CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION

7:00 P.M., SEPTEMBER 22, 1998

TOWN OFFICES

425-3533

APPROVED

Members Present:Chairman Al Moraska

Ed Melby

David Allen

Jim Donovan

Jeff McDonald

Dave Brown

Planner Charlie Burnham

Guests Signed In:

David Hill

Mary Beth Freeman

Nancy Sabin

Ceal Moran

Tony Perry

Teri Perry

Sylvia Sprigg

Sandy Mayo

Clark W. Hinsdale, III

H. Keith Wagner

Miles Weston
John D. Patnaude

Sue Patnaude

Nancy Walsh

Janet Yantachka

Ralph M. Thomas

Jacques Landry

Mary Charlebois

John Sheehan

Steve Vock

Charles J. Stone, Jr.

Susan Atwood–Stone

1. General Business: Minutes from September 9, 1998 were read and Chairman Al Moraska asked for any

changes. The warning for the Bora hearing should have Royce's name instead of Robert. Charlie Burnham said

the name of the person preparing the boundary adjustment was Warren Robenstein, rather than Wayne. And since

Peter Kunin had resigned earlier in the evening, it was unnecessary to add that again in noting the vote.

It was also reported that the deliberative session that evening, ended at 9:30 p.m. and the meeting officially

adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

Al Moraska made a motion to accept the Minutes of September 9, 1998 as amended. Ed Melby

seconded the motion and it was approved, 6–0.

2. Anthony Perry, 556 Ethan Allen Highway, Subdivision Modification and two new lots in a Major

Subdivision: Stuart Morrow introduced Tony and Teri Perry, and Landscape Architect Keith Wagner, and asked

that Tony address the items on the list of concerns from the Planning Commission meeting of July 21, 1998.

Tony Perry described his deep feelings about the property and related some of the history of his acquisition

first, of ten acres and then the additional adjoining pieces of property. He has been living there for 7 years and

feels he knows the property intimately. He said he is coming before the Planning Commission now, to redefine

issues of the subdivision on the hill only.

He has served on two planning commissions in the past, and Frederick Olmstead who was a Landscape

Architect for Shelburne Farms is one he would like to emulate. Al lot of the planning he has done for the last 11

years has been, he said, his attempt to "ape" a lot of what Mr. Olmstead did there. This is his home, and he is

very interested in the aesthetics, so he hopes the people on this Planning Commission will feel comfortable with

knowing that the planting etc. will be done under his direct supervision. The planting that is going to be done

there will "envelope" whatever houses that will go there.

"I've always had in mind, from the very beginning, to enhance and preserve the agricultural aspect," he said,

"not only about this hill but also the surrounding area. I am part of another 127 acres adjoining this property and

keep it as a farming operation. So I run it as a 250–acre piece of property. I'm here to answer any questions. "

Al Moraska said Stuart Morrow had been given a list of the concerns. Stuart said on items 1 and 3 the

board had concerns on Lots 3 and 4 with the access drives. He introduced Landscape Architect Keith Wagner

and his associate, Miles Weston to speak about this.

Keith Wagner displayed 3 large posters of photographs of the proposed sites from three different views with

how they would look after the homes are built. One view is looking south from Route 7, one view is looking north

from Route 7, and one is from Greenbush Road. On each poster is 3 views for each of those, showing what is

there now, and what are already the permitted lots, and a simulation showing what they would look like after the

plantings are done to lessen a view of them. "We supplement those hedgerows, so that in front of houses there

would be a "hedgerow–esque" quality in that these plantings would look like they belonged there." He shows the

Lot 4 house at a height of 30' and Lot 3 house at a building height of 30' to the ridge.

Tony would like to show where they are permitted now, and an overlay view to show where those two sites

got shifted a little bit to the south. Keith added that the proposed evergreens would be 14'–16', pines and spruce,

and the deciduous trees would be 25' tall.

An audience member asked how close to the top of the ridge these would be in horizontal distance. Keith

said Lot 4 house would be approximately 300' west of the top of the ridge, and those plantings would soften that

view so the house would not protrude above the ridge. There is some protrusion but the building envelope is on a

drop–off slope, he said.

David Allen asked about the building envelope for Lot 4; was that 300' from the ridge line. Stuart showed

the area on the map and said it was approximately 300' from the ridge line. It appears their proposed house will

be 15' above the ridge, but Keith Wagner said the deciduous trees would partially hide it.

David Allen's earlier concerns, and his most important objection when they had done the site walk, was the

building envelope for Lot 4, he said; and it does not appear that the building envelope has been changed other

than that some trees would be planted. Tony Perry said it was moved. But Stuart said the building envelope is

not moved but they have dropped the height restriction on the house to 30' and its location is 15' below the height

of the ridge line, so it leaves the building 15' above the ridge line. Stuart expressed an opinion that this, lowering

the structure and adding plantings, was a compromise.

Stuart showed some views of lots that are permitted, but they are moving those to the west also, and down

further from the ridge line. Jeff said there are two more, Lots 13 & 14, but Tony Perry said those are on the

same level as his are. He showed where they are permitted now, near a ‘fire pit' but where he wants to move

them and add plantings.

Jim Donovan asked them to show where the photographs were taken from, and Stuart pointed out the loca-

tion on the map. The driveway that they propose to use is an existing farm road, Stuart said.

Tony said one of the most important features, and one he wants to preserve, is the view one gets while

driving to and from the homes. It had been important to him, he said, to see the beauty of Greenbush Road when

he had lived on Lake Road and he would like his neighbors to have that same experience.

David Allen asked, "What is the obstacle of moving the building envelope of Lot 4 to the west?" Tone said

it would encroach on Lot 13, and he is trying to create a relationship between the houses similar to the Thomases

and Yantachkas and in proximity to each other. David asked whether moving it closer to Lot 13 wouldn't then

accomplish that goal, but Tony said they would be giving up the primary reason for being there, the view.

David said when he'd been on the site visit the view was one of the most spectacular views in the town, no

matter where on the lot or how far down they went. "To me it's a small tradeoff to alleviate the impact on the

ridge, to move the house to the west." Tony said he is not trying to be stubborn, but he has walked that property

and knows every square foot of it. He believes that in moving the house down the hill he would have another

house directly in front of the view. One of the things he tried to create, in locating that where he did, is that he

wanted to create a screened buffer over the front side of the house, so that they wouldn't be looking right into the

back of the other house. He said he can do that because of the way the land falls away, and he would rather not

do that. David said this was still his major concern, and while lowering the structure 5 feet in height and putting

some trees around it is a compromise, "I'm not sure we're there yet."

Tony called attention to the fact that their previous proposal for Lot 3 as permitted, left it very visual, and

they were moving it, so they would be gaining on that side. Keith Wagner added that the plantings alone, usually

grow 5 feet in height in 3 years.

David related that the ridge line he lives on is just north of the State park. It used to be that you couldn't

really see any houses on that ridge line from Route 7. Now, due to some folks clear–cutting in front of their

houses and a couple of houses that have just gone up, now instead you see a ridge line interrupted by either a

blatant view corridor and a house sitting in the middle of it, or a house in the top of a meadow which changes the

silhouette of the ridge line. I think, he said, just lowering the height of the house and putting up trees is an attempt

to alleviate the situation, but I'm not sure that it cures it.

Dave Brown has perhaps a differing viewpoint. "The wildlife corridor that goes through there is pretty

critical in this whole development, and we've got a problem when we move the lots so we don't see them from

Route 7, when we are moving them down where the wildlife corridor and wildlife habitat is, then we are squeezing

that up, too." David Allen said he wouldn't want to move the building envelope of Lot 13, but just wanted to see

them move Lot 4's house closer to its boundary with lot 13. Tony still protests that they would be looking into the

back of the house on lot 13. Jim Donovan suggested that the alternative is that the house on lot 13 is built just

over enough as not to interfere with the view of lot 4.

Al Moraska asked how far west David would like to see the house moved. David said he remembers that the

slope is pretty gradual in the present location, but is you move to the west it begins to drop off more dramatically.

So just shifting it half the difference between there and whatever the setback is, would be beneficial. He would be

happy to go up there again and look at a couple of scenarios, he said, but the most vivid impression he'd had was

of standing there up on that ridge, was what it will look like from Greenbush Road. Tony asked if the photo

graphs they were showing were adequate. David said these were helpful, but again compared this with what has

happened to the ridge line above Mt. Philo Road. Any impact, he said, that we make on the ridge lines in this

town have to be thought out and done as well as we can possibly do it. Tony said he agreed; he had put up a

30' pole at the proposed ridge of the house and photographed that.

Al asked if members of the audience had concerns about lots 3 and 4. Nancy Walsh spoke as a member of

the Charlotte Conservation Commission; they are concerned with the western side of the ridge as a north–west

corridor for wildlife. She said they have worked with Tony Perry in the past and approve of his attempts to add

to the hedgerows while planning this development. They are concerned about pushing development into the area

that the wildlife are traveling. There has been talk of making that western corridor a walk way, she said, but that

will have to be addressed as well. The Charlotte Conservation Commission would like that western side to be

prominent in planning.

Stuart then spoke about Lot 2. That was put back to its original permitted 2–acre size. Last time, he said, it

was 5 acres and there was a concern that there would be no control over its agricultural use so we put it back to

the 2 acres.

Stuart had also given the Planning Commission copies of the utilities and waste water plans. He had also

supplied a copy of an amended Open Space Agreement although there are additional pieces that are to be worked

out with the Selectboard. He said there is a net loss of open space with these additional two lots, of 8 acres. He

pointed out where there was a gain in one area and a loss in another, with a net loss of 8 acres. The members

discussed areas that could have conservation easements so there would be less apparent loss. The conservation

area is 61% compared to 69% but by using these easements it could be still increased more. Tony stated that he

does have underground easements for water if they are needed to obtain water for the lots.

Ed Melby asked whether Tony would continue having his buffalo on his property. He does want to keep

them. He spoke of continuing to have the wagon tours as well.

Stuart said there was another item on the list he received for the Planning Commission, and that was the

location of any trail easements. Tony owns land to the north of this development and can discuss that part of it

tonight. David Allen asked where the trail is in relation to the wildlife corridor. Stuart said he believes it runs

right through it. There is a 10' wide easement, he believes, along the easterly boundary of Patnaude's property

and that stops at Tony's corner. It's right across the east corridor and all the way down the south and dead–ends.

Dave Brown said the wildlife corridor is the same corridor. Some people discussed the large amount of coyotes

lately. Linda Radimer said the Charlotte Conservation Commission would like to see the conserved land kept

connected as much as possible. Tony offered to have them walk the property with him.

Jeff asked about the breakup of the conservation properties. Lot 17 is a piece of common land that is going

to be used for horses, with a right–of–way for them. He pointed out areas on the map where the open areas can

be connected.

Another member of the audience asked about walking paths. He mentioned areas around Shelburne Farms

where someone could park a car and walk a path, so wanted to know if there was going to be anything like that up

in this area. Dave Brown said he believes the Shelburne paths will eventually be connected to the Demeter land's

paths. Nancy Sabin asked if there's anything on the record as to how wide this trail is going to be. Could that be

stated tonight, she asked? But Tony said the easement that is in the discussion of this development is private; that

is, it's only for the people who would be using that trail for their horses, only in that circle.

Charlie discussed waste disposal issues; which lots would use which systems, how many bedrooms the

homes would have etc. Then he wanted to assure that the infrastructure for each of these two sections would be

in before a home within that section is built.

John Patnaude had some concerns. He has two wells in that area, so he is asking whether the wastewater

plans have been done, and were they taking into consideration whether they would create a problem with his

wells? Charlie said the question was, has the design been done? Yes. Has it been submitted to the State for

review? No. Stuart said they had checked to see if the ground could support the systems. John asked that they be

careful not to place his wells in jeopardy. Charlie said when these come up for review all the State Permits will

have to have been received.

Al Moraska asked about underground utilities. There will be underground, individual, drilled wells where

possible and if in some instances they have to be shared there will be capacity studies to be sure there is enough

water for more than one home. They asked Tony how his water supply was. He said he has plenty of water and

pumps some water into a cistern, in fact.

Nancy Sabin said she is a little bit concerned. There are 11 lots smaller than 5 acres, totaling 29.25 acres

for 11 building lots. Are there only lots 16 and 17, or is lot 15 a common land? No, Stuart said, lot 15 is for

agricultural use. Then, Nancy said, assuming I did my math correctly, that leaves only leaves 4.35 acres for the

11 houses that don't have the 5 acres. Is this the way it's going? Stuart replied that lot 15 can count for the

density even though it's not considered common land. It's not considered a buildable parcel. Nancy asked, "Are

the two common lands ‘open use' for lowering of taxes?" Stuart was not sure, so Clark Hinsdale described his

take on it. Open Space and agricultural use are often stated as though they were the same, but it is within the

Planning Commission's discretion to accept or deny the way it is applied, he said.

Someone asked about lots 6 through 12, but these are not being considered tonight.

Jeff McDonald mentioned the building envelope for lot 2. He said he doesn't see how that building sitting in

the middle of the agricultural land helps matters. Tony asked to explain this: The first building he bought was the

10–acre lot. Mr. Thomas, Mr. Yantachka, and himself; then he added 90–acres to that. He considered it just to

be a tenant house at that time. But he said he would, if were more to the liking of these members, remove the

agricultural restrictions and change the location of that house more in line with the others nearby. He said he did

not feel strongly that lot 2's house needed to be at that spot (on the map). Jeff agreed that even on the aerial photo

it appears to be sitting in the middle of the field. He said connecting that field to the open lot and making the

tenant house part of lot 1 would be allowed. Tony said he didn't want to do that; he wanted to keep it affordable.

Al said they were running out of time as it was nearly 8:30p.m., so he listed the still open issues:

Building envelopes, particularly lot 4

Open Space Agreement from originally Lot 1, to Lots 15, 16 and 17. ...and part of Lot 14.

Reduce the acreage in lot 5, to be included in the open space for lot 15 Stuart said the perimeter would

remain the same, but the open space would overlay a portion of lot 5. So lot 5 would stay the same but they

would have a conservation easement overlay similar to lot 14.

Al said they need to have some definite lot lines and some decision on lot 4. Stuart asked if it was the

unanimous decision of the Planning Commission on lot 4 building envelope that it is not acceptable? He said he

knows Mr. Allen objects to it, but he wants to know if the rest of the members object to it. Jim Donovan said

they are gaining two lots, and the reason he's willing to look at two more lots is that they are willing to make

those concessions. Tony asked if some of the members would be willing to come up to the property again and see

if they could come up with an agreement as to any proposed change to the building envelope as presented.

Tony said he will be here for only 3 more weeks, so they decided to have a site visit on Saturday morning,

September 26 at 9:00 a.m.

Al Moraska moved to continue the Perry application to October 6, 1998. David Allen seconded the

motion and in discussion, he asked about the pole that had been erected. He asked that the pole(s) be put back for

the site visit. The vote was, approved, 6–0.

3. John and Helen Sheehan, Sheehan Green, East Charlotte, Final Plat Review: Modification of a Major

Subdivision: John Sheehan, with Steve Voch, submitted the necessary documents for plumbing, and a Letter of

Intent from Green Mountain Power, and the final design for Act 250. They are close to having a State Subdivi

sion Permit. There is a well shield for the wastewater disposal system shown on the map. The distance has to be

a minimum of 200' downhill and 100' uphill. A lot of the information the State is asking for is already on the

plans.

Charlie Burnham brought up the fact that the pond building part of this has been extended twice, but it needs

to be extended again because they cannot start until they receive the State permits. They requested another

extension, to June 1999. Al asked if anyone had objection to extending the date. David Allen asked whether

this pond isn't for some houses that are already there. John does want this to be for all of the homes, but still

cannot proceed yet. All 6 members agreed to allow the extension of time.

Infrastructure: The utilities will be installed at the same time so that the drive will not be torn up when it is

time to build the structures. At this time lots 16, 17 and 18 are listed as non–buildable lots. John said that in the

future they may decide to investigate developing lots 17& 18, but there is no planning in the works for those yet.

They will submit a final survey plat; the right–of–way will cross wetland on lot 18; at least it appears to

cross wetland, he said; therefore they will be taking it off the plan. But Steve Voch said he thinks lot 18 will be

accessed through lot 17 and there appears to be (although not down in print anywhere) an access through lot 17

to lot 18. That would be addressed later, if that should ever happen that they would be able to use 17 & 18.

There is a note in the August 23rd letter, #7, right–of–way, that says "adjustments to the deeds of lots 3 and

7," should be "3 through 7." Also on #18, there's an easterly set of lots and a westerly set of lots. If you want a

permit on the easterly set, Charlie said, he will need to have the infrastructure completed on that easterly set

before a permit can be issued.

John said what he'd like to do is sell the lots, with the understanding that they cannot apply for a building

permit until the road and pond are in. Mr. King's issue is addressed by moving the setbacks. (Item #4 on their list

was addressed by moving the building envelope.) Some of the agreements, Steve Voch said, are the same as they

were before, except for the wastewater agreement.

Al asked Steve about items 11 & 12. We do have the Town Attorney who will review all these agreements

including the wetland permits and the Army Corps of Engineers as well as town agreements. They have the CUD

from the State and they have Green Mt. Power. The agreements are that they will be done before roadways are

built. Steve does not want to put the exact location of the well in case it has to move over a few feet. However,

Charlie said it is important if they do move the well sites it must be reported to the Town. He cited an example of

a recent one where a leach field could not be built because it would end up next to his neighbor's new well.

It says on the notes that "At this time waste water disposal ...is not available for lots 16, 17 & 18 and there-

fore these are not developable lots." If for some reason, there is additional wastewater disposal capacity John

would like to see a deferral in the future.

Charlie asked what the street names would be, for E–911. They will be "Sheehan Green" and "Sheehan

Green West." Charlie said before these are approved they have to go before the Fire & Rescue department and

the Selectboard.

Jim Donovan noted a discrepancy on the map that was supposed to have been changed. Steve said it was a

good call, about the 50' buffer zone for the wetlands and the building envelope. It will be a much smaller building

envelope, but a higher (in elevation) one.

Charlie said the time for warning the final hearing is passed, so the next hearing is on October 20, 1998.

[At this point, because it was after 9:00 p.m., Jeff McDonald excused himself.]

4. Bergman / Stone, Bittersweet Lane, Sketch Plan Review for Subdivision Modification: Chip Stone and

his wife, Susan Atwood Stone appeared before the Planning Commission and have authorization to act for the co-

applicant, Bob Bergman.

Current driveway for this property is different than the right–of–way that is shown on the map. There is a

barn on the property that is on the piece of property they are buying from Mr. Bergman. They plan on removing

the barn, even though they would have preferred to renovate it. But they have found it to be deteriorating on one

end and moving off its foundation on the other end and cannot afford to do the major work it would need.

David Allen asked about the frontage that the Bergman property would have after this approximately half-

acre acquisition. They will have approximately 100' of frontage. There is an existing right–of–way that starts on

Bergman's property for the Hamiltons, and crosses over the Stone property. It is for the Hamiltons, the Berg-

mans, and the Lavallees. Bergman has a house site. Mr. Pete and Mr. Lavallee have homes adjoining the Stone

property also. Even though they won't have a large frontage the 60–foot right–of–way will still be enough access

for Mr. Bergman to get to his property.

Al Moraska moved to classify this application as a Subdivision Modification of a Minor Subdivision.

Jim Donovan seconded the motion for classification. That vote was approved, 5–0 with 1 absent. The applicants

will have to come in with their map as soon as the survey is done and make out the applications.

5. Royce and Roger Bora, Final Plat Signing, for Boundary Adjustment. Chairman Moraska signed the

plat subject to the acreage being put on the map: it is 1.98 acres for Roger and 2.6 acres for Royce.

6. More General Business: (a) Mr. Hamilton asked if the Planning Commission would want to place an

extension of the moratorium on towers. The Selectboard is taking it up at their Monday meeting. Charlie said

he'd like to give them a background on it first. Any new towers have to go before the Act 250. And Zoning

Ordinance Section 5.10, Antennas and Windows, says they have to go before the Zoning Board of Adjustment

under Section 6.4 which requires the Board to review applications and among other things determine that it would

not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood, traffic, obnoxious noise, electrical interference etc. It

gives the Zoning Board of Adjustment quite some substantial things to review under Conditional Use. It also

requires them to come before the Planning Commission and they need to insure that it meets aesthetics of the

surroundings, and all the other things that the Planning Commission have to do to meet the regulations. So we

have, Charlie said, already in place, review mechanisms on two different boards. The moratorium is for 180 days

to allow towns that don't have these regulations, to be able to enact them.

He noted that Ed Melby had brought information back with him last Spring, from the Vermont League of

Cities & Towns, a memo relating to a lot of these things. He referred specifically to the last paragraph on the

memo. He went over all these points with Larry Hamilton, and Larry seemed to be relieved that we had these

mechanisms in place.

David Allen asked Charlie if he was aware of the application for a change on the tower on Spear Street.

Charlie said he had been aware of this since the AT&T people who own it, had to make an application to the FCC

so people have been watching that and have been keeping the Town informed of these things. The next thing they

have to do is to apply for an Act 250 Permit, and make a Zoning Board of Adjustment "Change of Use" applica-

tion. Any change also requires that they come before the Planning Commission: because it is a pre-existing, non-

conforming use. Any change in use including their strobe lights (that are no longer there, you will note), require

them to go through these applications. So we are not unprotected here in Charlotte, he said. If you feel that we

are unprotected in any way then we can go ahead with this moratorium.

Al Moraska concluded that any extension of the moratorium for another 6 months would gain nothing that

isn't already covered by present regulations. The tower proponents have only to follow the regulations that are

already in place, and cannot proceed without doing so.

Jim Donovan said they should support looking into updating the regulations where necessary, but whether

that means extending the moratorium, he is unsure. Charlie reminded them that when they extend the moratorium

it means they must do a lot of things with the Town Plan that deal with more than just the communications towers

including housing and all the other hot topics. You would need to stop the process just to look at one component

of the whole Town Plan.

Ed Melby suggested that we inform Mary Beth Freeman that Charlotte already has this protection in place.

Jim Donovan said he thinks it doesn't hurt to take a look at updating the regulations as we need to, but without

the moratorium in place; we're not in the situation of having nothing. Charlie said there is a lot going on with

Mary Beth Freeman and her attorneys, and the tower proponents and their attorneys; and there is another hearing

on Monday night with the Charlotte Board of Health, which challenges any tower movement.

Charlie reported that the Vermont League of Cities & Towns is encouraging towns to look at existing towers

with the idea of co–location. If you fight putting facilities on the AT&T tower, does that mean somebody is going

to propose a tower in another location?

Al Moraska said the feeling is (among the Planning Commission) our regulations are adequate, and we

don't need another 180 day moratorium, and for the record, we intend to further examine these regulations and to

make the necessary changes and updates.

6.b (still General Business) Grant Application: Al Moraska noted that the Planning Commission has received

a letter for Linda Hamilton of the Conservation Commission asking for help on writing a grant. This is money

that they want for mapping. Ed Melby said Linda has asked for help from different agencies and has been turned

down, but this is another one and the deadline is next Monday, 28 September. In looking at the application and

those that she has previously submitted, it appears that the information is already there but Linda is out of town

and cannot do this herself.

Ed Melby said if the Planning Commission can give them some help in getting that done, they should. He

said Chittenden County has $35,000 out of the $350,000 that the Legislature allocated. David Allen said that

with 6 days until the deadline realistically all we could consider is just changing the title on the application and

submitting the same grant application; this doesn't allow much time. Ed agreed that something like that is what

he had in mind.

Charlie said the Conservation Commission hasn't discussed it with him and he isn't able to write a separate

grant in that length of time. They need to answer the question of whether they have any competing applications

for this money, and the answer is, no at this time and there is less than a week left to ask for this.

Ed said Linda had done a good job of research in her previous application but said none of us on this board

have had experience in doing this. Charlie asked them for the application forms; it just needs Selectboard

approval after it is filled out, he observed.

David Allen said he supports making the application if it fits the criteria and is feasible between now and the

28th of September, but unless it's pretty well ready to go that may be unlikely. The new application hasn't been

signed, but it is in Charlie's hand and he will do what he can within the time constraints.

David Allen moved to adjourn this meeting. Jim Donovan seconded the motion and it was approved, 4–0

with 2 absent. (Dave Brown also had to leave.)

Submitted by Nancy Lane