Charlotte Planning Commission

Minutes of Meeting of

November 7, 2002

(Approved December 19, 2002)

Charlotte Town Hall – 159 Ferry Road

Town Office – (802) 425-3533

Members Present: Chair Jeff McDonald

Dave Brown

Al Moraska

Jim Donovan

Members Absent: Gordon Troy

Josie Leavitt

Gene Diou

Officials Present: Dean Bloch

Public Present: Chris Boffa Art Ridge

Stephen C. Brooks Ellie Kassler

Jack Pilla Tony Stout

Sylvia Sprigg Doris Stewart

Linda S. Hamilton Marty Illick

Holly Callery Daniel Rosen

Sheila Braun Marc Greenblatt

Debbie Ramsdell Dave Marshall

Frank Lambert Eric Van Vlandren

Dick St. George Bill Maclay

Mike Buscher

Chair Jeff McDonald called the meeting to order.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Mr. McDonald asked for any comments before the PC approved the agenda. Dean Bloch reminded members of the 30 day appeal period which is done Tuesday.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Mr. McDonald asked for any comments from the public. Mr. Brooks asked if the issue of public access to regular information could be put on the next meeting’s agenda? Mr. McDonald said that the PC would take it under advisement.

CORNIE DYKEMA – REQUEST FOR REAFFIRMATION OF PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED 2-LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON TOWN LINE ROAD IN THE RURAL AND SHORE LAND DISTRICTS.

Mr. Dykema said that back in 1994, he sold the farm to his son and at the same time kept a lot hoping to build a house on it. It didn’t pass perk at the time, so they couldn’t use it and in the meantime, he bought another house and dropped the process as far as subdividing, except that he brought in the plan/survey plat to zoning and assumed that that would be it. But it was discovered that it was never recorded. After four meetings with the zoning office, he pulled out a file and there it was but not a mylar, he said. He thought it was on record. His son owned the farm for the last eight years. It has never been finished, so he would like to finish it up and would like approval from the PC.

Mr. Moraska asked if he had submitted everything to the town and Mr. Dykema said yes, except the mylar. Mr. McDonald said that it still has wording that it cannot be built on. Mr. Dykema said nothing has changed since the original; it’s just a technicality.

Tony Stout, representing Iris Menthaler, addressed the PC and said that Iris does not view this as merely a technicality because things have not been done per the original plot. The deed that was created the day after the approval granted describes a parcel which is quite different than the parcel which is on the plat that we have, Mr. Stout said. It includes two acres of Iris’ land, part of the 10-acre parcel and involves another 2 acres or so of her land as a part. She has no objection to the plat; her concern is that the deed for the lot that was created because of this subdivision approval is not at all what the plat shows, so if this process is about correcting, it doesn’t do that, because it still is an illegal line. He showed a drawing to the PC. Mr. Bloch said he talked with Mr. Stout and town attorney and these drawings don’t make any difference. This is what was approved and deeds are irrelevant because even if the original was approved and filed, the deeds could have been filed in error after that. The PC doesn’t take a good look at deeds, unless it is specific to a piece of property that may be going to the Town. These are a civil matter between the parties and the PC basically is only looking at the maps. Mr. Dykema said that he is aware of (he talked with Iris) that when the deeds were written, the numbers off from that were correct, but when they typed it up, there was a typographical error in one of the lines in the numbers. There’s more than one line, Mr. Stout said. He showed them on the map. Mr. McDonald asked about recording on the plat and if there is any debate on that. Mr. Stout said that only that PC would be certifying a subdivision that is not proper. Mr. McDonald said that the thing that wasn’t proper is the deed description.

Iris would like, Mr. Stout said, that when approving the plat to condition that the written deed be fixed. The deed to reflect the plat needs to be done, Mr. Stout said. She has no objection to what the Dykemas are doing, he said. Mr. Moraska asked if it was a boundary dispute. Mr. Stout said no; the deed that was created in 1984 after the original plat approval does not reflect the two-acre error on the plat. Mr. Donovan asked Mr. Bloch if the PC could condition the reapproval. Mr. McDonald asked Mr. Bloch if the PC could add an item to the planner’s notes to “approve the application for reaffirmation on the following conditions and one is the filing of the mylar AND to correct the deed which is also recorded. Mr. Dykema said he did not have a problem with that, but he said that whoever wrote up the deed, they used the wrong number. Mr. McDonald suggested that the corrected deed be executed within seven days of the recording of the approved plat. Mr. Dykema has no problem with that.

Mr. McDonald asked for a motion to approve the application for reaffirmation with the following conditions: an 18 by 24 inch mylar of the survey shall be submitted to the Planning Commission within 60 days of the signing of this petition and recorded in the Charlotte Land Records within 90 days and that the corrected deed be executed within seven days of the recording of the approved plot. Mr. Donovan made the motion and Mr. Moraska seconded. There was no discussion. Everyone was in favor and THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

DISCUSSION WITH RODNEY & DONNA STEARNS RE: USE OF OPEN SPACE AREA FOR WASTE WATER DISPOSAL.

Rodney and Donna Stearns approached the PC. Donna Stearns asked the PC, when they referred to the setback on the overflow on the pond, if they meant the setback on their side. The 30-feet from the overflow would come onto Lot 9. She said they were going to move the overflow from the front to the rear and they did that. She said they will show it on the mylar.

Condition No. 3 (survey pins) was then discussed. Before you sell one of the lots, the pins need to be there, but not while they are working on it.

Condition No. 5 – Instead of the language, “prior to conveyance of the lots,” the Stearns asked if they could say “prior to building permits”; could the rest of it be done with the seclusion of the fire hydrants request. Mr. Donovan asked where the utility conduits and the force main were going? Donna Stearns said one on each side of the road. He asked if they were going in before or after the road. Donna Stearns said they would be going in after the road. The pins will have to be there, Mr. Donovan said, before the lot is sold. The pins have to be set on the right-of-way. Hypothetically, if the lots get sold off and the infrastructure isn’t in and the Stearns are gone, Mr. McDonald said there would be a potential problem and that’s why it is written like it is.

Condition No.10- Donna Stearns said that on Lots 3 and 4, the PC wants 25 evergreens and they have no problem planting them and no problem with the neighbor, but the neighbor spoke to Garden Supply and recommended that they wait until spring, but the PC is saying that they cannot sell 3 and 4 until they are planted. The neighbor wants the Stearns to sign an agreement that they will live for 2 years. Mr. Donovan said that the big issue is that technically when you sell the property, you can’t go back on it to plant, so you have to work out some agreement with the new landowner to be able to go back in there and that’s why it is worded that way. Donna Stearns said that the neighbor mentioned before that she was willing to get through the technicality by planting the trees on her side. Ms. Stearns said that they would rather plant them on their side. Mr. Stearns said that the PC could also direct that the Stearns have to have them planted by June 1, for example. Mr. Brooks asked why did they want to involve themselves in private business transactions? Mr. Donovan said that the PC is just dealing with one of their own conditions. Mr. Donovan does not want to put a date on it, but if you say “before you get a building permit,” then they have incentive to do it. Ms. Stearns asked if their neighbor could condition the Stearns. Mr. Donovan said that no, the PC cannot have the neighbor condition them. Mr. Donovan said that the issues they are having with their neighbor presently is between them.

Ms. Stearns asked if any decision was being made tonight as to warrant a hearing. Mr. Bloch said that if they agreed to change it, it has to be a warned hearing. To actually change it, the hearing has to be re-opened.

Mr. McDonald went back to the open space area issue. The condition says 400 feet to the west of the property boundary which is the stream. Ms. Stearns said that they need something in writing to say that they have the right to use the open space area (above the ground) as the State allows (e.g. mowing, plowing, grazing). Mr. Moraska expressed his concern that there should be an open space. Ms. Stearns said that after they have it for an amount of time, it automatically goes to the Association (the easement). This would mean that the hearing has to be reopened. Open space was for deer corridor and agriculture. They need it for wastewater. Mr. Donovan suggested to move the open space. Mr. Bloch brought up the issue of field grown-trees vs. nursery trees. Mr. Donovan said it depended on what type and where they’re coming from. He said cedars would be o.k. Ms. Stearns asked if they could do a building permit and Mr. Donovan said yes it would be acceptable. Mr. Bloch said could warn for December 5. Donna asked what was A-76. Mr. Bloch said it is a road standard. It refers to No. 13, a culvert issue. Mr. McDonald said it is a drawing that VTrans has (A-76). A 15-inch culvert should be fine, Mr. McDonald said.

CHRISTOPHER BOFFA – SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR 3-LOT SUBDIVISION CREATING TWO BUILDING LOTS AND ONE LOT FOR EXISTING DWELLING –3607 MT. PHILO ROAD, RURAL ZONING DISTRICT.

Mr. Boffa addressed the PC and said that they purchased the property this summer and decided to create two lots out back. They tried to push the house building envelopes down in the corners because it is all field and they wanted to keep it open. Following Mr. Bloch’s comments, he went through the rest of the review. He said they don’t have a problem leaving the building envelope. There is concern about the view from Mt. Philo, he said. He expressed that he is open to working with the Town in whatever direction they want to go. Mr. Moraska asked if there were any wetlands. Mr. Boffa said that there is not, but there is the same stream that the PC dealt with in the Stearns’ proposed subdivision. They have the same surveyor. Mr. Moraska asked for the total acreage involved. Mr. Boffa said that it is almost 17 acres. Mr. McDonald asked about the right-of-way, referring back to the previous owner’s request and that there was a problem then. Mr. Boffa said, that, at the time of submitting this, he sat down with Dean Bloch and addressed the issues and he was in ongoing discussions with that owner. He said he is working with the Stearns to be able to access the two back lots at the end of their subdivision road. He would keep the existing driveway. This piece will be forthcoming, he told the PC. He said he has developed a wastewater agreement that has been signed. Mr. McDonald asked if the land had already been sized or perked. Mr. Boffa said yes and that they are using the same engineer and same surveyor and he has identified the excess capacity and he has talked with the state regarding the three lots. They have established that the existing house system is not certified and for them and him to feel comfortable, he is going to do a new system so there will be 3 new systems.

Mr. McDonald said that as a sketch plan, the only thing the PC could presently do is to classify it and give some feedback. Most will be learned on a site visit. He asked for a motion to classify. Mr. Donovan made a motion to classify this as a subdivision.[GERT1] Mr. Moraska seconded the motion. There being no discussion, there was a vote and THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. The site visit was then discussed and it was decided that it would be Saturday, November 16 at 8:00 a.m.

CHAMPLAIN VALLEY CO-HOUSING (CVCH) -- CONTINUATION OF PRELIMINARY PLAT HEARING

Mr. McDonald stated that at the last meeting, CVCH had finished their presentation to which they agreed, so he asked for questions from the public. Dan Rosen addressed the meeting and said that he had written a letter and asked if he should read it or just give it to the PC to put on file. He was instructed to read it and he said it deals with three concerns which are: 1) on the south side of the road, he is concerned about headlights coming up the hill. Anything that can be done to screen the road would be appreciated, he said. 2) In the actual building envelope, there is a single-family house on the southwest corner and there’s been cutting in the woods there so his house is visible, so he would like some plantings there as a screen. Mr. McDonald asked him if the landscaping was on the access from Greenbush. He said yes and they pointed it out on the map. Mr. McDonald asked Bill Maclay for the aerial photograph, which Mr. Maclay got out. 3) He said that Dave Marshall told him that for the septic area, one of them is going to be built right behind the woods zone and trees are going to be cut and he is concerned about that. He wanted to know what it was going to look like and he wanted to ensure that a minimum of cutting was done. He is also concerned about entry and exit during construction of the septic area and that his property not be trespassed upon. He said that also the back side of the landfill is a very steep slope and has a tendency to erode. The Town maintains it with the cutting once a year. He said he is not aware what the proximity is it from the septic area to the landfill, but that was a concern. He would like to see the plan for this septic area before final approval.

Mr. McDonald asked to see the plan for the septic areas. Mr. Maclay showed the PC on the map where the Rosen property is. He said that the clearing limits associated with the primary mound area will be lifted to the footprint surrounding the three trenches. Access to the site will be the north across existing fields – access is not proposed through Mr. Rosen’s property to the west. A force main will come down across the slope along the existing grade to provide access to the mound system itself and trying to stay away from Mr. Rosen’s property. As far as pre-clearing, he said that CVCH agrees that they have to minimize pre-clearing in that area as much as possible. The force main route coming from the north to the south probably could be better located to minimize certain specimens of trees and he said CVCH will ensure that any special trees located within that route are avoided. A question was asked about dirt samples being taken of the property because of chemicals used in the past. Mr. Bloch asked to assure that they’ve done excavation samples. Mr. Maclay said that yes, it has been investigated as part of compliance with State regulations. It was a pesticide used on the apple orchard years ago when there was a softball field being put there. Now the soil is being disturbed and Mr. Rosen is concerned. There was a brief discussion of the history of that parcel of land and the pesticide used at that time.

Mr. Donovan asked if there was any more information about the plantings for the wildlife. Mike Buscher from T. J. Boyle & Associates showed the results of work with Jeff Parsons and Linda Hamilton. He showed on the map the area of Thorpe Brook and said that previously there had been plantings. His concerns were to fill in the vegetation on the side of the road, especially where headlights would turn to stop them from going into the wet land areas. The other recommendation he made is where the proposed project is, there is a wildlife corridor area (which he showed on the drawing) and he showed Jeff Parsons’ proposal which is to plant to encourage a new wildlife corridor. Linda Hamilton asked if Jeff Parsons included plantings of oaks. Mr. Maclay answered and said that there are oaks in both of those areas. Jeff Parsons’ concern is 1) creating better corridors and habitat and 2) providing food. Mr. Donovan suggested adding more white oak and go for more variety, but said that if Jeff Parsons comes back and says different, that that would be fine. Mr. Donovan said that sizes, numbers and location look good.

Mr. McDonald asked about the proposed guardrail for the roadway section and interference with plantings. Mr. Donovan said that plantings are on the outside of guardrail and should be o.k. Mr. McDonald asked about the material proposed to be used for the guardrail. Mr. Maclay said that aesthetically, wood railing with steel bands is preferred. Mr. Brooks asked if there were any guardrail designs available. Mr. McDonald said yes. Mr. Maclay showed Greenbush Road on the map and where the guardrail would be. Sheila Braun from CVCH agreed with a comment made that maybe the applicant should step back and look at this project as a neighbor would, but she said that they themselves don’t know when an issue will be brought to their attention and when it is, they try to make the neighbors aware as soon as possible. Mr. McDonald said that that’s why they have preliminary hearings to address issues. The neighbor understood and wasn’t accusing CVCH of an attempt to deceive, but said that he doesn’t know what questions to ask. Mr. Maclay apologized and said that they’ve tried to explain things without taking the PC’s time to do it. The plans are available, he said, at town offices and encouraged them to look at them.

Mr. McDonald said he had a letter from the Charlotte Fire and Rescue Services dated November 6 (copy attached) stating significant issues that they that severely limit their ability to effectively deal with a fire. They are as follows:

1) Multi-unit residential housing. Given the fact that Charlotte does not have a pressurized fire hydrant system and a full-time department, they may not be adequately staffed to deal with fires, including safe evacuation that occurs in multi-unit housing. An approved fire sprinkler system would greatly improve the ability to deal with a fire, Mr. McDonald said.

2) Radiant heat exposure. Recommendation to increase separation to 36 feet.

3) Main access roadways. Access road is shown as 18 foot minimum width to the point of housing area. This is acceptable. The access roadway extending around the perimeter must be increased to 14 feet. There are ways to deal with it, i.e. could use grass and gravel so that it is driveable.

4) Fire protection pond and dry hydrants. 1,200 linear feet has been checked on. ISO indicates additional dry hydrant with intake pipe be added.

5) External fuel and electric shutoffs. Requiring location of where the LP tanks are buried. The Charlotte Volunteer Fire Department (CVFD) does not support the use of metal-gusseted roof trusses. He asked Mr. Maclay if CVCH had gotten that far with the buildings. Mr. Maclay said yes.

6) Unit numbering and emergency access signage.

7) False alarm billing. Option whether this would have an automatic alarm system. Concern about maintenance, etc. There is a major issue which is how close the structures are to each other and the type of building materials that are used in the construction and the number of hydrants.

Mr. McDonald said that they should have a response to this letter and asked Mr. Maclay to bring an expert to clarify it for the PC. Mr. Maclay responded by saying that many of the things they have gone over with Chris Davis, so a lot of the issues are non-issues; for example:

· Use of trusses – they are proposing additional fire protection for the roof trusses.

· Main access roadways – will widen the road – have hard surface. Everything is fine.

· Building separation - still an issue, however. They did discuss and look at ways to try and deal with that issue. He showed a drawing that showed the site plan and the measures related to fire that are being proposed. Showed black lines which are required by Code – what is being proposed is a one-hour fire separation wall between buildings. With these walls, according to the code, the buildings could be closer together than what is on the drawing. 22’ is the closest they have buildings together. They also will fire protect the covered walkways that connect the buildings. They are also proposing (he showed hatch lines on drawings which are multi-family and common buildings) is, instead of being unprotected wood frame construction, it would be protected wood frame (sheetrock). In addition, they are also proposing (where dashed lines go around) additional fire safety measures – any where that a single-family building is within 30 feet of another single-family building, they would build walls that have firecode sheetrock on the inside of the wall and the outside of the wall and propose to use dense pack cellulose insulation. In addition, they are proposing that all of the exterior materials on all of the buildings in the project will be non-combustible building materials. Roofing is metal roofing. They are looking to design the soffits so they are built to ensure non-combustible materials are used.

Mr. McDonald asked Mr. Maclay, in his opinion, if CVCH has addressed these concerns of the CVFD. Mr. Maclay said that they have vastly exceeded what is required by Code. Mr. McDonald asked what Code he had been referring to and Mr. Maclay said The Vermont Fire Code which is for public buildings. He said CVCH is also proposing that all the single-family homes will be reviewed by the State. Mr. McDonald asked if CVCH had prepared a submittal to the CVFD (besides the current presentation) or if CVCH could provide a response. Mr. Maclay said that he had a letter to Chris Davis and a background of materials being used.

Mr. McDonald asked for questions. Dick St. George from CVFD expressed his concern about the multi-family dwellings and the size of their department and the fact that they are more than the department can handle and his concern about the roads in January, for instance, when they have to rely on surrounding towns’ trucks to get to the fire. He said they could be waiting half an hour and the fact that they are a volunteer department and not fully staffed all the time is an issue. Mr. McDonald said that it would be a discussion that the PC would have to have with the Select Board. Mr. St. George went on to say that CVFD needs Ferrisburgh, Shelburne and Hinesburg to get 3,000 gallons of water/minute. Mr. McDonald said that it is not a matter of just this application, but if the Town got ahead of itself with its plan going one way and then not being able to support it, it would be a problem. Marty Illick said that she supports what the Town is trying to do, but the equipment it has may not be appropriate with the goals of the Town and what is being proposed here, although it is commendable. She also said that with only 19 active volunteers on the fire department, it is not enough. Sylvia Sprigg asked if a sprinkler system would make a difference. Mr. St. George said it helps. Mr. Maclay said you can put a sprinkler off the pond (as proposed), but because it is expensive, you can’t do a sprinkler system off a well. Mr. Donovan asked Mr. Maclay to further explain the distance between buildings. It was noted that CVCH is going through a lot to make the buildings fire-resistant, but if they get another 16 feet added to the 20 feet proposed, it would buy them distance. The industry standard of a collapse zone of a building at any time is 1.5 x the height of the highest point.

There was discussion of water and how many gallons CVFD could provide. Mr. St. George said that they arrive at a fire with 750 gallons on the truck and 1500 gallons on the tanker and it can be used up in a matter of minutes. Mr. Brooks asked if it was a reasonable investigation to consider in a scenario like this the Fire Department can’t take care of it to look at the cost of providing a 3,000gals./minute system? Mr. St. George said that they still need NFPA/VOSHA-approved personnel. Mr. Brooks asked the cost of building a pump station and hydrants to take care of it and Mr. Marshall answered by saying it would cost between $100,000-$200,000. Mr. McDonald said it was an operational issue. Mr. Maclay understands the position of the fire department, but even if he puts in the measures, there still is the issue of personnel and the fact that an applicant needs to know about these kinds of rules in the beginning of a process. Mr. McDonald agreed that it was important that the Town needs to come up with standards up front, but CVCH is the first of this kind they have had to deal with. Debbie Ramsdell asked if it was an option if the Town said it didn’t hold the CVFD responsible, could the project go forward? Mr. Maclay said that there will be enough time with all the alarms and systems they are putting in effect for people to get out of the building(s). Linda Hamilton said that the Town has a wonderful fire department, but one that isn’t staffed and equipped; we need to help the department if they are going to help us, she said. Mr. Rosen said that the issue here is a take-home message of increasing the fire department and a contradiction has been pointed out which is that when you increase the infrastructure, you are exceeding development and so on the one hand, no one is against the first department, but if you give them all the help they need, you then increase the ability of the town to grow and not all of us are in favor of that, but what this project does is increase the density at least 50%. There’s a problem that needs to get resolved here, but the larger issue is that of cluster housing and the fire department.

Mr. Donovan said that he tends to differ slightly in that he sees it not necessarily as increasing the growth rate, but more influencing the way that that growth would be positioned on the land and without a better equipped fire department, they are encouraging the continuation of houses scattered far apart, while the same number tight together preserves the land, so he views the increased fire department as helping to preserve.

Another comment on a different subject he said was the landscaping – he asked Mike Buscher to go to a drawing and asked the rationale of why he planted so heavily and Mr. Buscher responded by saying that they did that because of the amount of fill required there; otherwise a portion that stood out a little bit because of the way the land is needed to be made and sculpted that accommodates a road, septic, etc. Mr. Donovan’s impression was that by planting so closely, they are accenting it more rather than camouflaging it out because most of the rest of it is a field in that area. Mr. Maclay said that it might make sense to plant more on the hillside to make it look like a continuation of existing vegetation. Mr. Donovan agreed that that was the main focus. Mr. Donovan said he would suggest putting more of a variety in the screening to the north, at least two maybe three different species together; a variety of evergreens. Mr. Donovan wanted to verify that there would be adequate screening in the opening between the plantings on the berm where the hedgerow comes out. Mr. Buscher said there are several smaller trees along the hedgerow. Mr. McDonald suggested continuing this matter.

Mr. Moraska made a motion to continue this matter until December 5, 2002 at which time a response to the CVFD will be discussed in more detail if necessary and also the planner’s notes of November 12, 2002 and potential revisions/ideas for landscaping. . Mr. Donovan seconded the motion. Mr. Rosen asked if this matter will be open until all of the questions are answered. Mr. McDonald said that it will have answered all the questions at the final hearing. He explained that a major subdivision goes through two hearings and this is in the preliminary stage. Act 250 will also happen during that time, Mr. Bloch said. Mr. McDonald suspects that the PC will be done with the preliminary next time. Following this discussion, a vote was taken and ALL WERE IN FAVOR AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Transcribed from audio tapes.

Respectfully submitted,

Kimberly L. Johnson