TOWN PLAN HEARING

Guests Signed in:

Martha Perkins

Nancy Walsh

Harley D. Allen

Shirley W. Allen

Sylvia Knight

Nancy Sabin

Phyllis Lary

Michael I. Yantachka

Mary Illick

Linda Radimer

Jennifer Owen Adsit

Clark Hinsdale, III

John Rosenthal

Larry Hamilton

Linda S. Hamilton

Eleanor Russell

Mary G. Lighthall

Louis Laberge

Spin Richardson

Arthur Ridge

Mary Beth Freeman

Sylvia Sprigg

John P. Oren

Stephen C. Brooks

Ed Melby, moderating this hearing on the update of the Town Plan, gave a brief history of stages of its development. It was started by the previous planner, Charles Burnham, but after he resigned we were fortunate to have Kit Perkins, who is a local resident trained in planning, to assist us for a few weeks until Dean Bloch came on board as half-time Planner for the Town of Charlotte. Kit Perkins has written recently saying she has just accepted a position as the Vice President of Planning Operations for a company in Boston. We are very pleased for her, Ed said, and introduced Eric Fellinger, Staff Planner from the Chittenden Count Regional Planning Office, who has agreed to assist Dean in fielding questions about the Town Plan draft.

Martha Perkins asked the Planning Commission what the major differences are. Ed Melby said each of the Planning Commission members was on a committee, which held its own meetings and made its own changes. But Dean Bloch has read and re-read the Plan many times and has done some editing on it so he asked Dean to answer.

Dean said this is for the Planning Commission’s public hearing as part of the process. The next part of this process is for the Selectboard to have two public hearings and then to go before the Town of Charlotte for a vote. He predicts that this will probably not please 100% of the people 100% of the time, but we hope to make the Town a place in which we want to live.

This update is more specific in some areas but has the same goals. They are on the same track but they have tried to concentrate in honing in that vision with regards to the different parts of town. Most are items that have been in from the earlier version. Certainly those discussions are worthwhile to have, he said.

John Rosenthal said he likes Martha’s question but surely there must be some one thing, and that may be one thing is what they like about it. Martha added that there appears to be more emphasis on villages. Those are the kinds of changes that she feels need more discussion.

Jim Donovan said they had discussed whether to have individual presentations for this hearing; however they didn’t want to take up all the time of this hearing for it. Instead, they wanted to focus on what folks thought after reading the plan and they wanted to hear folks’ concerns. Larry Hamilton agreed with that; he said we need to be doing some homework ourselves to see the new plan. If we have the board do all the explaining we will never read it ourselves. David Woolf also agreed: If we say what the strengths and weaknesses are then we may miss things important to others.

Linda Radimer (from the Conservation Commission) said Charlotte’s Town Plan is well known as a model, such as the things stressing village settlements in the earlier plan. This is not a new concept, she said.

Clark Hinsdale, III is concerned whether the emphasis on the Village is realistic. He said he is not willing to concede that the Town’s development plan will be as preferable as p.r.d.’s are over large scale development. He is not convinced the town will be well served if each large piece finds an area to cluster. The 1987–88 plan that was dropped, was because it had places picked out for development. There were “sending areas” and “receiving areas” so that there was this alarming–looking map that had all these pre-picked out areas for development.

East and West Charlotte might not be interested in hosting 70% of the new growth for the Town, he said. He thought it might be valuable to discuss planning blocks that are larger than individual parcels, where you are looking for a place within these blocks to parcel. Clark said he is a proponent of the prospect of transferable development rights. Whether we could develop a series of performance standards that would allow clustered development on parcels larger than on a single parcel basis, but yet smaller than the urban growth boundaries within the East and West Charlotte Village areas, is a question that he has wondered about since he has been involved in studying the last three or four Town Plans.

The reason that this is important right now, he said, is that there is in the works a major overhaul of the State septic regulations. The current barriers in the Town of Charlotte are soils-based. We have to do this Town Plan as if all the area in Charlotte that is not ledges or wetlands, will be developable.

Ed Melby added to that – Tuesday of this week Ed had sat in on a day-long meeting hosted by the Chittenden Community Housing Summit hosted by homebuilders, realtors, and others from all walks of life. Basically they were projecting what has happened throughout Chittenden County and throughout the State, and what will happen in the future. One of the comments was that in trying to control “Urban Sprawl” they were emphasizing that 60% of the increase in housing has got to occur in the existing town and village centers. It cannot be allowed to sprawl or it will look like northern New Jersey. There is a lot of concern about what is happening in Chittenden County in general, and Ed agrees that Charlotte has been protected by the heavy clay soils which limit the ability to handle septic. But that is likely to change with the State’s proposed septic changes. With the general influx of people to this area and yet to have us continue to enjoy the quality of life as we have, it’s a major issue along with the problem of addressing the low income housing that is not even in this Town Plan.

Nancy Sabin asked Clark if he was proposing to transfer some development right to Williston, where he had brought it before the Regional Development Board. Clark said that proposal had been made before, but had been turned down by the Selectboard because they felt it would erode the tax base. But that was before Act 60. The way Act 60 is now, with the tax sharing in Act 60 you can look at offsite mitigation and if this is specifically put into the Town Plan, then the preserved land in the Town of Charlotte would be considered regional – the Mt. Philo State Park, the Demeter Park and the Ferry are regional resources and could command that it be called a regional resource – and land conservation in our town and clustered development with so-called regional and sub-regional growth centers could be appropriate.

Sylvia Knight asked, for herself and for others who are not familiar with the term, “What is a p.r.d.?” Nancy Sabin asked about a dictionary in the Town Plan. — Jim assured her that a glossary is being worked on and there will be one in the final Town Plan. Clark defined it: “A p.r.d. is a Planned Residential Development. It’s a tool that can be used to cluster or arrange houses on a site so as to enable it to retain some of the open space.” Sylvia said she didn’t quite understand the “mitigation.”

Jim Donovan explained — there is a 5-acre minimum for each house, so a 25-acre site could have 5 lots of 5-acres apiece. With a simple p.r.d., there could still be 5 lots, but each lot could be one acre in size, leaving 20 acres of open space permanently protected. With the offsite mitigation, there is a transfer of development rights. Suppose there were two, 25-acre sites. One could purchase the development rights from the other 25-acre lot, put its additional 5 allowed lots on the first site so that there are now 10 lots on the first 25 acres and because you’ve bought the development rights on the second 25 acres then the whole of the second 25-acre site would be permanently protected. (That’s because they injured the first 25 acres, she said.) Sylvia said the loss of wetlands were a concern to her. She didn’t want to see a loss of the Charlotte wetlands.

Clark said most of the request for offsite mitigation came from Williston because the Taft’s Corners development is all prime farmland. But Charlotte could be on the receiving end of that offsite mitigation and end up with more of the preserved land. Taft’s Corners is a designated growth area. Sylvia said she realized we need to act locally but think regionally.

Sylvia Sprigg (as one of the Village Committee members) said that when they talked about villages they were identifying the two villages. Yet they were also talking about hamlets, such as clusters with some focal point, whether it be a recreation place or a natural resource, or a major shared septic area. They thought that would be a way of saying this was a better place for development than having it stripped along major highways, or looking like a “Butlers Farm” in the middle of the fields around it. There has to be a different way of approaching having houses in our community than 5 acres cutting up 60 acres in a meadow. That was what we were describing as villages, not just dumping all the houses or the majority of houses in the two villages that already have septic problems. We were concerned with the identity problem of people already in the village having the capacity to add extra housing in there. We were trying to deal with clustered housing and not wanting it to look like Butlers Farm or like the strips in the roadways. We were looking at the Town’s other resources.

Larry Hamilton said he likes that but it doesn’t appear to be expressed in this plan. Sylvia said he is right, it does not reflect all of the comments that were expressed in the committee discussions.

Marty Illick said on Page 105 when it discusses village areas and policies, it reminds her of Colchester a little bit with little villages all over. She thinks the wording says they can put a village anywhere in town. She said the Town shouldn’t be saying such dramatic things for only a 5-year plan.

Phyllis Lary agreed with Marty and asked about Item 3 in that section. It refers to both village areas as distinct from one another. What does that mean? Why, she asks; how do you enforce that they will stay that way?

Sylvia Sprigg said East Charlotte has basically inferred through surveys and through a development pattern that they don’t want to change. What will evolve will evolve naturally. But West Charlotte has already stated that they have potential on the edges, fringes of the village and this area has already been identified as a municipal center for town services. In that way the two villages are distinct and different. So you are not expecting to have a senior center and a senior housing project or a recreation area up in East Charlotte. But that’s possible in West Charlotte. That was the intent.

Spin Richardson said he strongly objects to the idea that Charlotte was selected to accept all the growth for Chittenden County. He said he doesn’t want to ruin his view of the open fields just because he lives in a village area, just so someone else can save their view of open fields. He said he strongly objects to that. On page 108 the wording has been changed from the original document on page 98 where the preservation of historic districts was non-binding. Now all of a sudden it’s mandatory. Not only do you tell us that we are going to accept all of the growth and development, he said, but in fact you are going to tell us what we can do with our property and what it will look like, and that we will have to go to the Planning Commission or the Zoning Board for permission when no one else has to, and we object to that.

Shirley Allen discussed Historic Districts. The attitude that we had at that point was that it would be flexible but not effective. But if the Town designates a Historic District, then we’ve lost, because the State takes over. State regulation Section 4407 #15.) The State tells the Town exactly what to do. If you want to do anything, and there are about 5 words in there such as “add-to,” “alter” etc. It takes away the Town’s ability to advise, and substitutes it with the State’s “must.” So Shirley said she agrees with Nancy Sabin and also objects.

Jim Donovan said the Historic Districts are there already. Harley Allen cautioned that if Historic Districts are in the plan then they have to be put into the Zoning Regulations, so they had better be careful what they put in the plan.

Eric pressed Jim about this. Jim said there are currently 7 historic districts identified by the State within the Town of Charlotte. Sylvia Knight said that should be made clear within the plan, then. As far as having historic districts, she said she has lived in several states that have them and it’s a nightmare. She thinks it’s premature for the Town of Charlotte.

Dean said there are a number of historic districts in Chittenden County, and Williston has one. He doesn’t think people are afraid of them but for structural changes they do have to go to the Village Historic District for approval. But the Historic District would be made up of village residents. He said he knows that this is controversial and it warrants discussion. He suggested bringing in people from other towns to see what they are experiencing.

Spin Richardson: “You want to control my property. Does this mean you will reduce my taxes, then?” You want to tell me what color I can paint my house, he said. You say my house is Queen Anne Victorian, but that door that I want to put on there is modernistic and you say that I can’t do that. He objects to having someone tell him what he cannot do with his house or what color he can paint it.

Ed Melby said the flip side of that is living in a historic district, when somebody moves in next door who is freakishly modernistic and paints the house sky-blue pink and 3 other colors, you wouldn’t appreciate that either, so there has to be compromise. Skip said he is Libertarian enough that he wouldn’t care; whatever the neighbor wants on his own property, he’s paying the taxes.

Spin said there wasn’t a historic district there 28 years ago when he moved in. Now he has paid for it, and he objects to having someone in the town tell him that he has to leave it the way it is because they like to look at it.

Eric wants to limit the discussion, but asked for last comments on this. Sylvia Knight asks what the process, if people wanted this change eliminated in the Town Plan. Dean said the Planning Commission would take comments in this taped hearing into consideration before submission to the Selectboard for its two hearings prior to the final vote.

Clark hopes people will feel the same way when they map some of his lands as scenic corridors or wetlands. But he agrees that this town is not ready to administer Historic District covenants. When he sold the Mount Philo Inn he had put historic covenants on it, but then the Planning and Zoning Office gave those buyers a variance to make some alterations that were prohibited under the covenants, so it does not work. That said, he reminds folks that because the village predates zoning, the buildings are close to the road and close to the property lines. That can be beneficial to anyone within the village district that maintains the status quo, that is they can usually under certain guidelines add and alter things as long as their changes do not worsen the problem.

Eric said it is his job to see that one issue does not overshadow others, and suggested there could be one night held just to discuss this one of historic districts. He asked for questions on something new.

Nancy Sabin brought up an item on Page 129, and people’s civil rights: Green path corridors approved by the Planning Commission and Selectboard shall be implemented through negotiation with landowners and through the donation of easements during the subdivision process. This is communistic or socialistic, etc. she said. And she doesn’t want the trails to go through her backyard. If someone wanted to find all the landowners on these trails, then it would more than fill the school gymnasium if they were to hold a hearing on this “donation.”

Nancy continued: Re Page 130, Item 4: Crossing of Town roads with private force mains or other utilities shall not be permitted except to provide sewage disposal for existing failed systems for which no other feasible alternatives are available. Appropriate bylaws and/or ordinances shall be amended as such. This means if she wants to get cable from transmission lines across the road, she cannot? Jim Donovan agreed, that is what it says, but that is not what they meant in writing it, so that will have to be clarified.

The next thing is further down on Page 130, Private Roads strategies No. 1: The Town should collect annual reports from homeowner’s association showing that adequate road maintenance has been completed, and No. 2: The Town will establish within the next two years a long term policy to ensure that privately developed roads are properly maintained. So they are asking the associations to do what they, themselves do not do.

Eric asked if the Planning Commission wants to address these issues. Jim Donovan said the people on the committees who wrote this up are not here tonight, so he asked Dean Bloch to reply.

Dean said, for Item 2 about the green paths, it’s fairly accepted process that when the Town has established that there is a path on a particular property, and then there is a subdivision happening on it, they try to get it put into the approval. There are some areas where there have been suits regarding that, and case law is evolving. Harley Allen said just because other municipalities blackmail their residences, doesn’t mean the Town of Charlotte should do it.

Clark said the wrong word there is “donate.” The existing regulations already have provisions for a trail corridor through the open space that goes with a p.r.d. but he doesn’t think the town means to put a trail corridor through the residential development. Donation is not the right word; it is a trade-off.

Spin said the way this reads, it is not in this document. If someone wants to have 5, 5-acre lots it still says that the Town can go in and demand an easement through that piece of property. But Clark said the current regulations prevent that, because parcels of 25 acres or more must have a p.r.d. and open space. This talks about 20 acres, and if that is divided into two, 10-acre pieces it must have a trail easement through them. That would be a change in current policy.

Nancy Sabin talked about the trails map. She said she would be upset if she were Horsford’s Nursery and saw that proposed trails were going on her property. And Richard Leboeuf has some property shown on there on which he has discovered there is a proposed equestrian trail going through his property, and also a walking trail. Then there’s the septic easement and a 60-ft. right of way. So he’s got four things identified for his property and yet he’s still paying $30,000 in taxes on it with no tax abatement.

Eric said the trails are laid out with negotiation rights. The idea of this map is to mediate the rights of the landowners with the Town’s desire to have trails. Jim said they call them “potential trail links.” The Town would like to have a trail link from the Demeter Trails to the Town Hall, but that’s why there’s a 500' link drawn. It only means they would like to have a link.

Linda Radimer said it was meant to be vague; every parcel has to be laid out very carefully according to streams, wetlands, hazards, and the landowners’ wishes.

Shirley Allen said she objects to one word on Page 6, Objectives: Support property owner’s rights... has been substituted for Balance property owner’s rights... She feels the “support” word is a lot weaker, and wants the old wording to be reinstated, or even to substitute the wording Ensure property owner’s rights...

Sylvia Sprigg had a comment on the Utilities subject brought up by Nancy Sabin. We have septic systems that go for two miles. This concept says you can’t even go across the road with some usable land on that other side. Part of the reason for the ground water studies, she said, was to find resources.

Martha Perkins asked Dean to explain why he put the things on Page 130 down. Dean said this could have come from the transportation committee.

Louis Laberge said the changing lands and soil types, with gravel and clay areas sometimes across the road from each other, would cause problems with this ruling.

Spin said he would like to address adequate electric utilities. There is only one power line to service Hills Point and every time a bird lands on it they have a power outage. That line has no public right of way so it cannot be enhanced. Any building permit can’t happen with a right of way to improve the line, but there is one landowner who will not allow GMP to have a permit.

Clark added another issue. He would like to see some coordination with neighboring communities to avoid the clutter of curb cuts. Two businesses in Ferrisburgh have expanded, but Ferrisburgh has done nothing about limiting curb cuts that have happened with those. Marty Illick said she agrees with what Clark Hinsdale (III) has said. And they should take that to the eastern border as well, Marty said, and added we should think about how to improve relationships with the nearby towns of Hinesburg, Vergennes and Shelburne places of business. This should be stated in the Plan and we should share in the planning and decide how intense development should be and how much land do we really need in this plan to do further manufacturing and industrial development, since the nearby towns are hubs to us. We need to put in the plan that we accept that these nearby towns are hubs, and yet not need to copy each of those towns, Marty said.

Sylvia Sprigg suggested that we in Charlotte should not expect something regional in our Town but be a little less snobbish. We don’t need to be alone, but need to accept some regional things. Other Towns will be looking at us, and we don’t want to have to accept what they might “dump” on us because they don’t want them (perhaps including the crematory). We need to tone down our objections.

Clark said we accept great hordes of traffic to hike up Mount Philo, and traffic for the Ferry crossing, and traffic for those who want to hike in Demeter Park. Then there is the Town Beach which is public, so we can’t turn away non-residents for that, either. We host a couple of marinas, we host people who look at our three covered bridges, so one of our biggest contributions to the region is our farmland and the scenery, and is our public recreation.

Nancy Sabin said sometimes the only things the visitors want is a public bathroom. For instance, she asked Josie Leavitt, how many people come to your bookstore and within 3 minutes ask if she has a bathroom. Then they leave the store with nothing in their hands. Very few of us in Charlotte businesses get any benefit from the people who come to Charlotte for the recreation. But like Marty, Nancy said, she has to go to Hinesburg to get a pack of hamburger... although you can buy a pack of hotdogs.

Nancy went on to refer to Page 81, first full paragraph, third sentence: There is concern that with most working people who live in Charlotte employed out of Town, as the Town grows, there will be too few people who live in Charlotte to volunteer to respond to an emergency in adequate time during working hours (generally from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.). Additional local employment should be encouraged to increase the number of Charlotte residents in the local Charlotte workforce. This would potentially increase the number of available volunteers to serve daytime Fire and Rescue call shifts and may reduce the need for paid staff. The wording should be improved, Nancy said. Charlotte has been fortunate not to have had a major fire.

Dean asked where anyone could put a hamburger stand; where would that go except for West Charlotte village.

Nancy suggested, here, down at Sylvia’s place, East Charlotte. Sylvia said each one of us has heard stories of people who wanted to expand their businesses and were unable to do so. Olivia’s Croutons, for instance, has had to move to Hinesburg because she couldn’t expand. There are people who want to come into town to have a small business. Not a major business, but even a landscaping business or a painting business. They need to be in a commercial district. We are not even acknowledging that we need to have commercial space. Even the Creamie owner near the Ferry dock can’t expand.

Marty Illick thinks we should be doing a better job. She believes having the Industrial district on Route 7 South, to be contributing to sprawl. She looks at Middlebury and all those towns along Route 7 all contribute to sprawl. We have always thought that and keeping the already zoned industrial and commercial zoning on Route 7 south reminds her of Middlebury, where the southern part of Route 7 is all strip development. She said if we let that happen from F5 to Mt. Philo, it will all be strip development.

Martha Perkins referred to Page 114 No. 7, A Charlotte Business or Economic Development Committee will be established within one year by the Selectboard. This is a really good idea, she said. It is probably a perfectly fine idea for the Creamie to be able to expand. The Planning Commission and the Selectboard should keep their minds open about this. But Marty thinks that if some keep putting up other villages, then she worries what it’s coming to.

Nancy Sabin answered about this. Wildwood West is a village, Ten Stones is a village (Marty said those are neighborhoods). Whether we like it or not, these little neighborhoods are villages, Nancy said.

Spin said he doesn’t have the answer when people talk about sprawl. But when we need to have a store that has fresh hamburger in it, then there has to be traffic by the door, and when this is a town with about 3,000 people in it there would be trouble for any small store to survive, unless the store has some road frontage. If you say that’s not the image we want in Town so we put it back in the corner where it doesn’t show, then the traffic won’t know where it is. We have to say we aren’t willing to let people know where such a store is, and this would damage the business before it even starts. We don’t have a drug store, although pharmacies now are getting killed by the mail order business. But if we get used to mail order and then need an emergency prescription filled we can’t wait for mail order.

Clark said Marty was laying that dichotomy out when she said that she travels five miles in each direction for services. When this was laid out, travel was by horse and buggy, but now we are talking about minutes to services instead of miles. Clark said if the Planning Commission wants to keep the traffic flowing along Route 7, then the things Marty said make sense. You can’t have development with services down on Route 7.

Eric said people are allowed to talk about the Regional Plan as it relates to Charlotte. But Sylvia said that is why people talked about hamlets as villages.

Nancy: When did we vote that we didn’t want anything at all on Route 7? Clark said they didn’t want curb cuts and so forth, for the last 3 Town Plans. But she verified that the two commercial districts are down at Palmer’s garage (where the industrial/commercial zone is) and where the flea market is, a little south and across the road from the garage at F5 (Ferry Road and Route 7), and the two village districts are “mixed use” with some commercial and some residential.

Sylvia said if we want to have businesses only away from Route 7 and down past some residential areas then those residential folks are sooner or later going to complain about the number of trucks and farm equipment that have to go by their residences. We have mostly dirt roads in town. When the farmers and homeowners want to have more home-based businesses it is encouraged, however.

Martha Perkins wanted to make a statement: Two places on Route 7 that are commercial do not add up to sprawl, and she wishes that Clark and Marty would stop using that word.

Marty said she did confer with Dana Farley and still feels that this location (down at Palmer’s garage area) is the beginning of a sprawl situation. She thinks it is “spot zoning.”

Spin asks, if it were not on Route 7 it would be okay? Marty said no. So Martha asked where that same amount of acreage could be replaced in the village. Clark said he has observed that the property has had a for sale or for lease sign on it for his entire lifetime. He thinks the marketplace does not support it. But Mary Beth Freeman said she doesn’t see why this can’t be tucked away for future use; it doesn’t need to be developed immediately. She does not see a need to have a plan for every inch of the Town right now. She said she is hearing that this piece of property should not be developed, ever. What is the point?

Nancy Sabin said, “This is too bad that this is a real hot potato; she observed that the old Town Plan voted this piece to be saved for industrial / commercial use. When the Town Attorney ordered the Selectboard to write up a petition, it appears to be a balancing act of the “usses” and “thems.” The old “usses” voted this to be a legal industrial piece of property. It was specifically worded, for each piece, to be a “yes” or a “no.” Now it’s becoming something that’s not nice. It’s just not nice. When a paid Town Attorney is asked by a Selectboard member to write up the petition and then somebody else... (one not even a resident) actively gets the signatures... It’s just bad news. It’s just bad news the way it happened, it’s bad news in my opinion that even though Selectboard people as individuals have the right to sign petitions, as far as I’m concerned only one Selectboard member should be hearing the case. Who’s to say if you don’t want to sell something you might put on it a higher price just it hasn’t sold or because you don’t want to sell it right away. I can’t imagine that this shouldn’t remain in the Town Plan, and common sense would say that a Town vote would have to vote this piece of property out — that is the Palmer piece of property.”

Next issue: Shirley Allen referred to Page 71 about State Water Quality Standards: “Is Charlotte allowing sludge to be spread on farm fields?” Jim Donovan replied that whatever the State allows, the Town of Charlotte allows. He noted that the Town was against a requirement preventing it. Shirley asked if we have an option to make our own rules for this.

Marty Illick: re Silviculture: She said it appears that the only reference is to Productive Woodlands. Marty said there needs to be language in there, defining it in more detail. Mike Yantachka named several sections in there. All we have talked about before were in the context of agriculture. These, Marty said, are parts of the economy and that is where it stops. Pages 41 and 43 do have something in there, but Marty said when she sees in the Table of Contents she doesn’t see it really defined about it. Eric said it appears that there is a lot of talk about the economy today in the media, but there is a tendency to separate “the economy” from “agriculture and forestry.” It should be recognized that agriculture and forestry are part of the economy. Shirley asked if the Town will have a definition of silviculture, that is as extensive and clearly defined as agriculture. If it said that forestry operations and forestry-related services had to come from the property to be called forestry.

Clark said it would be good if the language in our Town Plan were to be more closely parallel to the language in the State definitions. It would be better if we were to adopt in the Town Plan such language, and to keep us more protected in defining whether or not someone was doing forestry or not doing forestry. At the least it should be defined clearly in the Town Plan.

Nancy Sabin said that on Page 43 through 45, it should state that the Town of Charlotte subsidizes 100% of the Current Use Program. A frightening statistic would be to make a statement of what it costs the Town of Charlotte last year or this, compared to what it costs the City of Burlington (only 2%). We are back to the invaders from the other towns enjoying the fruit of what it’s costing us to preserve open land. It’s not only the cost of the Current Use Program that the State dumped on us, she said. But at a certain point the Town of Charlotte is going to have too much land that doesn’t have a tax base. The Selectboard has to have a referendum or vote, that the Town of Charlotte will no longer support more than a (name the percentage) certain percent of land that has no tax base.

Eric said while it is true that if you don’t have development on a property you don’t get any tax revenue, but it’s also generally true that you don’t give out any money on the cost as well. Harley Allen disagreed; if you don’t have any development on it you still get taxes up the bazzoo. And there are still services, Shirley added.

Nancy Sabin agreed that now that the development rights were stripped, and the Demeter Property’s trails were a beautiful gift — but now you don’t have houses built, and you don’t get the $12,000 in taxes that the property used to give. At a certain point the Town cannot accept 25 “Demeter Farms” because that would bring in too little taxes.

Martha said the opposite of that would be — What would you do with that land, and the costs of what would be put on that land might be more than what it is now.

Clark said there are two things that are happening here. One is that some of it is publicly owned land such as the Demeter Park and has the development rights stripped won’t be paying taxes; it went from paying farmland taxes, to paying no taxes on it. But there is at this time, 43% of the land in Charlotte that is in Current Use. That land when stripped of its development rights, is paying the same amount of taxes that it is paying now. So with the Current Use level, the Town Listers in the Town of Charlotte charge more for preserving the farm land than what the value is as farm land (contrary to State law).

Dean said, with regards to the Town Plan we need to define what the implications are for Current Use. Another person said it does cost public taxpayers more, rather than saying, “All undeveloped land is a liability.”

Skip on Page 130, No. 6, All water quality should be protected. When you have an aquifer, it would stop a person from building, if a person wanted to build on his own land someone could come along and stop it by claiming that there is an aquifer supplying his well. Harley said that is probably not true. The surface water does not prove where the water is, because the well water generally comes from deep in the ground and under ledges. Harley added that from geological studies, the water generally comes from further down under the shale edge. Probably it comes from over towards Montpelier (which drew laughter and comments of “That’s what’s wrong with the water.”).

Dean wanted to add an answer to Nancy. The cost of housing according to some studies, is generally higher than leaving the field open. Spin countered by asking if the cost of housing is the same for a small house in the village is the same as a $500,000 house on 5 acres outside the village, and the answer is, it depends on how many children are in the family.

On Page 131, Linda Hamilton asked when the moratorium on telecommunications towers expires. Jim said they have an interim moratorium that is for two years. The Town Plan needs to put in the date. Marty, on this subject, said in her opinion there should be a sentence to the effect that “The Town will monitor the future tower needs as federal law enables, and will study the health effects of r.f.i. interference, and the Town will consider...” Jim Donovan asked Marty to give him a copy of her suggestion.

John Rosenthal commented on Page 131 also. “As funds allow” should say, “as funds will allow.” Dean said things cannot happen until the Selectboard authorizes it in any case. The Town encourages or would like, but still each thing has to be authorized.

Larry added that on Page 138 it says, “in year 1.”

Harley Allen (Zoning Board Chair): The Zoning Regulations are supposed to implement the Town Plan, and where you say, they “will” or “shall” then it’s up to the Zoning Board of Adjustment to enforce it. So unless you mean that that’s what you want enforced, you’d better put “should.” If there is a controversy and it goes to court, the Town Plan overrules the Zoning Regulations. It had better be clear.

Marty commented on Page 133: No. 10 about railroad crossings. It says railroad crossings within the town will be gated crossings. We don’t have that kind of control, so it would be better to state the intent. Jim Donovan said it was specifically requested that we word it this way, in discussions with the State. Marty said we should instead put in the words, “It shall be safe.”

Spin said that wording should not be in there because, for instance, the Town may want to make a bike path and there are all kinds of cautions and it is made as safe as possible — but a neighbor who doesn’t want that bike path can then use the wording against us and say, you can’t have that bike path because you are not going to gate it.

Nancy: In No. 8, Bike lanes of 4' on Class 2 highways, does this mean 2' on each side? Or 4' on each side? And Marty added the question of whether the bike path is alongside the road or away from the road. Most of the roads in Town are Class 3. Jim said the way this is interpreted is to have the paths 4' on each side. Otherwise it is a variance.

Sylvia Sprigg said she had worked on bike paths, for the MPO there is some evolving work on how to deal with that; in a small rural setting it might be better to have a path on only one side because on small rural roads it is not practical.

Spin Richardson said he observes the bike path in South Burlington that nobody uses, and was told by someone that the reason for that, is that it is never cleaned of stones and debris, so the bikers ride on the road.

Nancy said part of the problem of this is that people think we are still rural; a city has sidewalks, and now we need extra wide bike paths. Sometimes the road “skiers” are using Greenbush Road and it is a hazard. Class II roads are Spear Street and Route 7. Jim replied that this doesn’t say, and it probably should be expanded, the current lane widths don’t stay as wide as they are. This is another issue that is “subject to review.”

Martha had another statement to make on the Historic Preservation District: People who move into historic villages, in her opinion, understand the importance of preserving the district. If that’s going to be the cause of the Plan going down, we can afford that this not be so binding.

Clark: Goal 3, reduce fiscal burdens on the town. Does this, he said, “repeal Act 60?” Perhaps it should say, instead, “Encourage fiscal responsibility on the Town. Tax rate reduction could be a goal. Number 4.1 it says to make tax rate reduction a goal. You can’t regulate the use of the lake, but it may need to be clarified to say lakeshore instead.

Sylvia said the Town has nominal access to the lake that is unused.

Nancy: On the top of Page 7, 4.3, “with incentives to property owners” ... Marty offers wording on that which she will offer to Jim.

4.4, Provide controlled access to public land; whose open land; is it “Town land” or “public land.”

4.5, Restricted ... Zoning has to enable, Dean said this is carried over and is unchanged.

Page 6, 2.2, will that be changed as Shirley asked, “Support” changed back to Ensure or enhance.

Marty had more wording changes that she is suggesting regarding goals. Larry Hamilton has other suggestions on the same line about goals.

Clark said some of the “impact fees” could conflict with other goals.

Submitted by Nancy Lane

APPROVED BY THE CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION