proposed language in Dean Bloch’s memo on the
ag easement (Items 5a and 5b). They
have no issue with 5a- right to farm and landfill notice; they are accepting
the notice, but prefer not to give up rights.
Mr. Marshall reported that
Mr. Hinsdale and Mr. Maclay met to discuss easements in areas that make more
sense to get around. So that was
cleaned up but not finalized yet. Mr.
Maclay recommended that prior to issuance of any permits to build, agreements
of Clark Hinsdale to follow through on promise be put into place.
Mr. Bloch asked about the
easement going through the pines; could the right-of-way extend to just the
other side of the pines in case it is not possible to go through the
trees? Mrs. Callery said that the pines
were planted so a path could go through them.
Linda Hamilton showed on the map the wildlife enhancement plan. The easement will double from 50 to 100
feet.
All were in
favor of the previously-made motion and the motion was unanimously APPROVED.
The hearing has now been closed on the final plat.
SITE PLAN
Issues:
Mr. Bloch brought up soil
stockpiles – concern was aesthetics.
Mr. Marshall showed where they would be located. It was mentioned that an erosion control
plan has to be reviewed by the State.
Lighting –
Mr. Marshall said that a cut sheet has been submitted earlier for the back
porch lighting. There will only be
exterior lighting on the front porch and back porch and ballards along the
pedestrian path running through themiddle of the project. Recessed lights will be in sheds.
Mr. Marshall said that
there will be one small additional building. The PC pointed out that this is a change from
the previous plans and has not been reviewed before the public and they are
concerned about that and they also said that CVCH withdrew the additional
structure. Mr. Marshall went on to
explains that the additional building involves
water supply and future heating capacity.
It is a proposed small structure between the workshop and parking
structures. The berm screens it on the
north side from Wildwood West. CVCH is
currently looking at propane with the option of biomass. It would provide more potential to do
renewable energy by having a central distribution point (this mechanical
building). Mr. McDonald asked how large
of a storage building does it require.
Chip said it was fairly compact.
Mr. Troy asked the size; 12 x 30 one story, Mr. Marshall replied.
The PC agreed that it was
a good idea but expressed concern about the neighbors and air quality issues,
e.g. if it needed wood pellets, CVCH would have to come back and amend the
plan. CVCH had asked for propane and
the PC will approve propane, but if they want biomass, they need to
reapply. Chip said originally it was
going to be put in the common house, but because of the need for heat before
the common house will be built, they needed a different spot.
Mr. Diou asked if it could
be proposed as a temporary structure. Chip said that water storage needs to be
strong enough to hold, so temporary would be difficult. Mr. McDonald advised them to look into
phasing it into the ommon building.
It was noted that the
sunken lawn around the common is still in the plans.
Mr. Marshall went over
other housekeeping items in Dean Bloch’s memo:
Mr.
McDonald asked for questions from the public.
Neil Buxton, a neighbor who lives across from the proposed curb cutoff
access road onto Greenbush Road, expressed his concern about headlights. Chip said that currently the farm road comes
up and sharpens quickly. For safe
access, it will be flattened out more gradually. Mr. Marshall said that on Mr. Buxton’s side, landscaping would
soften the blow and CVCH is amenable to work with Mr. Buston on this
issue. Construction trucks are an
issue as well and the applicant will work with Mr. Buxton on this as well, Mr.
Marshall said. CVCH will provide
latest landscaping plan to minimize impact on Buxton house.
Ms.
Radimer made a motion to close this hearing.
Mr. Pierce seconded. All were in favor and the motion was unanimously
APPROVED.
Mr.
Troy made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Diou
seconded. All were in favor and the motion was unanimously APPROVED.
ADJOURNED at 10:12 p.m.