CHARLOTTE
PLANNING COMMISSION
THURSDAY,
OCTOBER 2, 2003
6:30
PM
Charlotte
Town Hall – 159 Ferry Road
Members
Present:
Al
Moraska Gordon
Troy Robin Pierce
Members
Absent:
Jim
Donovan
Staff Present:
Dean
Bloch
Others
Present:
David
Miskell Bill Maclay Ellie
Russell
Linda
Hamilton Sheila Braun Linda Hamilton
Joe
Perotto This
needs to be completed
Chair
McDonald called the meeting to order at 6:42 p.m.
APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA AND
REGULAR AGENDA (Nothing on Consent Agenda)
Mr.
McDonald asked for comments. There were
none.
Mr.
McDonald asked for comments. There were
none.
DISCUSSION REGARDING
REOPENING FINAL PLAT HEARING AND SITE PLAN REVIEW HEARING FOR CHAMPLAIN VALLEY
CO-HOUSING IN CONSIDERATION OF WASTEWATER DISPOSAL ISSUES
Bill
Maclay gave a brief summary. He
explained that David Marshall redesigned the primary system so that it can be
approved under the 1996 regulations in a way that would be acceptable to the
town engineer. The replacement systems
still are an issue but under the 2007 regulations, it would not be an
issue. They are pursing conversations
with Clark Hinsdale regarding easements on the Berry Farm and looking at soils
on the large farm next door. Between
now and 2007, Mr. Maclay said there would be something compliant. They want the PC to leave their permit as it
is and the applicant recognizes that, prior to their building or selling off
the first lot, they would need a fully compliant system in order and they will
not wait until that time and CVCH will pursue with due diligence. Mr. Moraska asked about the redesign and
the number of gallons; Mr. Marshall answered that it has been redesigned at
8,000 gallons. Mr. Maclay said they would build the primary system based on
1996 regulations, not 2007 regulations.
There are 2 issues: building the
primary system to specifications in 1996 regulations and having capacity or
ability with all the easements in place between now and when the 2007
regulations come into play so that the system can be built if it has to
be.
David
Marshall has shown the sketch plan to Spencer but not in detail. Mr. Moraska asked when they will have the
additional 1700 gallons. Mr. Maclay
responded by saying it will take a month or two to resolve the engineering
issues due to negotiations with Clark Hinsdale, but that it is ongoing and the
applicant wants to finish it as soon as possible.
There
being no action required at this meeting, the PC thanked Mr. Maclay and they
went on to discuss the Greenwood America written decision.
Mr.
Moraska began by saying that he votes against this decision and project because
he had requested much lower square footage than is indicated in the written
decision. Mr. Diou agreed with Mr. Moraska. He went on to say that
people in the first house knew they were in violation of the rules and by
issuing the written decision in that format the PC would be condoning this
violation. He said that Greenwood
America was supposed to be “watching the store“ and they dropped the ball and
by allowing the proposed decision to go through, the PC would be awarding their
incompetence. Mr. Troy agrees with
both of them, but the problem is that if they multiply the 2,850 sq.ft. by 2,
that leaves 2,300 sq.ft. for the third house and if the real goal was to create
a neighborhood of similar size structures, for one house to be 2850 and the
other to be 2750/2800, and then to have one that is 2300 will throw the whole
project off. It will look peculiar he
thinks. He went on to say that this
project is something for the PC to learn by.
Mr. McDonald said that the PC had agreed that the third house could be
2,750 sq.ft., which would resolve it. Ms. Radminer said that a homebuilder
doesn’t have the same expertise of a developer and they are not aware of buffer
zones and square footage, so the PC has to say that the Town dropped the ball
on this.
The PC agreed that the third
lot would be 2,750 square feet.
Ed
Merritt began by stating that he was on the Board of Green Mountain Habitat for
Humanity and explained that the reason he arranged this meeting is that they
are looking to see about what may be possible in getting some property in
Charlotte and wanted to have a dialogue discussion with the Planning Commission
about possible areas for building affordable housing.
He
introduced Dave Mullen who addressed the PC.
Mr. Mullen said that people don’t know this segment of the population
and this segment is working families that can’t afford a home. He talked about applications they have
received from people. In the state of
Vermont, it is well hidden in most towns.
Until deemed socially irresponsible to allow substandard housing, Green
Mountain Habitat for Humanity (GMHH) feels that it is a disgrace to all of us
to have a working family live in that type of housing. He said he was hoping that the PC would
help lead this cause to enable those families that are living in Charlotte like
that to have better housing in this community. GMHH takes care of Chittenden County. They have built 24 homes.
He
went on to say that means of the Town helping could be in the form of land set aside, zoning, incentives for
builders, etc. He suggested also that
as the PC goes forward with different projects, that that be a component of
every project, e.g. is there an opportunity for these families in this
project? He also asked that it be
considered that if there are opportunities where the Town has a chance to purchase
a piece of land specifically, that affordable housing be the priority.
Mr.
McDonald asked if they had met with Charlotte’s affordable housing committee
yet. Mr. Mullen said that they had.
Mr.
Troy mentioned that a report was recently made in the context of changing the
zoning as it relates to affordable housing and recommended that they look at
that report He also said that there
isn’t a major subdivision project that comes before the PC that they do not
raise the question of affordable housing.
He went on to say that the answer the PC gets in return is that the
applicant cannot afford to do it. He
asked GMHH how to create the opportunity so that the developer can still make
money on the project or just break even and still do affordable housing on
those lots? Mr. Mullen said that until
it becomes not an acceptable answer that they can, it will continue to be this
way. Mr. Moraska said that Greenwood
America had expressed some interest in affordable housing and it may pay to
contact Mel Hawley to discuss this further.
Tony Stout said that he had talked with Mel Hawley when they were doing
an earlier project and they have not connected again, but will.
Tony
Stout put together 3 ideas in terms of amending the Town’s zoning ordinance to
help with the goal of affordable housing:
1.
Current density bonus is
if an applicant does 4 regular housing units, they can have a fifth as a bonus
but it must be affordable housing.
2.
Do affordable housing
for every 6 or 8 houses an applicant builds.
3.
Reduce the lot size
requirements for affordable homes (this would have to have design review (e.g.
2.5 acre lots instead of 5 acre lots)
Getting
land costs down is key to this, Mr. Stout said.
Jonathan
Fisher said that it is a good idea to have certain areas where you can get
smaller lot sizes and cluster houses.
Mr. McDonald said that they are “preaching to the choir,” because, as
Mr. Troy pointed out earlier, they do ask every applicant if affordable housing
could be part of their project. He went
on to say that the PC relies on committees to work with them because they don’t
have the time needed to devote to this issue, so they lean heavily on the
affordable housing committee.
Therefore, he said, he encourages them to merge their time with that
committee and then come back to the Planning Commission. Dave Mullen said when an opportunity comes
up, that involved groups speak up.
David Miskell said the co-housing community is not full (committed
people for the houses) and told Dave Mullen that maybe they can work something
out for them. Ms. Radimer said that the
units that were built up by I-89 have units that people can qualify for based
on a certain income level; mixed housing is a more appropriate way to distribute
that kind of housing. Clark Hinsdale,
III said that he thinks there are resources that we waste regularly and hope
that someone could pursue the matter if it is legal for the health ordinance to
be modified so that you could use the 2007 rules for certain categories of
projects that move the public agenda forward (conservation elements or
affordable housing elements). A
comment was made that going from 5 to 2.5 acre zoning may not be aggressive
enough (for affordable units). Clark
Hinsdale, III said that if we are aggressive with regulations, it is the
resources that could be freed up for affordable housing. Dean Bloch said that the PC did the village
plan and held a public forum and the room was full of people that were against
that idea, so more discussion will happen on that topic, but he said he thinks
that there is some selling to do in the Town.
Dave Mullen said it is always easy to say they want it as long as it
isn’t right near them. Mr. Troy
agreed, because perception is ‘yes that it is something we want to do’ but the
general perception on how that translates into use of resources in the Town
(public resources) and how it translates into the tax list is another
story. Jonathan Fisher said that by
cutting lot size in half it would lower the price of a lot and that would not
necessarily happen. Mr. Stout said that
as a condition of lower density, it would have to be used for affordable
housing. Mr. Fisher said the other thing is that if you go after looking at
some of the preexisting lots that are small and do have trails on them, they
are all over the Town. Dave Mullen
agrees with Mr. Fisher
Mr.
McDonald thanked everyone for their time.
CLARK AND SUZANNE HINSDALE
III: SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION TO ALLOW
THE CONVEYANCE OF 56.13 ACRES FROM LOT 1 TO LOT 3, CHANGE SEPTIC DISPOSAL ON
LOT 2, AND MODIFY DRIVEWAY AND BUILDING ENVELOPE ON LOT 2. PROPERTY LOCATED ON LOWER OLD TOWN TRAIL
ROUTE 7 AND STATE PARK ROAD, IN THE RURAL DISTRICT.
Clark Hinsdale, III addressed the PC. He showed on a map the property location. He explained that he acquired the three parcels at two different times. He gave a brief history of the conveyances and purchases of the land. He did on-site septic testing, so the septic system would go on Lot 2 and not off lot and the house site would be beside the septic area and not on top of it. Bob Bickford, the prospective buyer of Lot 2, explained that the space between the existing private driveway is heavy with big trees and where the driveway comes off from the trail now is where it is proposed to come off the other way and once those two split, there will be a clear separation with a wide wooded area and will afford both houses more privacy.
Linda
Hamilton asked the distance between the two drives; Mr. Hinsdale answered that
it is 40-50 feet and that the trail itself is 2 rods. Mr. Troy asked for the thoughts of the other neighbors that were
there (Art Mine [check this] and Bob Partnoy). Mr. Mine said that it is very nice and that they would like to
have as much of a screen as possible and the Old Town Trail provided the
screen. He went on to say that the Mr.
Hinsdale’s proposal works out nicely, but one question he had is that with
another house up there, traffic coming down the joint driveway will be
increased which is a dangerous situation and now that they have bicycle people
coming in there, this issue should be addressed. It is a blind corner and if someone is coming up from south, if a
truck is behind you, you have to dart in.
There was a brief discussion of the proposed tunnel. Mr. Troy said that as part of the widening
of Route 7, the tunnel will be south of Old Town Trail. Mr. Hinsdale, III said that he is going to
compromise the hill; they are going to cut the hilltop a little and it will be
raised by the Old Town Trail to get rid of the visibility problem; the
intersection will be a little higher than it is now. He also said that the tunnel is going to be within the 100
feet. Mr. Mine said that on the latest
map that he had seen, if approved that curve will not be there; it will go
straight. He asked where the wetlands
are. Mr. Hinsdale, III showed where the
Class III wetlands and remnants of an old ditch were. Linda Hamilton said it would be more helpful that if whenever
wetlands are studied, if that person would delineate on top of an ortho
photo. Mr. Hinsdale, III said the
wetland buffer is on the map. Mr. Mine
said most of the wetlands drain into a ditch which is along the Old Town Trail
and they go down to a culvert along Route 7.
The culvert is not available for water now. Mr. Bloch said there is a culvert that crosses the Old Town
Trail to the east where the pedestrian trail comes into Old Town Trail.
Mr.
Hinsdale, III stated that he had no objection to the planner’s notes. There are technical things to get in order
for the mylar and he said they will be filing 2 mylars – one that shows
property lines on the whole property and another that shows the details of the
road, the driveway easement, wetlands, septic envelope, building envelope, etc. They will be recorded consecutively in the
plat book. Mr. Troy agreed that it
would be prudent to do it in 2 mylars.
He said to just do them as page 1 and page 2. Mr. Hinsdale, III agreed.
Mr.
McDonald asked for comments. Mr.
Moraska asked if lot 3 in its entirety would remain in a conservation
easement. Mr. Hinsdale, III said yes it
is conserved through the Vermont Land Trust.
Mr. Troy said that the map should reference the conservation easement. Ms. Radimer asked if this application has
addressed how the driveway gets to the house and has the PC discussed how the
full length of that driveway will approach the house? Mr. Hinsdale III said that they tried to go in and stay above the
wetlands and aim at the building envelope; it is a heavily wooded lot and it
weaves around the trees. He said that
it would be south of the big tree line and south of Old Town Trail. Mr. Mine said that from their house and at
that juncture where the driveway comes off the trail, there is a view of trucks
going down Route 7 so they would like to keep that area covered as much as
possible, but it creates safety problems; so he asked if they could cut further
down, that would be great.
Mr. Troy moved to close this hearing.
Mr. Moraska seconded. There was no discussion. All were in favor and the motion was unanimously APPROVED.
CHARLES
AND LINDA STEARNS; SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR A 4-LOT SUBDIVISION PROPERTY LOCATED ON SPEAR STREET EXTENSION
IN THE RURAL AND CONSERVATION ZONING DISTRICTS
Charlie
Stearns and Carl Cole addressed the PC.
Mr. Holmes explained that Mr. Stearns owns 32 acres on Spear Street
Extension and he would like to subdivide the property into 4 lots, while also
trying to maintain the open space. One
of the proposed houses would go where there is currently a sawmill and storage
shed, etc. which is segregated by the rest of property (he showed this area on a map). The next site is tucked back in the corner
of the woods and it is 20 feet higher than the road and trees would be behind
the house. The balance of the land has
frontage on Lewis Creek. The next area
would be half in the woods and half in the meadow and the proposed occupants
would have a nice view of Mt. Philo.
Mr. Holmes went on to explain that the last site is down at the lower
meadow. They have split up 350 feet of
Lewis Creek frontage between two lots and no activity is planned for the wooded
area, he said. There is a common
wastewater disposal area, which he showed on the map. The current system serves houses on 2 lots and has enough
capacity for 6-7 houses. Mr. Moraska
asked if there were presently houses on the other 2 lots to which Charlie
Stearns responded “yes”. They have one
driveway for access. Mr. Troy said that
the PC needs to classify and do a site visit.
Mr.
Troy moved to classify this project as a major subdivision. Ms. Radimer seconded. Charlie
Stearns said he would like to keep the area where the storage shed is as open
space. Mr. McDonald asked them what
their time frame was. Mr. Holmes said they would like to have it happen before
winter and asked to come back next month to wrap up the sketch plan. Linda Hamilton said the intention of the
open space agreement is to provide protection for the sensitive resources
there, so they would want to clarify what there is on the land that warrants
being in open space protection and put the houses so that they won’t have a
negative impact or small impact as possible on those; therefore, she suggested
to the applicants that they might think about all of those woods probably would
want to be protected, so they might have to be careful about “tucking” the
houses in the woods and the stream that runs near Spear Street. That footprint from the stream going down
through the area into the woods has probably been blurred by ag use, she said,
but if the proposed use is not ag and is now going to be housing, they would
want to delineate that stream and put buffers on that so it can come back as a
viable stream. Charlie Stearns said it
is no stream, just run off. The PC
scheduled a site visit on Saturday morning, October 18, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. They will meet each other at the site.
This
matter will be put on the agenda for the October 30, 2003 PC meeting for
discussion of the site visit.
Following
this discussion, all were in favor of the motion, and it was unanimously APPROVED.
WRITTEN DECISIONS:
MCCARGO
The
PC went through the written decision. After a few changes, Mr. Bloch reprinted
the decision, the PC signed it and the mylar.
COLEMAN AND LANTERN VISIONS
After
a brief discussion, the PC approved and signed the written decision.
GREENWOOD AMERICA
After
a brief discussion, the PC approved and signed the written decision.
July
2, 2003 – Mr. Troy moved to accept the
minutes of the July 2, 2003 meeting with changes as noted. Ms. Radimer seconded. All were in favor and the motion was
unanimously APPROVED.
July
17, 2003 – Approval of the minutes of
the July 17, 2003 meeting was tabled.
July
24, 2003 – Mr. Moraska moved to accept the
minutes of the July 24, 2003 meeting as submitted. Mr. Troy seconded. All
were in favor and the motion was unanimously APPROVED.
August
7, 2003- Ms. Radimer moved to accept the
minutes of the August 7, 2003 meeting with changes as noted. Mr. Moraska seconded. All were in favor and the motion was unanimously
APPROVED.
August
21, 2003- Ms.
Radimer moved to accept the minutes of the August 21, 2003 meeting as
submitted. Mr. Troy seconded. All were in favor and the motion was
unanimously APPROVED.
September
18, 2003 - Mr. Troy moved to accept the minutes
of the September 18, 2003 meeting with changes noted. Mr. McDonald
seconded. All were in favor and the
motion was unanimously APPROVED.
September
4, 2003 - Mr. Troy moved to accept the
minutes of the September 4, 2003 meeting with changes as noted. Ms. Radimer seconded. All were in favor and the motion was
unanimously APPROVED.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr.
Moraska moved to adjourn. Ms. Radimer
seconded. All were in favor and the motion was unanimously APPROVED and the
meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.