CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION

Guests Signed in:

Sylvia Sprigg

Fred W. Krech

Bill Lockwood

James Lawrence

Jonathan Fisher

Mary Beth Koch

Nancy Sabin

Mary Recchia

Mary Beth Freeman

Molly McClaskey

Gill Barlow

Carl J. Johnson

Walter Gates

Marc Gleenblatt

Spin Richardson

Charles Lemieux

Lee Smith

Marilyn Johnson

Tricia & Peter Coleman

Gina & Tom Catanzarita

Holly Callery

Bill Malloy

Pam Lambert

Rick Pollack

Roseann Pollack

Clark Hinsdale, III

Tom Welch

Bill Maclay

Pam Lambert

Frank Lambert

Steve Mack

Harold Stewart

Bill April

Sheila Braun

Jennifer, Owen Adsit Stephen C. Brooks

1. General Business, review of Minutes: Gordon had sent some corrections in the way some actions were reported in order to make them more understandable for future research. Also a last name for a neighbor of the Senior Center was inserted and an additional sentence was added for an approved project. Jim Donovan moved to approve the minutes for August 23, 2001 with corrections, Josie Leavitt seconded, and the motion was approved with four members for approval, one abstaining and two members absent.

Minutes for July 19^th were reviewed. Some changes had been incorporated adding (in parentheses) identifying Greenwood America=s parcel numbers along with the description of their locations. Again, this was to make future research easier. Other changes that needed to be made were to add more details, and to clarify comments made by members of the Planning Commission; the minute-taker was asked to listen again to the tapes, and to add anything that was left out. This was continued until the next meeting.

2. Gill Barlow / Molly McClaskey, Sketch Plan Review for a 2-lot subdivision on Mount Philo Road: Gill Barlow described the two existing lots: Lot 1 (labeled parcel 1) has 13.43 acre lot with an existing house. He described the existing property lines on the map that showed this. Existing Lot 2's south boundary is common with Lot 1. The lot to the north is owned by Cindy Strate. So there are three houses on three lots existing today including Cindy=s. A garage belonging to Cindy Strate is also on the map.

Parcel 3 is part of an original 3-lot subdivision that was done 22 years ago. What Gill wants to do is to create a new Lot 3, identified in heavy marker. They want to create a lot from a combination of part of Lot 1 and Lot 2 for a third house site on the 23 acres. Gill referred to the dotted lines that are proposed, marked with a heavy marker. Lot 3 would need to have a right of way to Mt. Philo Rd., along the north boundary of existing magic marker lot 2 and future lot 2.

Jeff asked if this proposed curb cut is an additional one. Gill said there is an existing curb cut for Cindy Strate and a curb cut further to the south for Lot 2, and they are proposing a curb cut midway between those two cuts (perhaps 300' in distance). In order to create a 5-acre lot for Lot 2, they need to create a right of way for Lot 1 which has an existing driveway.

Dean Bloch noted that the house on Amagic marker@ Lot 1 did not show on an aerial photo, but that was built since the photos were taken.

Gordon asked if the original decision was available; it is in the files.

Jeff McDonald asked Gill if they have made sure there is adequate sight distance at the road for this proposed curb cut, and Gill replied that they had paid attention to that when it was chosen.

Martha asked Gill if they have asked Cindy Strate to share her driveway and curb cut. Gil replied that Cindy=s driveway is rather curved and doesn=t have good sight distance at the road, and for that reason he has not asked her. Gill added that this one he has chosen is at the best spot; although he is willing to follow Dean=s suggestion that two of the driveways be combined by moving one, in order to have no additional net curb cuts.

Gordon suggested that, because this is a pre-existing subdivision, trying to eliminate the one curb cut that is potentially dangerous and to see if Cindy Strate would be willing to share one of the other curb cuts. Gill said Cindy is a nice neighbor, but he doesn=t feel he should be the one to approach her and ask her to give up her driveway that she has had for 23 years. He said if someone from the Planning Commission wants to ask that, he would not be against Cindy using an access to his driveway, though.

Martha Perkins verified that this is a Sketch Plan Review, this matter doesn=t have to be decided now.

Jeff McDonald said the Planning Commission is suggesting to Gill that he contact Cindy about this, but not requiring him to do this. Gordon Troy said the Planning Commission would be looking at the old decisions, and suggested that Gill research the deeds to be sure of what covenants exist.

Dean Bloch has suggested that the houses be clustered as much as possible. Gill said he would bring the house forward, off the break in the slope to save the woods area in the back and the wildlife. A woods road that is on the map needs to be eliminated, because that belongs to Cindy Strate. They used to use that in order to go back and cut wood, but if they need wood now they would have to ask Cindy if it is okay to go back in there. It is fairly steep although a skidder can make it up the hill, Gill said.

Gordon Troy moved to classify the Gill Barlow / Molly McClaskey application as a Minor Subdivision. Josie Leavitt seconded the motion and it was approved, 5-0 with two members absent. Recommendations were that the woods right of way gets deleted on the map, the combined drive and building envelope will be shown on the map.

3. Mary Beth Koch, Sketch Plan Review for 2-lot Subdivision located on Converse Bay Road: Mary Beth Koch said this was originally part of a four lot subdivision in 1992 and she wants to subdivide a 5-acre parcel from lot 2 which is 13.02 total acres. A 3 bedroom septic system for lot 2 and lot 4 were there, but since that time lot 4 was purchased and when they built their house they opted not to use the existing septic system and instead, built their own septic system.

Lot 6 has been bought by Hudziak, which is on 27.3 acres. Their lot is on tax map labeled 18-2. When the 18-2 lot was developed, they did not tie into the existing septic system. The Hudziak=s had agreed to sell the original septic rights back to her, Mary Beth Koch said. Also, in the original deed she had agreed to the covenant that said this lot was not sub-dividable. That item was designated by the Deeds, and Mary Beth has spoken with them. She said this covenant was not put in by the Planning Commission, but by the Deeds who were the sellers of the lots.

Mary Beth said the land itself is very heavily wooded, and the proposed smaller house would probably not be visible from the road.

Gordon Troy observed that this would have to be classified as a Major Subdivision because it is being subdivided in under ten years. After April of 2002, this would be classified as a Minor Subdivision and the process might be simpler.

Mary Beth said prior to the happenings on the national scene, she had considered waiting but was in a hurry to sell the larger house. However she now thinks the real estate market is changing and is willing to put off these plans until next year.

Both Gordon Troy and Josie Leavitt advised her to wait that additional eight months, to classify this application as a Minor. In the meantime she can deal with the corrected deed issue, and prospectively the septic issue.

Gordon said he has another concern; he would recommend looking into the prospect of sharing the driveway with the existing driveway to avoid having a new curb cut. He also suggested that she work with the contours of the property to make the parcel make more of a cutout away from the existing house, rather than trying to create the five acre parcel with a straight line. This would be a way to maximize both property potentials.

Jeff said another counter to this is to have a quick curb cut rather than cutting 300' of extra driveway up further.

Jim observed that this is in a wildlife habitat area. Visibility isn=t as important as preserving the wildlife corridor. Jim showed this on the map. The open space agreement on the 96 acres still owned by the Deeds.

Gordon Troy moved that if Mary Beth Koch makes the application before April of 2002, the Planning Commission would classify this as a Major Subdivision to the existing subdivision, and the alternative is if she brings in the application after April of 2002, it would be classified as a Minor Subdivision. Mary Beth Koch said she would like to make that decision to wait, now. Jim Donovan said we still have to make that motion, therefore he seconded the motion. In discussion, Mary Beth asked about Dean=s recommendations about establishing a building envelope, and wanted to know if she needs to wait with that part of it.

Gordon Troy explained some of the things she needs to do:

(1) She needs to get a corrected deed as it pertains to the original granting deed from the Deeds,

(2) Dealing with the septic issue as it pertains to lot number 4,

(3) Getting a survey and look more towards the contours of the property and to pay attention to the wildlife corridors, maximize the ability to have privacy, minimize driveway.

Jeff McDonald suggested that she could even come in for another Sketch Plan. Mary Beth said she would like to get as much done as possible and to be ready to move in April. Jim suggested that they have a site visit, and Dean will schedule a site visit that as many members as possible can attend. Mary Beth suggested they wear old clothes because the area is very wooded.

4. Charlotte Senior Center, Administrative Review of exterior color, sign, and landscaping, located on Ferry Rd.: Patricia Coleman and two other members of the Senior Center committee brought in pictures using the colors decided on at a Town Meeting. The only change advised by the Planning Commission is to paint vertical corner boards on the larger structure, or Abarn@ to make it look smaller.

Jeff asked about the sign; there is a temporary sign, but they plan a sign that will recognize Walter and Gert Irish for their work while identifying the Charlotte Senior Center.

Next the landscape plan was shown. Jim said some of the types of plantings are inappropriate for the planned locations and are extremely high maintenance plants, and may create some hazards. The screening according to the approval is there in the plan; however Jim recommends a mix, rather than having everything the same.

Spin Richardson asked to see the original map, from which the approval decision was based. There are two things to consider, he said. One, there was the existing hedge along the side. Spin said that when it said, >existing= that he assumed it would also be existing when the project was done. So that bit of screening has been lost. It also showed some screening that was by his barn, and they had said if that was moved it would provide screening from the neighbors. Spin said he is concerned that, from a window one could look directly into Joe Zilko=s back yard.

Spin said he owns three pieces of property that abut the Senior Center. He screened one piece when he bought it, with a cedar hedge. Gordon Troy noted, for the record, that Spin is concerned about the deletion of a hedgerow that would have been placed along the middle of the northern boundary of the property. Now being discussed is the extension of a proposed hedge that is on the northern western boundary, along the western boundary and extending that along the western boundary of the property. Spin is referring to three pieces of property: two along the western boundary and one on the northern boundary.

Tricia Coleman said their Board of Directors had decided they didn=t want to do the plantings because of the time of the year; they feel that since they have turned over the property to the Town of Charlotte, it is the Town=s responsibility to provide the landscaping. They are putting in topsoil now with the intent to finish grass seeding.

Jeff asked to verify that the landscape plans of November 12, 2000 are proposed. They replied that some of the plantings are proposed, as they hope to have people donate plants from their own property that mean something to them, such as a memorial garden.

Jim Donovan said it is a good idea to generate a plan as to what they want; mixing the evergreens with others. He said at the very least there should be a decision on the hedge, and they should find a way to replace the hedge that has been removed. Even though there was a drainage reason for the removal, something can be put in that can grow on a slope. They can be planted on the other side of the ditch if Joe Zilko won=t mind.

Jeff McDonald suggested that the Planning Commission have a site visit. Spin Richardson wanted the landscaping to be done before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued and that a contract be let for whatever is to be done and the money be put in escrow if it is decided that the planting has to wait until Spring.

Gordon said if we were talking about a commercial development, it would be different but we are talking about a community resource for which we are trying to garner more public support and public involvement, potential utilizing resources from people.

Spin said he had seen the decisions and had thought they were sufficient, but when he saw that no landscaping would be done until spring, he was concerned.

Jeff McDonald said he agrees that there was a consensus that the Planning Commission wants to make sure the decisions are followed through. We can schedule a site visit, he said so that we can get either plantings, or schedule the plantings even if it has to be done through an escrow process. He asked Dean Bloch to see if the planting issue can be put on the next Selectboard agenda.

There was another discussion about a dead tree on Spin Richardson=s property but Jeff said that is not the topic being discussed. He asked Dean to set up a time for the site visit which was decided on for 6:00 a.m. tomorrow, Friday or 6:00 p.m. on October 4^th. The meeting on this subject was continued until October 4, 2001.

5. Discussion of the Telecommunications Bylaw: Dean Bloch said the committee will submit a final draft at a future meeting. The current bylaw was extended once, but expires in March. The Zoning Bylaws would incorporate this Amendment after a public hearing on the subject. To Jim=s questions, there are no significant changes planned, Mary Beth Freeman replied.

6. Rick Pollack, Certificate of Public Good for Wind Turbine: Fred Krech said on September 11, 2001 a neighbor, Rick Pollack, had filed with the Vermont Public Service Board, for a permit to erect a 100' tower on his property with turbine equipment on top of that. The four abutters had to be notified, by law, and a copy of the permit request given to the Planning Commission and the Selectboard. Once this is filed there is a 30-day window to request a hearing on this.

Mr. Krech noted that Charlotte has a Town Plan in which there are 19 listed viewsheds which the Town would protect, and Mount Philo is number 1 on the list. The location for this is within that viewshed. He added that Mr. Pollack is aware of this viewshed restriction because at the time of his purchase they had taken part in a meeting in which certain restrictions had been imposed.

Jonathan Fisher asked if this should also go before the Zoning Board. The Planning Commission noted that another tower had been put up and it seems the State permit pre-empts a Town permit.

Rick Pollack asked to make a statement. Jeff McDonald assured Rick that he will be on the next Planning Commission agenda, but Rick wanted to make a quick statement. He brought a photograph of the property and stated that in his opinion this tower will not interfere with the viewshed.

7. Champlain Valley Co-Housing, continuation of Sketch Plan Review: For the record, Gordon Troy reported that he had taken a site visit on Sunday because he had not been able to go to the site visit on Saturday. Gordon said he had also called Bill to ask a question. Jeff and Josie had attended the Saturday site visit.

Martha Perkins was introduced to the applicants, as the newest member of the Planning Commission. [This begins side 3 of the tapes.]

The site visit observations were discussed and the area that has already been cleared and staked out. Jim said the stakes were marked with balloons which had lost their air and were approximately 12' high.

Bill Maclay said of the proposed orchard, there is a distance of 200' to the property from the back edge of the barn, and Jeff McDonald expressed concern that 200' is not much of a distance. In walking the site, he said, this felt too close, and recommends that it be 400' rather than 200'. Also the orchard trees wouldn=t have leaves on them in the winter, so they should have more evergreen planting among them. He said this would be a buffer from the neighborhood.

Jeff suggested that if the whole development were shifted down, it would help with both the noise and the visual aspects.

Bill said, for the noise, because noise will carry anyway, what will make the difference is the proposal to have the berm. Jeff noted that Wildwood West does have evergreens, and if there are additional evergreens it will seem to be an extension of that.

Bill said if there is a dense buffer, then the distance shouldn=t be a concern. The earth in the berm cuts noise as well. He pointed out the proposed location of the buildings which are 275' away. He said the noise wouldn=t be of the type to be a concern. Martha Perkins asked what kinds of activities would cause the noise, and Bill said it would be the sound of children playing outside.

Martha asked Bill if they have considered flipping the design around so that the noise would be coming from the other end of the project. She asked why they put cars up there rather than putting them to the south.

Bill said this is oriented north and south, because the southern end is at the Berry Farm and the agricultural field is at the southern end. He said the berm is 6' high and is sloped, plus the edge of the roof at the parking lot would slope to the dirt pile; it would like an orchard, with a drop of land that hides the parking lot.

Bill said he thinks having the parking there is beneficial effect in that the long visual effect is agricultural. Horses and animals that may be on that part of the land, as well as any gardens would be better down on the land at the southern end.

Jim Donovan asked if there is any possibility of splitting the parking to both ends of the property. That would get some of the cars away. Bill said that is possible. Jim asked how much clearing was needed, because there is a lot of understory. Bill agreed that there is a lot of understory and also parts of an old stone wall which they plan to utilize.

Martha Perkins asked, if people drive in with a lot of groceries, they will be able to go to their house to unload the groceries. Bill said they could, using the gated driveway.

Gordon Troy said when he had walked on the property, he was comparing this with the Wildwood West development and was asking himself, where else on this property could you put this project? The construction limitation is the wildlife corridor, he said, and the more you move towards the wildlife corridor, the more it is limited.

Clark Hinsdale, III said he is making some fairly serious observations as an adjoining landowner. He said the Callerys thoughtfully and wisely planted that hedge, as well as a number of other hedgerows around the farm. These hedgerows help to screen whatever sprays he uses on his crops. He said this project is at the southern limit of where it might impact the conserved area. The farm is conserved, and there can be 10,000 people who pick berries there. The concept of driving back there, and having at the back of the Berry Farm a 24-unit community that is unscreened and unobstructed is exactly the kind of thing to avoid. The southern edge of the community is parallel with the willow tree and even now this would be visible to the berry pickers.

Jim asked for more information about the driveway. Bill said this does go towards Wildwood West, but where it turns and goes across the pond, it is steep and car headlights would be headed into a cut. The can do additional planting, Bill said.

Jim asked if the have looked at the sight distance to the north, from the driveway at Greenbush Road where the main road curves. Bill said they have asked their engineers to look at it.

Steve Brooks gave his opinion that the parking lot could move south another 50' and, the berm could be raised more than the 6' height that is proposed.

Gordon Troy said the reason that the Planning Commission had this extra step in having the site visit is so that the applicant could have a clear direction for us to avoid extra costs. Given the size and scope of this project, he said, we should try to find ways to minimize the impact on the Town as a whole is very important.

Jim Donovan asked about the contours on the map. Bill said these are 5' contours and that it is from GIS mapping. He said Dean was asked to prepare a draft of these suggestions.

Jeff McDonald said the only action now, is to classify this as a Major Subdivision. We did that at the last hearing even though it was continued in order to create a list of what the Planning Commission wants to see.

Gordon noted that one of the recommendations is to take another look at the location of the driveways. The next one was to consider locating the access along the edge of fields, but he liked the location of the access as Bill has proposed it. He noted that not that many projects that come before this Commission that are this kind of magnitude.

Jeff agreed that the parking should be moved further, the berm should be raised, and the parking should be split as Jim has suggested. We are deliberating anything, he said, but we just want to make these suggestions.

Jim said he would not want to have the southern edge of the boundary encroach further toward the wet areas. Bill is willing to look at that.

The path had been a concern as well, and Gordon wanted to know how focused a path needs to be in that area in order to keep it near or approximately parallel to the road. Bill said they are proposing, not to construct a path, but to grant an easement at or just inside the tree line for a path, just at the edge of the vegetation or just inside at some points.

Jim said he is not necessarily in favor of moving it south, and with a taller berm and the evergreen hedge at the north side and shifting some of the parking over to the other side you would be accomplishing the same thing. The effect would be to always have the headlights to the south. The square footage would be the same. He said they should consider having a berm at the other side as well.

Martha Perkins asked about the height of the trees. The reply is that the existing trees are quite tall. Jim noted that keeping the tall trees when they are doing the construction in the project area is important.

Gordon noted that the buildings would be lower because of the slope of the land. Jim would like to see a contour map prepared, and said he is concerned about the proposed plantings.

Jeff said they needed to address the water and wastewater systems. Bill said all three systems are necessary and Jim wants to know where they are and see the layout. He also wants to be sure the utilities won=t cut through the hedge.

Martha Perkins wanted to make sure that the new owners know they will be moving in next door to where there is spraying, and Bill said they already know this.

Dean suggested that the evergreens are more important than the orchard, and Bill said the orchard may come out of the plan.

Clark said if they need to see the property, they can park at the end of the Berry Farm.

Nancy Sabin: When did you agree that berms were not an ugly thing? Jim: Berms are sometimes still an evil thing. From Wildwood West you won=t see it as a berm, which is an old English type of landscape feature (called a haha) where if they are on one side and looking over, they can=t tell what is there. It is only visible from the side that uses it.

Gordon Troy said with respect to parking access to individual dwelling units, the gravely type of road, we can make it a condition that it not be used for permanent parking.

Bill said there is a major difference with Ten Stones. All of the units there are single family units and the parking area is far away from all of them. With this one 80% of the units are close to the parking area. There are only 6 units that are far away and some have expressed that they would rather walk there. If there is someone elderly or sick, provisions are made for them to use the driveway.

Nancy Sabin noted that the parking next to the houses becomes a safety issue because it creates a problem for the fire and rescue vehicles.

Owen Adsit, from Wildwood West, had a copy of the water and sewage reports from Wildwood West and wanted to know how these look. Jeff said since this is a Major Subdivision there will have to be greater detail with these. [On September 6, 2001 the motion to classify this was approved.]

8. General Business, continued: Findings of Fact written up by Dean Bloch need to be agreed to and signed. One observation, number 5, stated, AThe pattern of development in the vicinity of the proposed development is relatively compact, with structures being located close to Lake Road.@ Jim didn=t agree with the last part and they decided to strike out that phrase. They need to also strike out the Aie: average size of approximately 2000 s.f. of living area@ because it is not a measured size.

Under the proposed decisions, Jim said 1A is okay and Gordon disagreed. Gordon wanted 1A to say, AThe eastern lot-lines for Lots #1, 2 and 3 shall be located 50' west of the westerly-most delineation of the westernmost delineation of the Class II wetland buffer.@

We talked about this at the last meeting, Gordon said. If there is anything other than a straight line there would be a confusion among the neighbors mowing in different depths into the wetland. Jim said they need to be 50' away. This was so neighbors would not be asking of their neighbors, >How come you can cut there and I can=t?= Jim didn=t agree with that proposal because he felt they have not basis for requiring that, so he felt 1A is okay.

Gordon noted, AAs both Al Moraska and I have indicated, neither of us felt comfortable that four houses on that site were appropriate, and I still feel that way. I felt that Lot 4 should be deleted from that and merged with Lot 5 which is the common line.@

For 1B, Gordon rewrote it: AA combination trail easement and wildlife corridor shall be shown to run east and west along the southern boundary of Lot #1 and along the souther boundary of the entire project area running in an east and west orientation. This combination trail easement and wildlife corridor shall be specifically delineated as it runs adjacent to Lot 1, and shall have a floating easement as it runs through the remainder of the project area to be specifically identified by the Town at a future date. A trail easement shall be shown along the eastern boundary of Lot 6 running in a north/ south orientation. A notation shall be made that these locations are approximate at this time but will be specifically identified by the town when put into use at a future date.@

Jim said it was a little long, but he agreed with that, and other members agreed.

Proposed decision 2B refers to a discussion on the size of the houses. Gordon said both he, and Al Moraska at an earlier hearing, had wanted the sizes of the houses limited due to a comparison with other existing houses in the area. Some members felt there is no basis for limiting the sizes of the houses to 2,000 s.f. or a total for all houses to 8,000 s.f. There is one house (which has more land, that is 2200 s.f. but the rest appear smaller, he observed. Jeff agreed that there have been discussions in the past where concerns were made known about the sizes of the houses. The limitation will be expanded to 2200 s.f. of living space not including below ground. They will not have a total.

Proposal 2C, the wording, AThe driveways of Lots #2, 3 and 4 shall be reconfigured so that they are a shared driveway to service all three lots.@ The rest of the Planning Commission disagreed, saying they agreed with Dean=s wording instead.

Proposal 2D addition: AAll building envelopes shall be delineated as being at least 50' from the 50' buffer. They Planning Commission members all agreed to make this 2E and to move up the rest of the conditions.

Proposed decision #3: AA landscape plan shall be added to the site plan map (or submitted separately) for the Final Plat application. The plan shall indicate new plantings and also indicate existing tree-lines to be preserved.@ Jim said he is pretty sure that these were of acceptable sizes and refer back to the plan if approved.

Next Gordon wanted to discuss the covenants. The covenants run with the land and so they run with the property. Some of these Gordon questioned, but the other members did not. Gordon said the paragraphs need to be renumbered because there is duplication. They need to add the condition, Ano paving.@ Also Gordon added conditions about responsibility and ask that the responsibility of maintenance after construction be shifted to the Association.

The common roadway and plantings shall be completely installed, Gordon suggested, before building permits are issued. [All these covenant suggested changes are on a list unavailable to the minute taker at this time.] Jim agree to that part.

Jim Donovan moved that the Planning Commission approve the Findings of Fact and Decision of Greenwood America as amended. Josie Leavitt seconded the motion. Martha Perkins, since she is new and has not taken part in the earlier hearings, abstained. Jeff McDonald called for a vote, and the vote was 3 to approve, and 1 to disapprove. Since there has to be a majority of the full Planning Commission, meaning four votes to approve, the Greenwood America proposed decision of September 20, 2001 did not pass. Dean Bloch was requested to confer with the town attorney to see what the options were.

APPROVED BY THE CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION ON

Chairman Date

O:\Planning Commission\Minutes\2001\sept202001.doc