Charlotte Planning
Commission
Minutes of Meeting of
September 4, 2003
Charlotte Town Hall – 159 Ferry Road
Town Office – (802) 425-3533
Members Present: Jeff
McDonald, Chair
Jim
Donovan
Gene Diou
Al Moraska
Gordon
Troy
Linda
Radimer
Robin
Pierce
Members Absent: None
Officials Present: Dean
Bloch
Public Present: Bill Patrow
Theresa Patrow
Diana McCargo
Liam Murphy
Linda Hamilton
Peter Swift
David Miskell
Marty Illick
Frances Foster
Stuart J. Morrow
Jim Dickerson
Debbie Ramsdell
S. Pugliese
Stephen C. Brooks
Carrie Spear
Susan Miskell
Robin Reid
Jonathan Fisher
Bill Lockwood
Mel Hawley
Steve Mack
Joe Perrotto
Karen Frost
David Raphael
Chair
Jeff McDonald called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA AND REGULAR AGENDA
Chair
McDonald noted that the consent agenda was fine and asked if there was anything
from the public for the regular agenda.
There was none.
WRITTEN
DECISIONS: CHAMPLAIN VALLEY
CO-HOUSING-FINAL PLAT and CHAMPLAIN VALLEY CO-HOUSING-SITE PLAN REVIEW
The
PC deliberated over these matters.
MINUTES: JULY 2, JULY 17, JULY 24, AUGUST 7, AUGUST 21
Review
of these minutes will be discussed at a later date.
DIANE MCCARGO AND PET DIA: BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT TO ALLOW THE CONVEYANCE
OF 1.5 ACRES. PROPERTY LOCATED ON MOUNT
PHILO ROAD IN THE RURAL DISTRICT
Liam
Murphy addressed the PC on behalf of the applicants. He said that they are taking a portion of the parcel on one lot
and adding it to the other lot. -- 1.92 acre lot and 1.4 acre lot and putting
them together (3.4 acres) – which will make the property more compliant. While looking at the map, Linda Radimer
noted that the name “Paul” should be “Pane.”
Because of frontage issues, Mr. Troy suggested putting a condition in
that would say that the frontage will continue on Uncle Tom’s Road. Mr. Murphy said that the driveway will
always have access where it is now.
There
was a discussion of the right-of-way.
Mr. Bloch clarified that the right-of-way is 50-feet wide and Diane
McCargo claims she owns some land under the right-of-way. So 50 plus 252 would be approximately 300
feet. Mr. McDonald said he was assured
that they do have access and frontage on Uncle Tom’s Road and then asked the
rest of the PC if anyone had a problem with where the line exists between the
two properties. Mr. Troy said that he just wanted to make sure they weren’t
taking one no-compliant lot and making two and asked for clarification of why
the one line is more preferable (natural features). Diane McCargo noted that she is planning to move one of the
houses into a meadow.
Dean
Bloch said that he has two map items.
One is that Uncle Tom’s Road should indicate the town highway number and
the other is the acreage for the lot.
Ms. McCargo confirmed that she owns 33 acres for the total
properties. Mr. Bloch said that, for
purposes of being compatible with the Grand List and already-recorded maps, the
acreage that is referred to is 30 something acres. Ms. McCargo clarified and said 32.6 acres. Mr. Bloch wanted to make sure the map
indicated who owned the property under the road/trail. Mr. Murphy will talk to Mr. Morrow about
it. Mr. Moraska asked if he was correct
in assuming that a town trail doesn’t act as a division of property. Mr. Murphy said they were reserving judgment
on that issue without making a decision.
Mr. McDonald asked if everyone on the PC was satisfied with this
boundary adjustment and they were. He
next asked if there were any substantive concerns besides “tweaking” the
map Mr. Troy asked if it would be
beneficial to include this on two maps, instead of one because they are
including the entire parcel. Mr. Murphy
suggested just referencing the deed.
After Mr. Troy had clarified with Mr. Murphy that this application is
solely to update the acreage for the property and there was no need to show the
ends of the property, he was fine with just one.
Mr.
McDonald noted that the issue of a curb cut is irrelevant to a boundary
adjustment. Mr. Troy then said that since there will be a written decision, the
PC could state in such decision that there is no application to change the
existing curb cuts. The PC was in
agreement about the boundary adjustment and Mr. Murphy stated that he and the
applicants have no problem with the issues raised by Mr. Bloch and the PC.
THOMAS ESNES AND VALERIE GILLIAM: SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR A TWO-LOT
SUBDIVISION. PROPERTY LOCATED ON SPEAR
STREET AND SPEAR GERVIA ROAD IN THE RURAL DISTRICT.
Liam
Murphy explained that the owners, the Esnes, bought the entire parcel of land
(formerly the Gecewicz property) and entered into an agreement to sell that
land which is west of Hollow Brook to Peter and Diana Dia. The Esnes are from out-of-state. Bob Perry represents them. Mr. Perry said that the Esnes have no
current intention to develop Lot 1 (on Spear St.). He further said that there is a deferred septic agreement on Lot
2.
Mr.
Troy suggested that the Esnes can make it a condition of their approval (defer
everything (open space requirements) until they get a building permit) but that
the major concern is that there are significant resources on that property and
lots of wildlife. The goal he said is
for a subdivision that doesn’t create building lots. Mr. McDonald said that in the letter to come from the PC to the
Esnes, that will be spelled out and also the fact that the PC would concur with
deferring delineating the building envelope.
He also said that tonight’s meeting is just to classify for both Lots 1
and 2. Lot 2 is not approved for development,
Mr. Murphy said and he said that the Esnes don’t have a problem with that. Mr. Donovan said that because the two
properties are going their own separate ways and the PC is deferring open space
requirements as well, he asked Mr. Murphy how would the Esnes feel having a
floating easement for each property of a minimum of 10 acres, 5 acres on each
property (not designated where at this point). Mr. Murphy responded by saying
that if the PC imposed this on the Esnes, it would make it more difficult. Mr. Troy explained that the parties are
dealing with 170- acres, splitting it 100/70 and the PC doesn’t want to see
that applies to both parcels even though subdividing because they are
deferring. He went on to say that the
only other issue is that one lot doesn’t have access. Mr. Murphy said that Uncle Tom’s Road extends to the property and
if someone wants to use it, they would have to go to town to get an
upgrade. Also, the last time the Town
addressed it in the 1980s, the owners obtained it and were within a 60 foot
easement along that road to the main highway, so there is a 60-foot
easement. Mr. Troy asked if this
property sits in the middle of the trail network that is being worked on and
also if Spear Gervia is the same as Uncle Tom’s Road. Discussion centered around the easement and access. Mr. Murphy said that the Esnes would like a
natural division of the existing stream and brook.
Linda
Hamilton commented by saying that when you have a survey map, it looks logical
to divide in the middle of the stream line, but streams don’t stay still. And also if owned by two property owners,
they are going to need to work harder to make sure that the management plan for
that core is comprehensive and on both sides, not just one side. Linda Radimer said that she remembered David
Brown saying that the the upper right hand section is important as well and
that needs to be looked at in terms of the management plan. Diane Dia said that they have an interest
in conserving it, not developing it.
Mr. Murphy said that all the Esnes are asking for is approval for
division along the brook and asking the PC to defer issues. Linda Radimer asked if the other party is
locked in with the brook splitting.
Mr. Murphy said the contract is to divide the land along the brook using
metes and bounds and stakes. Mr. Troy
said that the brook is fairly defined through there now. Mr. McDonald asked for any other questions. There were none.
Mr.
Troy moved to classify this as a minor subdivision. Ms. Radimer seconded. Mr. McDonald said if the open space issue is deferred
until someone comes forth and does a building envelope, the PC can craft
approval accordingly. Mr. Moraska said it would need to be addressed
as a condition. Steve Brooks asked if
there was any particular access proposed.
Mr. McDonald said it was only a subdivision and no planned development
and no indicated proposed access at this point. Marty Illick asked if it would be appropriate to expect that the
land would be conserved. Mr. Troy said there are ways to craft their decision
to accommodate buyers’ concerns. Mr.
Murphy said that the minutes have reflected intentions of the parties in the
past without being part of the condition of approval. After discussion and vote, all were in favor and the motion was
unanimously APPROVED. Mr.
Murphy asked for the schedule of hearings and time frame. Mr. McDonald advised him to check with Dean
Bloch. Mr. Bloch said November 6 was
the next available date. Mr. Troy told
Mr. Murphy that Mr. Bloch would give him a letter explaining it all.
WILLIAM AND THERESA PETROW: SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR SUBDIVISION
AMENDMENT TO MOVE HIGHWAY ACCESS.
PROPERTY LOCATED ON ORCHARD ROAD IN THE RURAL DISTRICT.
William
and Theresa Petrow addressed the PC.
They want to change their curb cut from sharing with adjoining property;
they showed it on an aerial photograph.
They would like to remove the old driveway and put in a new driveway to
make it easier to use. They explained
that the road slopes down their driveway currently. Mr. Petrow said the driveway is parallel to Orchard Road and
visible more than it needs to be; it is difficult to access. Delivery trucks have to back down entire
length of it. Water drains down the
driveway and freezes in the middle of winter.
Trucks get stuck. Mr. Moraska
asked what distance are they planning to move it down? Ms. Petrow said they would like to move it
200 feet. The driveway is “s” shaped so
there are two turns. Mr. Troy said
access would be continued to be used by the neighbor who is sharing with them
now, so they would be creating a new curb cut. He mentioned that the PC generally has an aversion to curb
cuts. He said that this would have to
be classified as a minor subdivision amendment and that the process is that 1)
they need to get Selectboard approval for a new curb cut and 2) to have to get
PC approval to change the subdivision. Ms. Petrow said that they have read the
minutes when the subdivision originally was approved and they show that it was
to be a shared driveway because of congestion back then; it was a dirt
road. Mr. Troy said it is a two-step
process and that the Selectboard has jurisdiction over all curb cuts and PC has
jurisdiction over amendments to subdivisions.
He went on to direct the Petrows that their first step should be to have
Junior (road commissioner) come out and take a look at the property. Mr. Bloch reiterated that the PC official
action is to classify it but they can also give feedback. Mr. McDonald said he agreed with Mr.
Bloch’s notes to get Junior’s opinion and recommendation.
Mr.
Troy moved to classify this as a subdivision amendment. He
told the Petrows that Mr. Bloch will give them a letter but wants to make clear
that before they do anything else, to check with Junior and Junior will put
down issues and recommendations in writing. Mr. Bloch asked how the slope will
be affected by the new curb cut. Mr.
Petrow said that when it goes from east to west, you are going right up the
slope. So when changed it would go
north to the new one, it would be less steep.
Mr. Moraska said it would require a site visit on their own. Mr. Donovan seconded the motion. Mr. Brooks commented on: “1) the
characterization of how you handle these things by using the word “aversion” -
some folks might say that based on behavior over time it is really a policy,
and 2) as a listener to this discussion, if I were the Petrows, I would leave
here tonight feeling that I think the PC said if Junior said o.k., then they
will approve it and not sure if that’s what the PC means and if that’s the
impression they want to make.” Mr. Troy
thanked him and said it was a good point and the point that the PC was trying
to make that is if Junior says it is a no go, then the applicant doesn’t start
anything and if Junior says it is possible, then the PC is looking at the
issue. Mr. Bloch will write a letter
stating the next steps and process.
Mr. Donovan asked if the Selectboard requires a survey or is that for
just subdivisions? Mr. Bloch said that
they don’t require an actual survey, but they require it for an access permit;
it could be done by a non-professional.
It will be detailed in the letter, he said. Mr. Bloch asked if the PC would likely be requiring a survey when
the applicants come back. Mr. Troy
asked if he could defer on this until after he drives by and does his site
visit.
All
were in favor of the motion and the motion was unanimously APPROVED.
Mr. Diou left the meeting at 7:40 p.m.
PETER COLEMAN AND LANTERN VISIONS: SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION TO ALLOW THE
CONVEYANCE OF 4.52 ACRES. PROPERTY
LOCATED ON GREENBUSH ROAD IN THE VILLAGE DISTRICT.
Mr.
Coleman addressed the PC and explained that he would like to transfer 4.52
acres from the so-called farmhouse property and move it to the Old Lantern and
they are interested in selling the farmhouse property. He explained that the reason is to minimize
the amount of acreage that goes with the farmhouse and more accurately put with
the Old Lantern the land that should be there, such as the backyard, including
the swimming pool and a poolhouse.
There are no further lots created.
The land that is moved to the Old Lantern cannot be conveyed as a
separate piece of property. He just
simply wants to shift 4.52 acres from the farmhouse over to the Old Lantern
property. Mr. McDonald said that the
only major issue is that setback requirements need to be adhered to for all
existing structures and Mr. Coleman said that has been accommodated for.
Mr.
Bloch said that the State may require deferral permits in terms of transferring
lots even though this conveyance would not create new lots and that is not in
his notes Mr. McDonald asked for
questions or comments. Mr. Troy asked
as lot lines are moved, can they have merger of a lot so it would not be
creating any additional lots? By moving
lot lines, they are merging with Lantern Vision property so it becomes one
parcel, so they will be able to sell off one property ast a 5-acre parcel, he
asked. Mr. Bloch confirmed this and
said it is Condition No. 5.
It
was noted that there was a letter from the adjoining property owners, Mike and
Karen Frost, who were unable to attend tonight’s meeting. Mr. Bloch passed out
copies of the letter. In summary, he said it talks about a wastewater easement
– secondly, boundary adjustments and how they will change the vision for the
property. Mr. McDonald clarified by
saying that the first question is the status of the proposed wastewater
easement. Mr. Coleman said he had not
had discussion with the Frosts. Jim
Dickerson said there will be no change of any kind to the vision of the
property. Mr. Coleman said that there is a replacement area still existing on
the property even after the proposed subdivision. Mr. Coleman showed on the map where the replacement field is
(within the 5-acre envelope). He showed
where the wastewater easement was on the Frost property as well as the
Greenwood America wastewater easement.
Mr.
McDonald said the second issue in the Frosts’ letter was the building
envelope. Mr. Dickerson said the vision
for the property was clearly delineated when the entire Burns property
discussions occurred. He said that at
some point in the future a B&B perhaps could be built on that property most
likely behind the Old Lantern and that language was specifically included in
that comprehensive plan after many meetings of all the people that were
involved, so in terms of “change the vision on the property” it doesn’t count,
he said. He also said that he personally encouraged the Frosts to buy that
property from the Land Trust in a 2-hour phone conversation and he very
specifically told Karen Frost that that location of a B&B and/or lodge
would be exactly where he just said (near the pool), so he has a problem with
the letter. Mr. Troy said the west
side of the property has always been pretty clear and that the ultimate goal of
the Lantern is being better served by this property movement than how it was
originally delineated when the subdivision occurred years ago. Mr. Dickerson agreed and said that they
would have preferred to do this at the time, but time was an issue and it was
deferred and they are trying to do it now with as little disruption as
possible. Robin Reid asked if the Old Lantern would have 9.52 acres then but
how would they be able to build a lodge?
Would it be part of the Old Lantern?
Mr. Dickerson said yes and that’s why the terminology is required that
it be operated “appurtenant to” the Old Lantern. Mr. Reid asked if you could
have camping and the lodge? Mr.
Dickerson and Mr. Coleman said no, just a B&B/lodge/residence that had to
remain connected with the Old Lantern.
Mr.
Troy moved to close this matter. Ms.
Radimer seconded. All were in favor and
the motion was unanimously APPROVED.
DAVID MISKELL: SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION. PROPERTY LOCATED ON GREENBUSH ROAD IN THE
RURAL DISTRICT.
David
and Susan Miskell addressed the PC.
Mr. Miskell explained that this property was a 3-lot subdivision in 1987
and they bought Lots 1 and 2 and Lot 3 is 101 acres that Vermont Land Trust still
owns. He further said that Skip Sheldon
now farms the Vermont Land Trust land and also farms most of David’s (half) of
the lot for organic grain production.
Both Lots 1 and 2 sold at regular market prices and they have clear
title on them and there are no development restrictions except on the Lot 2
building envelope. Everything except
the Lot 2 building envelope, is not for building homes and is not
subdividable. He said in his deed with
Vermont Land Trust, he and his wife had the right to subdivide their lot if
they had adequate septic. The goal was that the subdivision would help with
agriculture. Vermont Land Trust (VLT)
got first right of refusal on the entire parcel if it was sold as one parcel. He said they were able to find septic on Lot
2 along the building envelope that is shown on the map (he was showing it) and
they were able to find 2 mounds on Lot 1B and a replacement mound with an
easement for Lot B onto Lot 2.
He
said there are a couple of corrections on Dean Bloch’s notes (on page 5, lot
numbers – 1B 7.17 and 1A 5.5 acres – also they are planning to have the
greenhouses remain. Mr. Miskell’s goal
is to use the land on Lot 1B for ag.
Lot 1A is where the greenhouse is. The only wetland is the pond on this
property. He has had delineation
done. The pond is a functioning fire
pond. There is a dry hydrant
there.
The
other issue, he said, is that the Charlotte Land Trust and Vermont Land Trust
main concern is about ag and the location of the building envelopes, but they
were concerned about selling lots as well. The building envelopes on Lots 1 and
2 were both sited because they were a good location for selling and closer to
the septic field. He said that the
building envelope for Lot 1 is on some of the worst ag land (full of rocks) and
the existing ag land that Skip Sheldon is using on Lot 1B is the best ag
soil. He said that Mr. Bloch has
recommended moving the building envelope on Lot 1B to the east and Lot 2 to the
west and Mr. Miskell’s inference from both those moves is that it affects the
use of the ag soil. He said that on
the wildlife corridor issue, there is a lot of the 10 acres that anything would
be able to come through on the west of that preexisting building envelope. The farm road has been built coming up to the
existing building envelope and the septic field on the other side of road. Access to Lot 2 comes from Orchard Road
(pre-existing right-of-way). Ms. Radimer said that the time that the wildlife
corridor went in was when the Charlotte Conservation Committee was beginning to
designate sensitive wildlife areas and all of those areas were then looked at
for values and it had not been looked at by the Town for resources. Mr. Miskell said the building envelope
being proposed on Lot 1B is smaller than it was before. It is a 7-acre parcel and less than 1 acre
is being proposed for the building envelope.
Mr. Troy asked if would be O.K. to reduce the size of the building
envelope and Mr. Miskell said yes, as long as it is the same place. Mr. Donovan said the PC has no guarantee
that for whatever reason the property gets sold tomorrow, someone could put a
house in the field, so the PC said to pull all building envelopes back to
guarantee that building would not occur in ag land. Mr. McDonald said a site
visit will be scheduled.
Mr.
Troy moved to classify this application as a minor subdivision. Mr. Donovan seconded. All were in favor and the motion was
unanimously APPROVED. Mr. Donovan
asked the Miskells about their schedule and Mr. Miskell said they are open all
the time. He also said that they are
applying for State septic approval on Wednesday. Mr. Troy suggested individual site visits. Mr. Miskell reiterated that he is there most
of the time – very flexible. It was
decided that he will email commission members and set up times for them to
individually come for a site visit.
ARNOLD KOSS AND ANNE RILLERO: SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR A SUBDIVISION
AMENDMENT TO MOVE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL AREA.
PROPERTY LOCATED ON ORCHARD ROAD IN THE RURAL DISTRICT.
Stuart
Morrow addressed the PC on behalf of the applicants. He gave a brief history of the soils and sewer easements on Lots
1 and 2. He would like to move the
easement areas to align the building envelopes and in turn he said it may be
better for the wildlife as well.
Mr.
Troy made a motion to classify this application as a subdivision
amendment. Mr. Donovan seconded. All were in favor and the motion was
unanimously APPROVED.
********************10-minute
break******************************************
GREENWOOD AMERICA: SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT TO AMEND CONDITION
REGARDING LIMITATION ON THE AMOUNT OF LIVING SPACE IN DWELLINGS. PROPERTY LOCATED ON ROBIN LANE IN THE RURAL
DISTRICT.
Joe
Perotto, Mel Hawley and Bill Lockwood addressed the PC on behalf of Greenwood
America.
Square footage in living space. Relative to
definitions, Mr. Hawley said he agrees that it is problematic. Greenwood America (GA) is proposing to
remove the aggregate and have each lot within that PRD have an equal amount of
living space as defined in the subdivision approval and put in the covenants at
2,850 square feet. This would prevent
pitting one owner against another; it keeps equity within that development.
There was a brief discussion on the history of obtaining the aggregate. The final plat approval was for 3 lots and
the PC came up with an aggregate of 8,000 square feet of living space. Mr. Troy asked with the proposed 2,850
number, isn’t one house out of alignment?
Mr. Hawley said that there is a definition of “living space” within the
protective covenants, but not a procedure as to who and how that is
calculated. He said the numbers are not
consistent with the Lister’s office.
Mr. Bloch said that if it is unheated space, the Listers don’t include
it as “living space.” The original
definition included covered porches, he said. He went on to state that the
Listers also do not include space over garages if it is detached and the
original subdivision didn’t make that definition. The Planning Commission definition would consider it living
space, but the Listers wouldn’t if it was detached.
Mr. Hawley said that GA is trying to sell Lot 3 and
that is why they are making their request to change the aggregate. It creates confusion for prospective owners.
They are, therefore, recommending that each lot stand on its own and the
aggregate number should be eliminated.
After discussion, everyone was in agreement to eliminate the
aggregate. Mr. Troy said that with the
8,000 aggregate, they all knew and understood that houses were not going to be
of equal size. This was the result of
the zoning administrator approving another 450 square feet without
checking. Mr. Lockwood said that they
are here just trying to remedy the situation.
Mr. Troy noted that, regardless of everything discussed, the PC has
reaffirmed a non-complying problem. Mr.
Perotto said they haven’t been able to convey title. Mr. Hawley said that today there are 3 or 4 different square
footage numbers on Lots 1 and 2 (zoning, listers, appraisers, etc.) and they
are not able to sell Lot 3. He
suggested that maybe in the future a procedure will be in place as to how and
who does this and what needs to be done.
Mr. Troy said he is proposing another 450 square feet
of living space over the 2,850 aggregate.
If looking at all 3 lots, it would be 8,550. Jonathan Fisher asked if Lot 1 was more than 2,850. Mr. Donovan said that, according to Town
records, it is. The Town made the mistake of granting a second building permit
of 450 additional square feet.
Mr. Donovan had an alternate suggestion.
He said that the aggregate was not a good idea. He suggested Lot 1 at 2,850; Lot 2 at 2,850
and Lot 3 at 2,300 and then add on to that the 450 (the mistake) which gives
2,750. So Lot 3 is 2,750 and deal with
nonconformity of Lot 1 some other time.
There would be no problem until the property is sold. Mr. Perrroto, Mr. Hawley and Mr. Lockwood
all were in agreement with that idea.
Mr. Lockwood said it is important to say that the change is not going to
affect the character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Donovan agrees on that, but this way GA can pick the number and
rationale for why it is done, i.e. 2,850, 2,850, and 2,750, respectively.
Ms. Radimer moved to close this hearing. Mr. Donovan seconded. All were in favor and
the motion was unanimously APPROVED.
Mr. McDonald informed GA that the PC will issue a
written decision and deliberate within the next two weeks. They will issue a
decision before the next meeting.
GREENWOOD AMERICA: SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR A PUD/PRD CREATING
TWELVE TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS, WITH SOME UNITS TO BE USED FOR ELDERLY HOUSING.
PROPERTY LOCATED ON FERRY ROAD IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
Joe
Perotto, Mel Hawley and Bill Lockwood addressed the PC on behalf of Greenwood
America. Also present was David
Raphael. Mr. Raphael showed photographs
of the site as well as a map of the property for the PRD. The houses are clustered within a developed
area which creates tighter relationships, like sharing driveways and garages,
he said. He went on to explain that
they are using 10% of developable land.
He showed another drawing/concept.
He
said that they are only using 10% of the developable land. Both concepts he showed have a roundabout
and both concepts have a road following the tree line as well as a large
green. The pond has been altered
slightly for aesthetics, in response to Mr. Troy’s question if the pond had
changed.
In
Concept 1, there are shared driveways and a sidealk and trail easement. In Concept 2, they have taken the two additional
units and brought them up representing a tighter cluster of units. The common and roadway are set back a little
from the tree line in this option and in both concepts, some saplings and small
pioneer trees will be lost. Each unit
is 1200 square feet. The sidewalk wraps
around the common. Mr. Moraska asked
where the boundary was for the industrial district. Mr. Bloch said to the second hedgerow. Mr. Troy said that he is not an
abutter but the property is one property away and as part of the very original
subdivision that this property is part of that is subject to an act 250 permit.
Mr. Hawley said that that was no reason to recuse himself. Linda Hamilton asked where the 100 foot wide
right-of-way would be for the potential VELO line. Mr. Raphael showed on the map where the center line of the poles
was located. They need to double their
right of way (VELCO) to do what they want to do. They have an old easement.
He said this area has been identified as an aesthetically sensitive area
and there is potential for discussion how to mitigate the impact of their
upgrading of their power line through this area. Also, in regard to school, there is talk of undergrounding in
some sections. Mr. McDonald asked for
more questions. Mr. Bloch said that there
is a public hearing on September 30 at the school. Ms. Radimer said that there is also a meeting on September 10
which will be looking at the Demeter property area and going north, with a
pre-meeting at the town hall. Mr.
Donovan said in case of potential interest for building in the future, GA might
want to look at sliding lots to have 3 on each end and 2 on the side to extend
the road further into the other parcel for the future. Ms. Radimer asked about the open parcel in
Concept 2. Mr. Hawley said it is under
current zoning. Mr. Donovan said that
he was in favor of Concept 2. Concept 1 has elderly housing (12 units) and
Concept 2 doesn’t have it (10 units).
Linda Hamilton asked if they were not able to include elderly housing in
the 10-unit proposal. Mr. Perroto said
if they chose to do elderly, they gained a density bonus. They may be able to do it with the 10-unit
concept. Mr. Troy asked if, since the
density is linked back to the original parcel and part of the farmhouse,
nothing could be done with that? Mr.
Hawley said at some point, the farmhouse environment wouldn’t be part of the
PUD, so there would be a subdivision from this concept and the farmhouse
property. Ms. Radimer asked how large
the green was. Mr. Hawley said around
18 acres, but the common itself is 175 feet wide and about the length of a
football feet. Mr. Donovan recommended
pushing the roundabout further south which would allow to pull the road up. Ms. Hamilton asked if the townhouse type
units with 2 families would have a shared garage. Mr. Hawley said yes. She
then recommended to ensure that they get southerly orientation to take
advantage of solar. Mr. Raphael said
that he found that if looking for very specific insulation capacity, they have
to have south facing solar panels, but for just ordinary living conditions,
east and west exposure is nice and getting warmth and heat enough. But if they were solar homes with panels,
then they would want south facing roof.
Mr. Perotto said there was no impact on wetlands. Mr. Moraska said he prefers Concept 2;
houses are more compact and it keeps a village feel. But he said that this project will take away an area from the
industrial/commercial districts. And
the commercial/industrial areas are limited in the Town and what does exist is
fragile, so by taking this away, it reduces the Town’s potential for commercial
or industrial development. Mr. Lockwood
said that there is somewhat limited demand for industrial use in Charlotte and
it’s been their judgment that using it for residential land would be a more
desirable and more realistic, practical use.
Mr. Moraska understands that, but he was looking into the future. Mr. McDonald said that mixing commercial
business space throughout the village with residential would be a big
advantage. Mr. Perotto said that the
intersection needs to be resolved before industrial could be practical. Mr. Bloch asked if units would be
owner-occupied or rentals. Mr. Perotto
said that hadn’t been discussed yet.
Concept 2 is a variation of duplexes and shared
garages. The PC goes with Concept 2
more and the 12 units. Linda Hamilton
suggested adding a farm building and community garden and maybe shrink the
common/rectangle in the middle) with gardens around the pond. Joe Perotto said the issue of the trail is
brought up in Mr. Bloch’s notes. Mr.
Bloch met with the trail committee on site and they will be flexible in
locating the trail to be able to not get in the way of the subdivision. Mr. Perotto said because there were class 2
and 3 wetlands, they had to give up $12,000 because of the trail easement and
hope that they can urge the Selectboard to reject the offer for conveyance
because the trail is not going to be built.
Mr. Troy said the goal is to try and establish a linkage that ties back
to what is occurring down the street; Mr. Perotto responded by saying that it
is inappropriate to encumber this application with another one. Mr. Hawley has asked the Selectboard to do
a feasibility study by the first of August 2003 and he was wondering if there
is a date when this is going in front of the Selectboard because he would like
to attend that meeting. Mr. Mack said
it was what GA agreed to, but now they are coming back and don’t want it. Mr. Perotto agreed with that statement but
they are asking to revisit it based on new information of the trail. Ms. Radimer said trails need to be site
specific, not just put on a map. Mr.
Bloch suggested that the trail itself move to a portion of the property where
the farmhouse is and it won’t interfere with the Waldorf School.
Mr. Troy moved to classify this as a
major subdivision. Mr. Donovan
seconded. All were in favor and the
motion was APPROVED.
Mr. Troy asked if everyone had seen the design
standard recommendations. Everyone said
yes. Mr. Bloch said if the Charlotte
Volunteer Fire Department says that the pond is satisfactory, then that is
fine.
ADJOURN
Mr. Donovan moved to adjourn. Mr. Troy seconded. All were in favor and the motion was unanimously APPROVED and the
meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.