CHARLOTTE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes
August 15, 2002
7:00 p.m.
Town Offices
Members Present: Jeff McDonald, Chair
Jim Donovan
Gene Diou
Josie Leavitt
Members Absent: Gordon Troy
Al Moraska
Martha Perkins
Dave Brown
Officials Present: Dean
Bloch, Planner
Jeff McDonald called the meeting to order at
7:15 p.m.
Deliberation on Hinsdale informal Site Plan
Review. Mr. McDonald said that
there had been two hearings on the Hinsdale proposal for their farm
development. He also said that the
Commission does not have a formal application process, and cannot issue a
decision because they don’t have jurisdiction to do so. He asked Mr. Hinsdale if the application had
been deemed completed by the commissioner, to which Mr. Hinsdale replied,
“no.” Eleanor Russell reported that the
Select Board wanted to know if the Planning Commission had an opinion on one
site or another (referring to the original site, and the newer proposed site to
the north). Ms. Leavitt said that the
Planning Commission would need to deliberate and make a decision with everybody
present and, after discussion, it was decided that the September 5th
meeting of this commission would begin at 6:00 p.m. and this matter would be on
the agenda for 6:00 –7:15 p.m. and, if further time was needed, it would go
back into deliberations after agenda items had been cleared.
Minutes – July 18, August 1. It was decided that, because there were not
enough members present to accept the minutes of these meetings, acceptance of
the minutes would be moved to the agenda for the next meeting of the Planning
Commission.
Procedural
Discussion
Discussion began amongst the commission about
site plan procedure. There are two
issues that the Commission has to address.
1) Site plan approval. 2)
Telecommunications tower site plan approval. There is a general setback rule for site plan approval for a
structure, but it doesn’t apply to towers, where there is a larger setback as
opposed to say, a garage. It’s been a
problem because the Commission has had a conflict with its regulation, i.e.
first, you will get zoning approval, and site plan approval, but intended
differently – did jointly with first 2 applications, but Zoning Board still
deliberating on the first one and we’re getting ourselves ahead. Discussion centered on adopting a policy on
this issue. Mr. Donovan said that he
would like to have zoning approval and site plan approval jointly and a lot
will be decided depending on what the Zoning Board decides on the first
application. If it is approved, joint
hearings would be scheduled, but if we don’t wait or schedule joint hearings,
there would be no sense in it if they’re going to deny it. There was a discussion about the urgency of
the Zoning Board because a site plan has to be decided within sixty (60) days
of the opening of the hearing.
Mr. McDonald suggested that, in future site plan
applications, the Planning Commission adopt a procedure that it does not accept
further applications until the applicant(s) received conditional use from the
Zoning Board.
Mr. Donovan moved to create a policy for the
Planning Commission to not accept applications for site plan review under
Chapter IX and Section 9.6.2 of the Town of Charlotte Zoning Bylaws until a
conditional use permit and/or variance has been obtained from the Zoning Board
as provided in the Bylaws. Ms. Leavitt
seconded the motion. After discussion,
everyone voted in favor and the MOTION WAS PASSED.
Nextel WIP Lease Corps (applicant), James and
Helen Brown (property owner); Site Plan Review for the installation of 12 PCS
antennas and associated equipment on a modified farm silo located at 1783
Greenbush Road in the Rural District. Steven Elsberee, a
representative from Nextel Partners, addressed the Planning Commission. He explained that the proposed
telecommunications tower would cover service between the Shelburne site at the
water tank and a similar silo location in the town of Ferrisburgh on Dakin
Road. Mr. Donovan expressed concern
over the 1,500 feet from a residence rule, because he lives near the proposed
site. Mr. Elsberee looked at the map
and it was decided that Mr. Donovan lived outside of the 1,500 feet radius and
was therefore able to participate in discussions and deliberations on this
matter. Mr. Hinsdale asked why Mr.
Donovan would have to disqualify himself.
Mr. Donovan explained that it is one of the criteria that is used (the
1,500 feet radius set back provision in the Bylaws) and technically he would be
one of the affected parties and may therefore have a conflict of interest.
Mr. Elsberee continued his presentation showing
how he is proposing the access drive off of Greenbush Road adjacent to Mr.
Brown’s garage using a map and showing pictures of Brown’s garage. The
telecommunications shelter would be at the base of the silo and coax cables and
fixtures would be run through the barn into the interior of the silo and
antennas would be mounted on a 15-foot increase on the existing silo. Mr. Donovan asked for an explanation of the
increase in height of the existing silo.
Mr. Elsberee responded by saying that presently the cap of the silo is
45 feet and they are proposing an increase to 62 feet.
Mr. Hinsdale asked for clarification of where
this property was located, specifically in relation to the underpass. Ms. Leavitt explained that it is across from
the purple house, up a little from the underpass. Eleanor Russell asked if it was close to the park and it was
noted that it is within 1500 feet of the park.
Mr. Elsberee continued his presentation. The proposed equipment shelter is going to
be a cedar style barn type structure.
They will mount 12 panel antennas – Richmond has similar installation –
photos in packet. There will be a
connection to power at the site. They
are proposing screening the front entrance from across the street by using
spruce trees along the driveway entrance.
The site goes down the hill, so the equipment shelter will be out of
view from Greenbush Road traffic.
Mr. Diau asked how Nextel proposed the addition of the silo height, to
which Mr. Elsberee responded that they use tile block with a band around them
and there is also a reinforcement of foundation of the silo proposed in the
plan. Mr. McDonald inquired as to why
12 panels were needed. Mr. Elsberee explained
that the technology capacity for a Bell system is different than a PCS
system. Nextel works in 800 megahertz
frequency versus PCS, which are in the 1900 range. The radio equipment is similar but different, i.e. all the
systems are digital, but each sector has a transmit antenna and then 3
receiving antennas. Mr. McDonald
asked about a balloon test to examine the height. Mr. Donovan asked Mr. Bloch about interpretation. Mr. Bloch responded by saying that the
access road will be a typical driveway section. Mr. Donovan asked about material to be used for the access
road. Mr. Elsberee said that it would
be a gravel/stone driveway. Mr. Bloch
asked Mr. Elsberee to clarify the separate curb cut from the existing
driveway. Mr. Elsberee said that it was
the same curb cut but widened a little bit.
The total width of the driveway is 10 feet. Mr. Diau asked about traffic, and Mr. Elsberee responded by
saying that, post-construction, a technician will be coming there once or twice
a month. Mr. Donovan asked why a new
driveway was necessary and the existing one was not sufficient. Mr. Elsberee said that to get to the
location, they would have to build a driveway from the existing driveway due
south from the west edge of the barn or make a curb cut. There is a treed area they were trying to
preserve. Mr. Donovan would like more
information on that, saying that wrapping around the tree mass would make more
sense and would help eliminate the need for more trees because they would
create a site problem for the driveway eventually. Mr. McDonald inquired as to whether the silo is being currently
used, to which Mr. Elsberee replied, “no.”
Mr. Donovan brought up the issue of the
regulation stating that utilities need to be underground and the proposed line
from the shed to the silo is a utility and it would need to go underground and
he asked if that would be a problem. He
also brought up the issue of the fence around it. A stockade fence is proposed
with a metal gate. Mr. Bloch asked if
the proposed ventilation will create much noise, to which Mr. Elsberee replied
that there are air conditioners which do not run continuously, but they do
create some noise. It was suggested
maybe rotating the building so that the air conditioners faced east and that
would also eliminate fencing. Mr.
Elsberee said that he would have to take this suggestion to his boss. Mr. McDonald asked the public if they had
any questions. Mr. Elsberee said that
he would provide a letter which states that Nextel will be abiding by the 12
foot shelter rule. Mr. Donovan asked
how much clear space is needed inside the shelter. Mr. Elsberee said that the racks inside are 7 feet tall and the
utility cable runs along the top of that so the shelter interior is 9 feet
high.
Sylvia Knight asked if somebody had gauged the
distance from the wildlife park.
Mr. Donovan responded by saying that it is
further than 1,500 feet from the wildlife park.
Pete Rosenfeld had comments and questions. First, he said that since a 2-story building
will be added on top of the silo, a balloon test is mandatory because it is an
existing structure. It will cause lots
of attention, but it is fine. Mr.
McDonald will arrange for that on the site visit. Mr. Elsberee agreed. Mr.
Rosenfeld next expressed that the application was in violation of the setback
requirement. The setback from the
Town property line is only 155 feet and the setback to the Shirley Reed
property is only 160 feet and the setback to the Jacques Bostwer property is
only 272 feet and the ordinance refers to the property lines of the subject
property, but suspect that it was designed to protect adjacent property owners
and if you go across town right-of-way to people who live across the street,
you have a 216 foot from Hanange and 216 from Larid property, so at the very
minimum, there is noncompliance with 3 property lines, and in reality, in
violation of 5 property lines. How
can you accept something that is so badly out of joint with what ordinance
calls for, he inquired.
Mr. McDonald thanked him for his comments and
questions. He read the ordinance
requirement. In the application, they
propose a 155 feet setback. A 300 foot setback is required. Mr. Donovan said the application only gives
the front setback, but said the property to the south is roughly the same as
the front setback.
Mr. Hinsdale inquired what the 1500 feet rule
was and is it related to health?
Mr. Donovan answered by saying that he believes
it is. Eleanor Russell said that it is
vague, and Mr. Donovan said that since it is not part of the site plan, the
Planning Commission does not deal with it.
Mr. Donovan asked if the Planning Commission
decides that this can get approval, does it get approved based on getting a
variance? Mr. Bloch said “yes.” Mr. Elsberee said that he is meeting next
Wednesday with the Zoning Board to discuss variances. Mr. Bloch said that the Planning Commission could make the
approval contingent depending on the applicant getting the variance.
Mr. McDonald said that they needed to get the
variance first before even coming to the Planning Commission, i.e. normal
procedure is to have sketch plan first and then discuss and then direct them to
get variance and then come back. Mr.
Donovan asked if we could leave our hearing open until information is available
or should we continue reviewing it? Mr.
Bloch asked Mr. Elsberee if the Zoning Board had performed a balloon test, to
which he responded, “no.” Mr. McDonald
said that the Commission could rule on that and direct Mr. Elsberee to go back
and get the variance. Ms. Leavitt
suggested that they obtain the variance first.
After discussion, it was decided that this issue
will be continued until the September 19th meeting with a site visit
at 6:00 p.m. Four issues will be
discussed then: 1) fence need, 2)
putting utilities underground, 3) rotating building, and 4) driveway access.
Pete Rosenfeld commented on towers
generally. He said that it seemed to
him that the Planning Commission will be embroiled in tower issues. He suggested that perhaps the Planning
Commission address a letter to the Select Board to consider finding a site and
get together with UVM (Pease Mountain or Mount Philo) and get away from sites
such as this one in question. He would
like to see a good site selection in the area and let everyone use it.
Mr. McDonald asked Mr. Elsberee about
interference. Mr. Elsberee said that
all the companies have locations that they have co-located on. He explained that they have to be on
different vertical levels and PCS and Nextel don’t have any interference issues
of being on the same vertical plane; however, Rural Cellular One and Cingular
can’t share. Nextel and Verizon also
can’t be on the same site.
NORMAN BEAN:
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR A 2-LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON HINESBURG ROAD IN
THE RURAL DISTRICT.
Mr. Norman Bean and his granddaughter, Vicky
Martin, addressed the Commission asking for approval of a proposed subdivision
plan. He would like to take 5 acres of
his farm land. He explained that there has
been a mobile home on it since 1979 and it had been previously been lived in,
although it is presently vacant. This
property is on Hinesburg Road, one mile east of Philo four corners.
Mr. Donovan inquired if there was any way that
Mr. Bean could wait on this subdivision due to the fact that within the next
year the zoning regulations would be revised to that you can leave that as a
farm, so wouldn’t have to pull out as much.
He further stated that right now a PRD and a topo, etc. would have to be
done and it would cost a lot of money, which would be unnecessary. Mr. McDonald explained that we are at sketch
plan so we can classify if it would be a major or minor subdivision. Therefore, the only action to take
currently is to classify it and schedule a site visit.
Ms. Martin stated that Mr. Bean’s intention is
that he is selling his farm and he wanted to separate the land before the sale
occurred and wanted to keep a piece of land for him to live on. Sylvia Sprig asked if there was septic
capacity on site, to which Ms. Martin said that yes, there is an existing
house. Mr. Hinsdale expressed his
opinion that it looked like a very logical thing to do and he supports it. Mr. McDonald said that there is no previous
subdivision, except for giving Ms. Martin an acre and it was a pre-existing lot
and they adjusted the boundary.
Mr. Donovan moved to classify this project as a
minor subdivision. Mr. McDonald said
that it calls for one hearing. Mr.
Donovan said that he thinks that the Planning Commission should have a site
visit to make sure that everyone physically views the land.
Mr. Bloch asked about the septic (Section 13)
and whether or not there are any drawings for existing septic. Mr. Bean replied that he doesn’t have any
septic drawings. Mr. Donovan directed
him to locate the septic tank and figure out where the field is, so that the
Planning Commission ensures that it is 100 feet from the septic area to the
property line. Mr. McDonald instructed
Mr. Bean and Ms. Martin to investigate the septic requirements from the
State. There was a discussion on the
history of the septic on the property, following which it was directed that Mr.
Bloch would arrange with Spencer Harris, the town consultant, to meet with Mr.
Bean and Ms. Martin to review this situation and sign off on the septic.
Mr. Bloch brought up the issue of possibly doing
a PRD. Following discussion of the
regulations and requirements, Mr. Donovan asked the applicants if they would be
interested in pursuing this and explained that if they did, they would not be
limited with amount of acreage. He said
that the only thing that they would be obligated to is that if they further
subdivided the land in the future, they would need to preserve the land as open
space (i.e. if you have 3 acres per lot and 2 of open space, you would need to
preserve the 2 of open space). Mr.
Bloch asked if the applicants would prefer open space designated on that lot or
reducing the total density and Mr. Donovan said that reducing the total density
if it was ever subdivided in the future, so that the floating 2 acres is not
tied down to any specific spot until such time as there is a further
subdivision.
Ms. Leavitt seconded Mr. Donovan’s motion to
classify this project as a minor subdivision.
All were in favor and the MOTION WAS PASSED.
QUARTER MILE ROAD ASSOCIATION: DISCUSSION OF
ESCROW ACCOUNT FOR REPAIR OF COMMUNITY WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SYSTEM.
Mr. McDonald asked Mr. Bill Root to explain the
background of this project. Mr. Root
said that in 1994, when QMRA and Edie Crawford created a subdivision, an escrow
account was created for maintenance. It
was a logistical administrative burden for the town to hand out their interest
money every year. There is wording in
the subdivision documents and there were agreements made for the subdivision
that the town has a right to step in and put liens on property to covering
costs of repairs if homeowners don’t and $3,000 is not much money to have these
repairs done, so they feel the escrow account serves no purpose now and would
like their money back.
The original request went to the Select Board
and they directed it to the Planning Commission for recommendation back to the
Select Board. Mr. McDonald noted that
the agreement runs with the land and was reflected in the purchase price and
the liability and assets go with the property.
Mr. McDonald asked for a motion that the Planning Commission
recommends to the Select Board that the escrow account be dissolved. Mr. Donovan made the motion and Ms. Leavitt
seconded. Eleanor Russell asked
if this is the only agreement of this type that the town has? Mr. McDonald said that it is the only one
that has an escrow account. All
were in favor and the MOTION WAS PASSED. Mr. Bloch will write the recommendation letter to the Select
Board.
GREENWOOD AMERICA: DISCUSSION OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS ON FERRY ROAD IN THE INDUSTRIAL
AND RURAL DISTRICTS.
Mel Hawley and David Raphael addressed the
commission and the meeting. Mr.
Raphael began the presentation to the Planning Commission utilizing maps of
various proposed designs of this project.
He addressed Mr. Bloch’s concerns stating that Greenwood America does
want this project to be walkable and a connecting part of the village. He showed a map that depicted the site to
be within 1/3 of a mile to a train station, ½ mile to the village center and
less than a mile away to an unofficial park and ride. In terms of residential, he stated that it is 1) well protected
in all directions in terms of impact by increasing density, impact to neighbors
is minimal and 2) taking advantage of a site that development projects would
shy away from because of railroad tracks, but with train station in walking
distance, and 3) they would put in walkways and bring them to Ferry Road.
He said that they have a genuine effort to
recognize the town’s efforts for mixed use.
There are 48 acres to work with and 14 are available because of
wetlands. He refuted that it is not
sprawl; buildings are 10 –15 feet apart.
They stay away from vegetation and woodlands and use them for
buffering.
Mr. McDonald stated the concern and opinion that
there was a lot of pavement in the proposed plans and that it depicted a
conventional suburbia setting and that the housing was too close to the railroad. Mr. Raphael said that the flip side is to
have to push houses closer and impact the wetlands. Each scheme shows a 50’ buffer to the wetlands. Mr. McDonald noted the issue of fire and
safety concerns in relation to small lanes and alleys, as well as plowing in
the winter. Mr. Donovan said to perhaps
go for more density, more units around the green, put the roadway closer to the
railroad and make the assumption that they would be able to get more density in
the future as well, and leave space for future development.
Sylvia Sprig asked about the issue of train
whistles and ensuring that heavy, good panes of glass were used as well as
thick walls to cut down on the influx of sound at night. She also expressed concern of the trails
and their proximity to the railroad.
Mr. Holly reported that, within the next few weeks, they would be
requesting that the Select Board determine the location of trails.
Mr. Donovan stated that he likes Option A, but
suggested that they move the residences north, combine driveways, put more
units around the green and move the green further south to increase
density. He also suggested eliminating
the last cul-de-sac, which would provide space for further density in the
future.
Mr. Hinsdale said that he did not know Greenwood
America. Mr. Hawley explained that it
is a limited liability partnership of Bill Lockwood and Rita Alford and owns
the Creamery property, and owns the distribution center, and farmhouse and barn
property to the west of Charles Kellner’s property, as well as owning an
approved 3-lot PRD on Lake Road. The
farmhouse and barn property holds all of the land – 58.08 acres - and the plan
would be to keep 13 acres with the farmhouse and barn and the balance of the
property would be developed. Mr. Hawley
works for Country Home Products, which is also owned by Greenwood America. Mr. Raphael is a consultant from
Landworks. Mr. Hinsdale asked who
managed the rentals. Mr. Holly answered
that he does on behalf of the owners.
Mr. Hinsdale asked if it was a long-term arrangement for the rentals, to
which Mr. Holly answered that the rentals that they have could be as much as a
single office in the distribution center and that they are varied.
Debbie Ramsdale asked how many units there
were. Mr. Raphael said 15. She asked
how many could they have. Mr. Raphael
said that, if they went to solely elderly housing, there is a provision in the
zoning regulations that allow 10 units per each 5 acres of property. She asked if they had thought about
affordable housing. Mr. Raphael said
yes and that increasing density would allow affordable housing to be
supportable, but right now, building it is a real challenge without subsidies.
Ms. Ramsdale suggested that they may check with
Habitat for Humanity, to which Mr. Raphael responded by saying that they have
considered these ideas and would make them work with another partner or subsidy
or support but otherwise it would be too difficult to do affordable
housing.
Mr. Hinsdale asked if they intended to build
this out themselves and Mr. Hawley said that it was still to be
determined.
Mr. Hinsdale asked about selling lots and Mr.
Hawley said that they are not set up for separate lots right now and that the
drawings are pre-set.
Mr. Hinsdale asked if there was a possibility of
putting a hook in the agreement providing that they would like in the future to
shift common land and go dense somewhere else. Mr. Bloch answered by saying that if it was common land owned by
unit owners, but if retained by landowner, with an agreement similar to open
space, an agreement with a provision that if zoning changes, they could come
back to the Planning Commission, but would need to work out with attorneys.
Mr. Bloch asked about the height and assumed
that the buildings would be one-story.
Mr. Hawley said yes.
Sylvia Sprig asked what the source of water
would be. Mr. Hawley said that they have had some geological studying done and
they would have to drill a well, for which they have a location and they would
have to ensure that it would serve the proposed number of units.
Ms. Sprig asked if it the pond was natural, to
which Mr. Hawley answered that no, the pond was constructed for fire protection
purposes for the distribution center.
Ms. Sprig asked if they could avoid running the
roads through the woods and try to skirt them gently so they are not
fractured? She suggested that, if you
have an area that is wooded, to keep it intact, rather than cutting it up.
Mr. Raphael said that was an important notion to
consider. Not all woods are created
equal and the woods on the east lot are mostly pioneer and young poplars, which
are transitioned into something else, and there is already a road through it so
it is already divided. But really high
quality woods are certainly going to be left intact.
Ms. Sprig asked what is the distance of wetland?
Mr. Raphael said that it has all been delineated
(100 foot buffer).
Ms. Sprig said that it sounded good and thanked
them.
VILLAGE PLAN -
UPDATE
Mr. Donovan reported that the conclusions are
the same as the report from a year and a half ago, but the organization of the
report is different. He tried to make
it capture more of the process and the results that came out of the process and
changed it around to talk about provisions and goals of the village. He moved a lot of things in the appendix,
described southeast quadrant, northeast quadrant, did not describe northwest
and southwest and noted that he needs to add those in. He talked about neighborhoods and led into
different ideas for implementation, which he put all in one area. Part 8 near
the end has been edited. He said that
he received a few comments from Gordon and Al and they liked it much
better. Ms. Russell asked if there was
a timeframe for completion, to which Mr. Donovan said that he would be on
vacation in the next two weeks. After
discussion, however, it was decided that Mr. Donovan will arrange for the
consultant from Terrence Boyle & Associates (Mike) to send the disc of
drawings to Mr. Bloch for Mr. Bloch to work on in Mr. Donovan’s absence.
Mr. McDonald set a goal of September 19th
to have a draft ready for the public.
Ms. Russell said that Mr. Hinsdale asked the
Select Board to throw up/discontinue the Town’s right-of-way which runs on his
property. The Select Board wanted
guidance on the overall picture of trails, etc. In general, the Town is not advised to give up rights-of-way or
trails or roads, but would consider an alternative route, but asks for input
from the Planning Commission.
Mr. Hinsdale said that the last three have been
thrown up.
Ms. Russell said that some Select Board members
thought that that was a serious mistake.
Mr. Bloch said that maybe there was an
alternative to that location. Mr. Donovan said that, even if there was an
alternate location, retaining an easement, trail or full road would be his
recommendation, but wanted more discussion as a group.
Ms. Russell said that she wanted to ensure that
it would be put on the Planning Commission’s agenda for its next meeting, to
which she was told it would be.
Motion was made to adjourn. It was seconded. All were in favor and THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 9:50 p.m.