CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION

Guests Signed in:

Bill Maclay

Linda Radimer

Debbie Ramsdell

Sylvia Sprigg

Sheila Braun

Steve Mack

Sue April

Bill April

Linda Hamilton

Mike Russell

Paul Arthaud

Jonathan Fisher

Dan Raabe

Harold Stewart

Stuart Morrow

Tom Welch

Pam Lambert

Frank Lambert

Lydia H. Hibbard

Daniel Rosen

Tom Bates

Stephen C. Brooks

Brian Dubuc

James Lawrence

Gina Catanzarita

Tom Catanzarita

Martina Lemieux

Charles Lemieux

Lee Smith

Sam Standard

Marc Greenblatt

1. General Business, review of Minutes: Minutes for May 17, 2001 were reviewed; guest Chris Kingston was added and some phrases were added for clarity. Gordon Troy moved to approve the May 17^th minutes with corrections, Al Moraska seconded the motion and it was approved, 3 votes for, 1 abstaining (he was absent for that meeting), and 3 absent.

Minutes for June 7, 2001 were reviewed. Some sentences were rearranged to make them more clear in the future, some phrases added for more detail, and quotations were added for the ANo Parking@ signs for Greenwood America. Jim Donovan moved to approve the June 17^th minutes with corrections, Gordon Troy seconded the motion and it passed with a vote of 4-0 approving, and three members absent.

Minutes for June 21, 2001 were reviewed. Gordon Troy suggested some better ways of phrasing a few sentences so that they are more understandable in re-reading them. The Planning Commission agreed to leave out an unnecessary sentence by an applicant that was not needed for a decision. Gordon Troy had suggested that the Planning Commission hire a consultant and verify any differences with Town and State regulations. Al Moraska moved to approve the June 21^st minutes, Jim Donovan seconded the motion and the motion was approved, 4-0 with three members absent.

Minutes for July 5, 2001 were reviewed. Instead of the way a resident described Ten Stones, a sentence that said, AWith Ten Stones the original parent organization is no longer involved,@ to make it more understandable in the future. Also a phrase was replaced with one word that was better. Jim Donovan moved to approve the July 5^th minutes and Al Moraska seconded the motion, which was approved, 4-0 with three members absent.

Minutes for July 19, 2001 were reviewed. For clarification to identify parcels specifically, in the Greenwood America applications, there were parentheses added with Aparcel #___@ for the different parcel referred to, with the parcel number to be manually filled in.

Minutes for August 23, 2001, some sentences were clarified for exact correct grammar, on Gordon Troy=s advice, and a name correction was made for one of the members of the Conservation Commission who made a comment.

2. Wings Point Association and Daniel Raabe B Sketch Plan Review for Subdivision Modification, located on McNeil Cove Road: Dan Raabe introduced Tom Bates, who is representing the Homeowners= Association. Dan Raabe said this an eight home p.d.r. clustered development with common land. Part of the common land is the waterfront and the road to the waterfront. He owns Lot 3. When they originally bought their lot the developer had misrepresented the dimensions of the common land. The lake actually comes inland more than the original map said it did. The road was actually on his land and when that was discovered, he came to the Planning Commission and got permission to move the road.

What is being proposed, in order to solve problems of liability is to give to the Homeowners= Association 2.2 acres, and move the property line to the edge of the road. Mr. Bates said the Homeowners= Association is in agreement. This would only be a boundary adjustment because the use of the road is not changing.

Jim Donovan moved to classify the proposal as a Subdivision Modification. Al Moraska seconded the motion, and with there being no further discussion, the motion was approved, 4-0 with 3 members absent.

3. Barbara Horsford & Lydia Hibbard, Sketch Plan Review for Subdivision Modification located on Prindle Road and Roscoe Road: Lydia Hibbard appeared, and representing both applicants, Stuart Morrow described the plans. This is a 55-acre parcel bordered by Prindle Road, Roscoe Road, and Lewis Creek. The remaining 15-acre parcel would have an access off Roscoe Road.

Stuart said the old boundary adjustment that was done a couple of months ago was not going to be done, and this one will be the new plan. Lydia said when her parents sold the first lot to Mel Huff, it contained a first right of refusal. Originally the 56 acres was going to be sold in one parcel, but with that right of first refusal they needed to identify the 15 acres and to give them the first right of refusal on that.

Al Moraska noted that there was frontage on Prindle Road, but Lydia said the terrain was not ideal. The existing road is better and doesn=t require engineering any bridges, etc.

Jim Donovan inquired about the route of the access. Stuart replied that it would come in from the south and follow the wood line and then enter the field. It would come across from the pond and then follow the wood line, he added.

Gordon Troy asked for more detail. Linda Radimer replied by showing where there was a slope downward before the pond, then it takes a high ground and goes around, but follows the tree line. Lydia said there=s enough room between there and the corner so that there wouldn=t be as much traffic concerns. Stuart said it is possible to come directly in from Prindle Road, but the steep grade makes that difficult. Lydia said this is a large field, so access for emergency vehicles would be better as well.

Gordon asked about the right of first refusal; if that is not acted upon, does this mean that this application may come back in? Lydia said no, they would sell both particles in any event.

Jeff McDonald said the purpose of this hearing is to classify it. He asked if there has been an open space agreement, since any parcel larger than 25 acres has to have such a plan. Lydia said they have not decided on what areas to set aside yet.

Jeff outlined some issues that will have to be addressed at the time of the Preliminary Sketch Plan: building envelopes should be delineated along with the acre size, and Dean suggested that there be only one driveway for the two lots. Jeff said the Open Space Agreement doesn=t have to be a formal OSA but there will be a condition that in any future application the OSA will include acreage in both lots. The septic capacity for both lots has already been engineered, Stuart said, for a conventional system.

Gordon Troy advised the applicant to try to keep the building envelopes as narrow as possible. The Planning Commission will need to have a site visit prior to the next hearing on this.

Jim Donovan moved that the Planning Commission classify this application as a Minor Subdivision. Gordon Troy seconded the motion. Jeff called for further discussion from the audience.

Mike Russell, representing Mel Huff, said Mr. Huff was concerned with safety issues for the right of way. Safety has been discussed already, he noted, but suggested that an access from Prindle Road is much further from the intersection. The proposed location is close to the existing structure, Mike said.

Lydia Hibbard said there is a designated wetland off Prindle Road which would make a Prindle Road access difficult. Mike said he just wanted to air Mel=s observation, and that the other thing is that the right of way that is proposed is quite close to the house that has been there for 30 years. There should be a balance, he said, in respecting the existing home, respecting existing woodlands and open space, but roads also have their own impact on open space. The septic easement that is already on 15 acres is not shown on this map, Mike said, and the 4^th issue is that there should be designs for 2, 3-bedroom houses when the subdivision application comes in. Mike said he wanted the Planning Commission to be aware of these issues when they later go to the Site Visit, and Jeff thanked him for that.

Jeff called for a vote on the motion: The motion was approved, 4-0 with 3 members absent.

4. Champlain Valley Co-Housing B Sketch Plan Review for a PRD to create 24 dwelling units and a common house (to be considered as a dwelling unit in terms of density calculation), and a Subdivision Modification to adjust boundary lines with Clark Hinsdale, III, located on Greenbush Road, East Thompson=s Point Road and Route 7: Bill Maclay represented the applicants. Mr. Maclay used two display stands to show the maps he was describing. There are three separate parcels of the Callery=s, he said. This proposal includes a subdivision modification which relates to some land that Clark Hinsdale owns: 3 lots. The proposed ownership would be the Champlain Valley Co-Housing and some additional land for Clark Hinsdale, which Bill pointed out in detail. The maps have keys to the descriptions.

The Co-Housing partnership proposes to build on the land obtained from the Callery=s and they have agreed to sell a portion of the land to Clark Hinsdale, III later.

Bill then showed the map of conserved land: the existing conserved area, and the proposed conserved land. The acreage that the Co-Housing partnership would end up with is 117 acres. Clark Hinsdale has 25 acres, and in order to make up the density there would be some additional 8 acres of land which development rights would be stripped of, on Clark Hinsdale=s land and those development rights would go with the 117 acres, thereby making up the 25 acres. That would be as part of the sale agreement to Clark Hinsdale after the permitting process.

Bill described the existing conserved land up to the Laberge property, the Hinsdale property, the Berry Farm which is conserved land, and the Little League field. As a result of this proposal, he said, other conserved land will be two 20-acre parcels for which the Vermont Land Trust would purchase development rights (and they have already given approval for this), and an additional 10 acres on the Co-Housing parcel.

A land-use map was then described, showing the current land use, with horizontal Ablueish@ lines showing cultivated land off Route 7, off East Thompson=s Point Road and some of the land off Greenbush Road. There are some Ared@ areas that are wooded, and some Agreen@ areas on the map that are partially overgrown meadow (they are of varying degrees of openness). The proposed land use is basically the same with one exception, along Thorpe Brook would be proposed to become a buffer area where the land would not be cleared, following an existing tree line towards Greenbush Road. He showed the recreation path.

The development plan, as proposed, creates a green, a significant pedestrian-oriented street, a common house, clustered housing, Bill continued, this plan has been modified to incorporate changes that were in the comments from Planner Dean Bloch. It shows a 200' setback from Wildwood West of any development, planting a fruit orchard in that area. What is proposed is not to create a berm, but to grade the field to create a sloped area that will look like a flat field that will actually drop off 2 2 feet thereby screening some of the automobile use. It is also proposed that one of the parking sheds would be to the north side of the parking lot, as part of a berm so as to hide part of the structure, and the berm is intended to stop noise.

The green is somewhat smaller than the first proposal, Bill said. There would be a loop road which goes entirely around. That road would provide fire and emergency vehicle access, but would not be intended for daily parking. There would be a gate on either side. Six units would be reasonably close to where the parking is. They may even shrink some of these units and provide more tree planting.

There was a request from the Planning Commission to see some other co-housing projects, Bill said. He showed some photographs of some European co-housing projects with centralized parking. Examples from Colorado, California Seattle, WA, and Amherst, MA were also shown. Most show the pedestrian street, the common play area and a common house. He also described one at Martha=s Vineyard which is composed of all single family homes with one centralized area and a green visible in the woods. There is one still under construction on Cobb Hill in Hartland, VT.

Some sketches were described from two different directions: one from the Wildwood West development down to the south. Some of the central part of the proposed development sketches were also shown. Then Bill showed a sketch of the way it would look like from the Berry Farm property showing some hedgerows and Thorpe Brook. The public r.o.w. location is shown.

Resume3s were supplied by Bill, of some of the people involved in this application.

Jim Donovan asked to see the revised Site Plan, and asked for more detail of the overall proposal. Bill showed the location of the pond, Thorpe Brook, the dense vegetation, and the proposed road going to the parking area at northern end of the project. He pointed out the proposed location of the common house which is centrally located with the green. The common house looks over the green and the play area. The lighter blue on the map shows the proposed garden space.

The pedestrian street is intended to be plowed and maintained in the winter; it will be wide enough for emergency units but is mainly intended for pedestrians.

From the center of the common house to the center of the other unit is 308', Bill replied in response to Jim=s question. AIs there an inner and an outer walk?@ Jim asked. Bill said there is an existing stone wall and a hedgerow. They intend to use that as a divider between the units. The intent is to thin out some of these trees, Bill said. Jim asked about the access to the street for plowing, and the reply was that the gated road would be used for that.

Two of the units would have covered walkways, Bill said, and showed two routes that could be taken by emergency vehicles.

Al Moraska asked about the access from Greenbush Road; he asked if the open field would be bisected. Bill replied that the access would be in the corner, and showed on the map where the sewage area is. The road would angle along the edge of the field and then angle across. The main septic area is south of the proposed driveway and east of Greenbush Road. There are 2 secondary areas; one below the Rosen property which is near Greenbush Road but is near the southern property line, and the other is on the Berry Farm property up in the fields where there is an easement to do that, 300' away from the Callery property.

Rita Catanzarita (who lives in Wildwood West) inquired if that last location is behind the Landry property, and Bill Maclay replied that it is. Tom Welch from Wildwood West, who identified himself as the operator of the Wildwood West public water system, commented that all of those areas identified as septic fall within the 3,000-ft. radius of the wellhead protection area. Their well is on the upper edge of this proposed subdivision land.

Dan Rosen (Greenbush Road) said when he had inquired before about the septic, that he was told the septic area was going to be up by Greenbush Road, and that other septic locations were not mentioned. Frank Lambert said other septic areas were not mentioned when he asked, and wants to know what else will come up that they don=t know about. Bill apologized, and said the additional locations resulted from talks with State agencies.

Dan continued, AWhere are you going to be drawing water from?@ Bill said there are existing wells down in the field, and there may need to be additional wells drilled.

Tom Welch noted that Wildwood West gets all of their water from one well; that is 20 homes, and they are concerned that if somehow the Co-Housing group starts drilling additional wells, they may tap into the Wildwood West vein and then these 20 homes will be left without water. This is a very big concern of the Wildwood West people, Tom said.

Bill replied that the Co-Housing developers will be working on a requirement with the State, but are fully aware that they have to monitor other wells. Bill said they would have to see a detailed hydrologist=s water study to see exactly where the water is coming from.

Tom Welch was asked if Wildwood West also has community septic, to which he replied that each home has its own septic system. Tom was asked if those individual septic systems are withing the 3,000-ft. watershed area, and he replied that they are.

Dan Rosen asked what access the delivery trucks would use. Bill Maclay replied that the trucks would bring mail and small delivery to the beginning of the gated access road, but if there were to be deliveries of large appliances, the gate would be unlocked so that they could drive to the units. Dan asked if the driveway to the project from Greenbush Road is going to be wide enough for two cars, and Bill answered that he assumes it will be 20' wide or whatever the town requires.

Paul Arthaud asked about the boundary line adjustment for Clark Hinsdale, III. Currently you have a 125 acre requirement without a boundary adjustment. They have 170 acres without the boundary adjustment. Right now Clark=s part is a 10-acre lot which will be adjusted to 23 acres. Bill said the purpose of the boundary adjustment is to make Clark=s land all a contiguous piece. Right now, he said, it is divided into 3 parcels. Paul said this should be separated.

Bill Maclay said currently the Co-Housing group owns nothing. They have a purchase and sale agreement on 172 acres, because the Callery=s did not want to sell and subdivide their property. Because Clark, as an adjoining landowner, had an interest in consolidating and integrating his farm properties later, that is the reason for this, he said.

Paul said that now that it is known that the proposed use of the land that Clark will have, is to have three house sites, that should be part of a separate application. Bill agreed that when the house sites are proposed it will be on a separate application. Paul said his recommendation that it be separate, still stands.

Jim Donovan said, with that point, the Planning Commission still has to make sure that the regulations allow that (the eight acres off-site), in the end. Conceptually, while he may not agree where the conservation land is, he said he has no problems with the concept, but wants to be sure that the Planning Commission can actually do that under Town of Charlotte regulations.

Clark Hinsdale, III, responded to comments that were in Dean Bloch=s notes. It looked like the major focus of the conservation easement on the Callery property is on wildlife habitat, it might be more logical to conserve the balance of the woods, the riparian area that might be going to him (Clark), rather than to put a wedge-shaped conservation easement. He said that was fine with him.

Bill Maclay asked if that would be what the Planning Commission=s preference; that the conservation easement be on the farm land that was the wooded land. Jim Donovan said he is not totally in agreement with that because he does not have a problem with putting a conservation easement on farm land. Dean Bloch said one of the questions is, whether or not it=s really farm land. Jim said he doesn=t know enough to decide where the best location is, right now although there is a lot of merit to that. AI=m just not ready to sign off on that right now.@

Jeff McDonald said since it=s a contiguous parcel, it might be more efficient for the Planning Commission to hear this all together. Clark said that this is a theoretical development, but that he has already agreed with the Conservation Fund next door, that he is not going to pursue any development right away, because he might be able to conserve all that land. He said he has preliminary approval to conserve a 20-acre parcel on the east side of Route 7, and a 20-acre parcel on the west side of Route 7, so the 40 acres that he would be acquiring there is slated for 100% conservation and he is already in preliminary approval for that. In discussions with the Conservation Fund as they discuss their conservation plans with the Laberge Farm, he said he has discussed with them that he would hold off doing anything. Therefore, Clark said, he doesn=t want to bring any development application in at this point. He said there is a fire pond road from East Thompson=s Point Road and he wants to use the farm road from that meadow.

Bill said that Linda Hamilton had told him the Conservation Commission preferred that the trail stay further into the field, away from the edge of the field.

Gordon Troy suggested, from looking at the photographs, that it is more logical (with the 5-acre limit) to do the conservation without transferring it. Clark said the conserved land doesn=t have to be with the same owner as long as the land is owned in a manner that furthers the conservation interest. In some instances the owned land is owned by a third party or by a town.

Gordon said the Town doesn=t have a precedent. He objected to the Aarbitrary triangle.@ Clark said the location for 3 houses was suggested by the partnership; however he said he doesn=t have any immediate plans for these.

Dee Pierce, from the Conservation Commission, said they were very pleased with the presentation that Bill Maclay had given for them. She agreed with what Linda Hamilton had told him, that they prefer that the recreation trail shift as far away from the woods edge as possible. Where the new roads cross Thorpe Brook, they want to be sure they are consulted when the location is decided upon.

Bill said the applicant=s first plan for the path was to have it close to the woods, but that he was having it moved per the recommendations of the Conservation Commission. The preferred designation is that it is a recreation path; for horses, bikes, dogs and not just a pedestrian path.

Charles Lemieux said he lives directly across from the proposed planting of fruit trees. He said the fruit trees are fine but they lose their leaves in the winter, so he would also like to see some evergreen varieties. Bill said he doesn=t see that as a problem.

Tom Catanzarita also voiced concern about the trees, and mentioned the project at Hartland, VT. Jeff replied that the Planning Commission can incorporate these concerns in approvals as part of the conditions.

Dan Rosen asked about lighting: does something like avoiding excess overhead lighting get addressed and get written into the approval motion? Jeff said it does.

Jeff said this is actually a Sketch Plan. After two more hearings, the Planning Commission will be putting these conditions together. This hearing tonight is to classify, and obviously it will be classified as a Major Subdivision. It is also a way of advising the applicant what issues are likely to be addressed at the other two hearings before the Final. In the other two hearings the conditions will be discussed and the issues will be, evergreen screening, addressing the wellhead protection area for Wildwood West, lighting issues, traffic issues on Greenbush Road, and possible future subdivision on Clark=s property.

Asked about the schedule, the quickest time between hearings would be 30 days, assuming they came in tomorrow with a survey, a septic design fairly complete. So it would be likely to be a month and a half away.

One of the neighbors asked when Act 250 comes into play. Jeff said that is separate and is sometimes done at the same time as the town=s deliberations and sometimes not until afterward.

There will be a site visit; someone suggested the Planning Commission wait until the leaves are gone. Some brush hog work has been done already. Gordon said the Planning Commission isn=t asking to see the exact location but something should have a stake tall enough out of the ground so they can get a general sense of the view likely to be seen from Wildwood West.

Nancy Sabin asked to comment: Where in the regulations, does it say that you can=t build a property and see it?

Tom Welch replied that these are 22 units, not just a building. After 35 years of the Wildwood West development, there are still no evergreens planted. It is foolish where the parking is planned, he said. Wait and see the whole proposal; if there are to be 25 units, how man bedrooms will there be? The reply is that there will be 66 bedrooms in 24 units. Two of the units will have 1 bedroom.

James Lawrence said he has 5 acres north of the proposed septic field. As a Greenbush Road resident, we are relieved that there would be three septic areas, so that seems to be an ideal solution. AWhen will we be able to ask questions of the septic engineer?@

Dean said the first meeting will discuss water and waste water.

Bill said they average 2.43 people in their other projects; ten households contained 12 adults, 2 children.

Jim Donovan asked that they try to get some numbers on traffic generation and the number of school children expected.

Gordon Troy asked if there are any perpetually affordable units expected. Bill said there are not. Gordon said that the Planning Commission is allowed to give a density bonus under Section 5.14 of the regulations.

Nancy Sabin asked if they expect the same type of young people as are at Ten Stones. Bill said there would be some elderly people. Nancy noted that at Ten Stones there are only 2 children that are in the school system. She noted that there are several children there who are either home schooled or at a private school.

Bill said the costs of the units are between $150,000 to $300,000.

Clark asked a question about the septic. The Callery=s had a replacement septic area; does the State want a second replacement area split up?

Susan April feels there is a lack of communication. Would it be possible to mail a notice to all the residents in Wildwood West? She said originally the parking was right up against the boundary line with Wildwood West, so is impressed that they are listening.

As to the credibility of the Co-Housing applicants, one resident was angry that one of their members had commented to a Wildwood West resident that AWe buy out the troublemakers. People like you can be bought out.@

Jeff advised folks to come to the hearings and to voice their concerns.

Harold Stewart said there is a Wildwood West meeting on September 19^th.

Jeanie Catanzarita said theirs is s community oriented association. There are a couple of houses vs. 24 units. AWe will lose vision with that type of project. With 170 acres, why not have it further away from the existing development?@

Charles Lemieux asked if the Recreation Path will use the same road.

Jeff McDonald moved that we classify the Champlain Valley Co-Housing application as a Major Subdivision. Dean Bloch will summarize all the concerns that were expressed tonight. Al Moraska said a Site Visit is important because of wildlife corridors, etc.

Gordon Troy also said the Planning Commission should have a site visit in order to assist the applicants in addressing the concerns. Dean suggested the Planning Commission have a site visit before the 20^th. [Clark asked that the meeting be closed.]

Jim Donovan seconded the motion to classify. The motion was approved, 4-0 with 3 members absent.

The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.

APPROVED BY THE CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION ON

Chairman Date

O:\Planning Commission\Minutes\2001\sep62001.doc