CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION

Guests Signed in:

Rodney & Donna Stearns

Debbie Ramsdell

Sylvia Sprigg

Catherine Kronk

Ed Ritter

Ron & Marge Belval

Jonathan Fisher

Stuart J. Morrow

Liam Murphy

Mary Beth Freeman

Lydia Hibbard

Linda Radimer

Lester Armell

Janice Armell

Sandy Armell

Sid Armell

Jim Wells

Stephen C. Brooks

Marty Illick

1. General Business: Dean Bloch reported that at 6:30 p.m. there was a site visit at Rodney & Donna Stearns= property attended by Gordon Troy, Dean, Al Moraska and Martha Perkins along with the applicants. Josie reported that she had gone over previously.

Review of Minutes: Minutes for September 20, 2001 were reviewed, a date was changed, some words were substituted for clarity, as were two phrases added for clarity. For the Telecommunications Bylaw, the Zoning Bylaws would incorporate this amendment after a public hearing, rather than the Town Plan. A person who spoke was Bill Maclay, rather than Bill Lockwood. In the Greenwood America vote, Martha abstained and the vote did not pass. One paragraph was dropped at the end of that subject. Gordon Troy moved to approve the minutes of September 20, 2001 as amended. Al Moraska seconded the motion and it was approved, 5-0 with two members absent.

Minutes for October 4, 2001: Instead of naming Steve Stitzel, change to Athe@ Town Attorney. In the word-processing conversion to MS Word, a deep indentation was put there which was not on the original document, so that was corrected. A mis-type of two words were corrected, a comma was added, and a close-parenthesis that didn=t belong was removed. A phrase was added to the last paragraph for clarity. Gordon Troy moved to approve the minutes of October 4, 2001 as amended. Al Moraska seconded the motion and it was approved, 5-0 with two members absent.

2. Lydia Hibbard / Barbara Horsford, application for 2-lot subdivision: Katherine Kronk, representing Lydia Hibbard, said she has the letter sent by Planner Dean Bloch to Lydia Hibbard, which requested further details on the map, on tree lines in the wet areas, and the existing and proposed septic easements for Lots 1 and 2. Stuart Morrow arranged to have Bill Robenstein write a letter replying to this request, and to have those added to the map. They have a waste water disposal system that has been approved, that they want to be considered as the one for Lot 1 instead of for Lot 2.

The proposed driveway, which was on the list, is not on there yet. Since the letter of September 21^st, further information was sent to the applicant by Spencer Harris regarding the septic design for Lot 2. They believe they have a verbal approval from Spencer Harris but now the engineer has to put it on paper.

There are two lots under contract and there is a deadline under which an approval of the subdivision is needed because these contracts expire on November 15, 2001. The applicants request that there be an approval under Section 13.2, with a waiver of the additional septic system for Lot 2 (the larger lot), until they can get a design that is satisfactory to Spencer Harris.

Melrose Huff bought this property in the early 1960's, Katherine said, and had the right of first refusal to buy 15 additional acres. This can=t happen unless there is subdivision approval, which requires two buildable lots. Decision on how this approval is accomplished is up to the Planning Commission.

This is a previous subdivision, which Katherine Kronk described on the map. It has 54.1 surveyed acres, even though on the tax map it says 56 acres. Lot 1 is the 15 acres that is being sold to Mel Huff, and the 39.1 acres is Lot 2. Both lots have frontage on Prindle Road, and the 15 acre parcel also has frontage on Roscoe Road.

Dean Bloch had questions about slope off of Prindle Road. Katherine Kronk said the purchasers of Lot 2 have had engineers look at it and that they believe there is an acceptable location for a driveway. Lydia said Charlie Proutt had looked at it, along with an architect. They will look at safety, wetness etc. Katherine said she does not believe Mel Huff wants a road going across the field.

Liam said that on Lot 1, the building location is near Prindle Road and it would make sense to have the driveway on Prindle Road. Stuart Morrow described one location next to the brow of the hill where, perceivably there could be two curb cuts. At that place it is relatively level, he said. Jeff reminded him that it would be better to have only one curb cut.

Gordon Troy asked if this 15 acre lot would merge with Mel Huff=s other property. This is not the case. It is only adjacent land, and the 15 acre lot is a separate building lot.

Al questioned whether a driveway there would have to go through a ledge area, but Linda Radimer said the ledge is on her property, near where her horse barn is. She described the area on the map.

Liam Murphy asked if the subdivision issue could be addressed as quickly as possible because of pressing personal issues; the family has nursing home costs which would be helped by the purchases of these two lots. The neighbors have approved of this solution, he said, and this is only a four lot subdivision. They are requesting approval of the subdivision subject to a number of things being on the map prior to final approval. If one of these conditions is having a joint driveway, that is agreeable to the applicants. Deferring an Open Space Agreement for Lot 2 is another.

Katherine Kronk read the list of proposed conditions, that these changes are made to the Mylar prior to it being submitted for recording:

1. Change designation of septic areas to indicate that the western most septic area is for Lot #2 and the eastern most septic area is for Lot #1.

2. The Mylar shall include a note to the effect that the exact location of the force main easement shall be determined as built.

3. The Mylar shall include a note allowing access for construction, maintenance, repair and replacement of the septic system coming across the driveway of the 11.1-acre parcel now owned by Lydia Hibbard.

4. The size of the wastewater disposal area for Lot #1 being enlarged to allow for construction repair and maintenance, with the enlarged dimensions to be shown on the Mylar.

5. That the additional iron pins to be placed on the boundary line between Lot #1 and Lot #2 be installed within 15 days of the Mylar being filed.

Lydia Hibbard signed a waiver for Lot 2 on behalf of Barbara Horsford, in the event that there is an approval.

Gordon Troy asked if the applicant would be willing to have a condition that there be Ano further subdivision.@ Lydia said she cannot guarantee this because the clause is not on these contracts, but because of the existing setbacks for the river and the steepness of the land, and the clay soil, it is not likely that there would be further development.

Katherine Kronk offered to have the two building envelopes surveyed.

Having a joint driveway is not a problem, Lydia believes.

These 5 conditions were tentatively approved, but the following are added:

6. Require a shared driveway for Lots 1 and 2.

7. Prior to filing the Mylar, an easement for the force main and the easement for the access to the septic area as identified in #3 will be recorded either before, or simultaneous with the Mylar.

8. Building envelopes will be surveyed as identified on the plans dated 6/27/2001, and will serve as satisfying the Open Space requirements of Section 5.15 D5 of the Charlotte Zoning Bylaws.

Stuart Morrow asked, AIf we have one curb cut, if it happens to be on Lot 2 can we waive the front yard setback for the front lot from the driveway?@ The right of way, he said is considered the front yard. Al said it is the Subdivision Bylaws Section 13.2.

9. Per the PRD provisions, the setback from the private road right of way shall be 50 ft. instead of 100 ft.

10. Subject to the letter dated November 1, 2001 and pursuant to Section 13.2 the subdivision regulations, the applicant will have to come back to the Planning Commission for approval of Lot #2 septic, after meeting with the Deputy Health Officer=s approval.

Gordon Troy suggested changing that last one (#10):

For purposes of this decision and pursuant to Section 13.2 of the Subdivision Regulations, the applicant is waiving demonstrating sewage disposal capacity on Lot #2, and by administrative action of the Deputy Health Officer in compliance the Town of Charlotte Sewage Ordinance the applicant can obtain approval for sewage disposal capacity on Lot #2.

Dean Bloch noted that under Section 13.2, the fact that Lot #2 doesn=t have septic disposal should be noted on the Plat.

Gordon Troy moved that the Planning Commission approve the 2-lot Subdivision on Prindle Road of Lydia Hibbard and Barbara Horsford, per all the conditions 1 through 10 just discussed. Al Moraska seconded the motion and it was approved, 5-0 with two members absent.

Liam Murphy said typically these minutes at the next meeting. If the Mylar is corrected and brought in before that time can that be done before that next meeting. Gordon suggested that Dean Bloch draft the decision within the next two weeks. There will be a meeting at 6:30 p.m. on November 15, 2001 for this application.

Stephen Brooks asked how this will progress. Jeff explained that the applicant has submitted a Preliminary Plat application and will have a written decision. The applicant will need to comply with these conditions and there may be further discussions about them. There may be a decision Awith conditions.@ Interested parties may appeal to the Environmental Board, Jeff added.

Stephen Brooks asked if these folks are being treated differently. This is a Major subdivision. Jeff said they are not.

3. Rodney and Donna Stearns, Preliminary Plat Hearing: Al Moraska reported on his take of the recent site visit. He stated that it appears to be a beautiful area and it is unfortunate that it cannot be preserved, but if there are to be houses, the choice of location that Rodney and Donna Stearns have chosen appear to be the most logical. He said the main concern was the wet areas and the drainage, and that drainage does not appear to go off the property to the neighbor, but appeared to come off the property of the neighbor toward the Stearns= swale area. Some areas are wet around the pond but it will be open.

Josie Leavitt agreed that there are views, and that it would be nice if there would be no houses; but she looked, and decided if there will be houses this is the best location. However she suggested that there be some screening.

Martha Perkins does not think this is the best location for the houses, suggests smaller lots, closer together. She has seen some clustered housing, so suggests that these be placed more in the back, with screening.

Martha again offered her advice that the applicants try again to work with the Vermont Land Trust. Donna said they had gotten together with other neighbors and had offered four parcels, but these were not accepted. Martha said things may have changed, and that this may be worth pursuing again.

Gordon Troy said he would echo comments made by Al regarding the soils, but is in agreement with Martha. He sees a potential for houses in the lower area near the town line hedgerow. There shouldn=t be any more than a couple of houses in the viewshed.

Gordon advises the applicants to develop something very tightly clustered and to provide for maximum screening to minimize the impact. When looking down from Mount Philo, this would be less visual and suggests that they use the evergreen brush. The goal of the Town is for more clustered development. There appears to be a definite settlement pattern along the road, he said, and what is proposed is an antithesis to everything that is along the road now. He would like to see something that doesn=t affect the existing development pattern and this could be creatively done. The natural features of the property there has the possibility for minimum major impact, he said.

Donna could see what Gordon is saying, and she would be willing to talk about that. Jeff said these are on the contour lines of the slope and wouldn=t be seen as easily as they would if they were down in the level area of the pasture. With the evergreen brush there would be more of a screening effect.

Donna said she had thought the houses would have been better, facing the road, and there was already a hedgerow on the side there; but she would consider shrinking the lots in the front and would try to consider ways to make the houses clustered. She was thinking of the neighbors, she said, because this changes the development pattern on the road.

Donna wanted folks to know that the pasture land has always been tilled and cared for, and that is why it is smooth and level, while the other land was never plowed and has not been anything but pasture. She doesn=t want to put the houses along the frontage.

Al noted that no matter what happens there will be a visual impact. He would like to see the development closer to the road in order to preserve the farm land as much as possible. The applicants will have to consider the required setbacks, and not have very large building envelopes. Setbacks have to be the right distance from the side property lines, as well. Gordon noted that within a p.r.d. the side yard setbacks between the houses could be waived although the property line setback has to be observed.

Stephen Brooks asked if the ultimate goal is 13 houses. Rodney said, AMaybe someday, but not immediately.@

Al Moraska said they have to be careful not to have a suburbia there such as one in a nearby town.

Comments from the audience:

Ed Ritter said this housing project is on his lot line; he said that in this application they are talking about a nine housing lot subdivision, but really this is about 13 or 14.

Jeff: The application is for the number specified in the application. There is no guarantee that the Planning Commission will approve this, he said.

Ed Ritter: As the Planning Commission you are supposed to be protecting the people of Charlotte. I ask that this Planning Commission ask for a jurisdictional opinion from Act 250 because that is the only thing that is really protection for any of us. We saw a list of 10 things in the Free Press. Some of it doesn=t apply to Charlotte. This proposes to change an entire environment. I have the right to be heard as to why this proposal should pass. What type of houses will these be?

(Ed Ritter, continued): This is a dry year, but I am a biologist, and I know the difference between seven less inches of precipitation. In other years I have seen cows up to their knees. Also, what kind of water is going to be available for that many houses? My neighbor across the street drilled down 325 ft. and was only able to get 3/4 gal/min. And another neighbor up the street drilled down 600 ft., and was also only able to draw 3/4 gal/min. Will there be 13 houses trying to get water in that same vein?

Mr. Ritter apologized, but said he was angry over this. Martha Perkins said he never has to apologize, because he has a right to express his opinions here.

Jeff McDonald said Mr. Ritter has raised two valid concerns: the ground water resources, and wetness. Dean said the Planning Commission has contacted Act 250. Dean Bloch has contacted the District Commissioner, who told him that with this application Act 250 doesn=t apply. The Planning Commission is looking at what may apply, and how that cluster looks.

An unidentified member of the audience said, AIt=s all wetland.@

Josie Leavitt said these people are farmers, who are trying to get creative without giving up too much land. AIs this the perfect solution? No. But would you rather have the houses strewn further apart, or would you want to still have the view of the open land?@ They could have a horseshoe design, she said, and preserve most of the land.

Rodney said this is not a waterway, it=s overflow from our pond.

Josie urged the neighbors to keep giving feedback, and the applicants to try to cluster the development into smaller lots and for all to try to come up with compromise solutions.

One neighbor asked, if there can be smaller lots, does this mean he can cut up his two acre lot? Gordon Troy replied with a summarization of the Town=s Bylaws:

The total property has a 5-acre minimum. For example on a 100 acre lot, there could be 20 lots. But instead of 20 lots strewn all over the 20 acres, the owner is allowed to have a cluster of 20 houses, all with only one acre apiece, as an example. This leaves an 80-acre piece in open space.

This comes from the ARule Book.@ This copy of the regulations is what the Town of Charlotte has voted on. The Town has voted for 5-acre zoning, and this seems to be the best possible solution. It appears that the views expressed are because folks don=t like the regulations.

If this is not a designated wetland, it is buildable. The applicant has the ability to have 15 parcels; that is, under the current zoning regulations they could put in 15 lots, based upon the total acreage of the parcel..

What=s the way to change that? Well, one way, is that if the Town had 25-acre zoning, there could be only 3 parcels on the property.

Marty Illick: There are various related to the landscape, and using a p.r.d. is usually to save the maximum natural resources of the property. In her opinion the applicants are trying to do everything, too much. She suggests maybe a smaller development. She thinks there cannot be a viable agricultural operation and still have the agricultural use and she doesn=t want to compromise the agricultural unit. She said Donna wanted to subtract that 30 acres from the part that was going to the land trust, and that is why it was turned down.

Donna said they had already done a re-application and no one had come back with a counter-proposal so they were just left hanging with no answer.

Marty said she didn=t want to argue but feels the agricultural element of this parcel is at risk, and in addition it is out of character with the neighborhood.

Sid Armell: Do we want 5-acre lots? When you look at a parcel you have to look at a lot of things. On reason I object is that it is not percable. I spoke with the surveyor. He told me there is only one spot that would perc, and that is where the disposal area is. The gravel bed is not original, but was put there. The septic system is on fill; is this legal?

Jeff McDonald replied that this is why the Planning Commission has a consultant.

Dean Bloch commented that the Regulations allow offsite septic. He added that the septic design is currently being reviewed by the State.

Mary Beth Freeman asked why Act 250 is not pertinent. Jeff said the 800' driveway limitation is no longer in effect and none of the other conditions are pertinent. This is not a commercial subdivision.

Back to the discussion of Dean Bloch=s list of things to discuss: Jeff said at the last meeting the Planning Commission had gotten to the subjects of the road and the fire pond. (The fire pond is 9' deep.)

Open Space: Dean proposed 30 acres for the open space. The applicants have submitted a Draft Open Space Agreement for 28 acres. The applicants have proposed to have the agreement floating. Dean proposes removing the restriction on snowmobiling but Jeff asked if we want to have the agreement Afloating?@ Al replied that in his opinion the agreement needs to be something that is defined and measured.

Currently, 38% of the parcel equals 29 acres for the lots, out of the 77 acre parcel. There was a consensus that this should not be a floating open space agreement. In the future the development could reach 55 acres out of the 77 acre parcel. That is all the more reason that the open space needs to be nailed down.

Still discussing open space, Al Moraska said that on Page 4, No. 1 of the draft, the right to establish , re-establish, maintain, construct roads and use and cultivate fields stay with the owners. Dean said that is mainly a Aboiler-plate@ of contracts that are commonly used. Rodney said that is in case they need a barn or shed down in the pasture area, or if they need roads for their agricultural processes; they have livestock although they no longer have milking cows, and they sell produce.

Al continued: In #3, the right to improve water sources within the open space area, there is mention of the pond line. Rodney said that is the water line between the pond and the barn. This is only for the pond and the existing line, he said.

Martha Perkins asked that the Planning Commission consider the open space issue after it is known where the open space is going to be. Jeff said Dean should flag these issues and then we will get into more detail.

Sylvia Sprigg asked to speak. She asked that the Planning Commission remember the Claflin Farm development problems, where the use of the land was for informal agricultural activities.

Gordon Troy suggested that the Planning Commission can begin with the Aboiler plate@ version and then add specifics.

Martha Perkins advised that Donna and Rodney work with the Open Space Agreement #3, and say what they think may happen on this property, and then modify the wording.

Jeff McDonald said the application shows a stone lined ditch alongside the proposed roadway. A 2' culvert was proposed across the intermittent stream. It doesn=t show what will show what will happen to the runoff. There were no engineering plans on the road, just a typical cross section, he verified with Rodney. Jeff said they need more details on the plan for the road. The drainage has to be designed for a 10 year storm.

Municipal Impact: According to the School Dept. in a letter to Dean, enrollment will drop within the next few years, with acceleration of a declining enrollment five years from now.

Building envelopes: Jeff said these should either be on a survey or on a Site Plan. Lots 5, 6 and 7 should show the side yard setbacks. The rear yard (westerly) minimum setback is 50'.

Jeff noted the side yard is 115'. Dean said the 50' setback is the minimum.

Lots 5, 6 and 7 should show a 75' setback from an unnamed stream, according to the town zoning map.

Ed Ritter said he has a stream running by the property and if they are proposing only a 50' setback, isn=t that a violation? Where there is an unnamed stream, there should be a 75' setback. Ed was asked to come up to the table and show the location.

Rodney said he has talked with people from the federal government, and was told that if there is a grass bed it is not a wetland.

Donna asked, if they can go back into the family papers and prove that the grandfather actually dug this swale and it is man-made, does it now become a stream because it is on the zoning map? Donna said they drive there, and if they needed a culvert they would have put one there.

Lester Armell said the land that is Mr. Ritter=s used to belong to his father, and that as long as he remembers it was a stream.

When the applicant was under Sketch Plan Review, the Act 250 said, if more than 5 lots were accessed by a common road there had to be a driveway that went onto Spear St. Now it just has to be off the roadway, because of trying to reduce curb cuts. Donna agreed to this.

Al noted that the first half of the road frontage is wet. Half of Lot 2 is on wetland. Rodney said that is overflow from the spring.

Stephen Brooks offered a consideration that with a horseshoe layout, it would eliminate the curb cut that is there now.

Landscaping Plan, Lighting Plan: There should be a covenant that all utilities be underground, the external lighting should be pointed downward, and this would cover each house. The gravel for the driveways should be non-white, crushed stone.

Al asked who would own the roadway. Rodney said they will take care of the road. Al suggested that they just keep an easement in order to save themselves the taxes on it. This would put half the roadway on each lot. There is to be a 60' r.o.w.

Gordon Troy moved to continue the Stearns application to December 20, 2001 at 7:30 p.m.. Martha Perkins seconded the motion and Jeff called for discussion.

Gordon asked, is there an opportunity here? At this time there have been a lot of ideas and concerns raised. Jeff suggested that there could be a way of avoiding having to cross a stream. Donna said she doesn=t think there is any way of getting any agreement from any of the neighbors, so perhaps going to the back would be best.

Jeff said the open space and the building envelopes should be defined, although these would be finalized not at this next, continued meeting, but at the next step.

Jonathan Fisher asked what right-of-way they would the surveyor be using. There is 55' on this drawing, Jeff said, and 66' for the new development. Donna said her house is 100' from the road.

Dean called for a vote. The motion was approved, 5-0 with two members absent.

5. Discussion of Telecommunications Bylaw: Mary Beth Freeman said there are some changes from what she had submitted. There are some handwritten changes which did not print well. They have not been typed yet. She went over these with Gerry Tarrant today, she said. This will be Chapter 9 in the Zoning Bylaws. Mary Beth said she can type in these changes tomorrow.

Gordon suggested that the Planning Commission form an electronic committee to review the latest changes. Jeff agreed to do this and at the November 15^th hearing. If there is time on the 15^th there can be some recommendations or a report.

Jonathan Fisher wants to request a couple of small changes to the Town Plan. For historical structures, any structure that is listed cannot be touched on the outside.

Gordon Troy said if they are talking about a technical amendment to the bylaws, this Technical Amendment can be done on an interim basis by the Selectboard. Within the next two weeks, Gordon suggested that Jonathan circulate any ideas he may have for proposed changes.

Does the Planning Commission want to review an antenna, when a Site Plan Review (Section 6.5 in the bylaws), this would be a case for a joint hearing. The Zoning Board would review this under the Conditional Use.

Martha, Al and Gordon are on the committee for the tower bylaw.

Sylvia Sprigg made an observation about Ten Stones. Were any of the driveway issues addressed? She asked. She recalled a recent fire when a private driveway was used for the fire department to battle the Whalley fire. That driveway was a lot wider than the roadway within the Ten Stones development. There are a lot of folks living in that development.

At 10:25 p.m. the meeting was adjourned.

APPROVED BY THE CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION ON

Chairman Date

O:\Planning Commission\Minutes\2001\nov12001.doc