CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION

This hearing is to obtain public comment and the Planning Commission will listen to all public comments. But it is basically the same plan that was before the Planning Commission, Selectboard, and the Town before those two changes. Dean stated that he received two written comments before this meeting: one from Shirley Allen, and the other from Marty Illick. Copies of these comments will be passed around and read aloud for this hearing.

class=Section6>

Steve Moore asked what led to these changes. “What led to the restoration of the Industrial District?” That is the one at East Thompson’s Point Rd. and Route 7.

Gordon Troy stated that he was not on the Planning Commission at the time, but the Planning Commission approved the Town Plan the last time around, and through the Selectboard process that the zoning designation for that property was modified. The Planning Commission restored that back to what the Planning Commission felt it should be, which is that it is as currently zoned. There is ample opportunity established within the proposed Town Plan to investigate making a change in the future, but not to precipitously do so.

Steve Moore asked “if those who are in power have the power to do those things.” Jim Donovan said they have the power to change the wording of the Town Plan, but they don’t have the power to just arbitrarily change the zoning.

Gordon Troy said the Selectboard could implement interim zoning, but you also have the power to vote them out. Jim said the Planning Commission felt that before we just arbitrarily say that we have to get rid of it, we really need to study all of the Industrial and Business Zones within the town, see where they and see whether that one still makes sense in light of the current situation, and Act 60 and everything else, rather than just say, “We don’t like it, so let’s get rid of it.” That’s arbitrary. If we are going to do it, we have to do it right. Therefore, for now, it stays in, so the Planning Commission put it back in, and we will do that study before anything gets done about it.

We had the choice, Jim said, of either trying to do that study and waiting another year to get the Town Plan submitted, or wait on that issue but get the other things that need to be done in the Town Plan voted on. We opted to put it back in, since we haven’t really looked at it closely.

Al Moraska said that there is a legal issue involved with that, too; and our legal opinion told us that we cannot make Zoning changes through the Town Plan. Jeff McDonald said the Town Plan in its present state, still has that district in it, and this is still in effect and has not changed. The proposed plan that was voted on in March and was turned down, had that zoning district removed before having a proper study and a vote on it.

Shirley Allen said that according to Page 82, the criteria for the Industrial / Commercial Districts could be done in the new Zoning Regulations. But Jeff replied to that, saying that any change in Zoning had to go before the voters. This would be as part of the whole Zoning Regulations, and not as a separate item.

Martha Perkins and the rest of the Planning Commission thanked Shirley for going through this and showing where there are some needed changes and corrections. “These are really helpful.”

Jeff McDonald continued with some of Shirley’s comments, in addition to the ones just discussed. There was a question, “What is meant by ‘service population’?” This is on Page 13. Jeff said the service population is larger than the resident population, and includes those driving through from the ferry, those taking the train, those stopping in town for gasoline or groceries as well as those who are only part-time summer vacationers. In other words it includes others that are using town roads.

Another question from Shirley relates to 9.6.11, and identifies the Burns property incorrectly. This will be corrected to read, “north edge of the Burns property and the south edge of the village district.”

Next, the zoning map and regulations identify the “seasonal district” as both the town-owned district, and the private areas that have year-round homes that are already there, and have their own associations and rules. If the Town Plan intends to include all the shoreline areas, even the private ones, then those who live in year-round homes would have to leave them in October.

Jim Donovan said the plan may take smaller pieces. These regulations can be changed to Strategies, instead of Policies, he said. Gordon Troy said the Shoreline District will have separate management areas for the seasonal homes. These shall be separate management areas within the district.

Shirley suggested that the policy remain the same as at present, and strike cedar beach and the inhabited islands. Gordon said that he may re-craft Item 12 as to Strategies, after investigation.

Number 4 of Shirley’s questions, is that on Page 69, 4.6.9, an additional Cultural Asset is the Senior Center. Gordon agrees that this was inadvertently left out, and asked if someone could write this paragraph. The name of Patricia Coleman was strongly suggested as the person who could do this.

Another concern that Shirley raised, is that landowners should be properly compensated if they cannot use their own property. There are 160 structures on the list in Historic Districts. Some think it is an intrusion for any town to enforce a design. She said that one ought to be able to improve property as one can afford, rather than as dictated.

Jim Donovan said that there are guidelines, vs. regulations and permits, and asked where this is in the proposed Town Plan. Shirley said this is on Page 81, Adaptive Re-use of Historic Structures.

Harley Allen said the Zoning Board is having difficulty interpreting these regulations, that if there were a change of use nothing can be changed on the outside. The regulations should be enforced in the Historic District. Adaptive re-uses for the areas of Thompson’s Point, and the Village, and East Charlotte, which all have areas on the State Historic District lists, would all be affected. Mary Beth Freeman noted that the Zoning Board is proposing some changes.

Jim said Guidelines are not the same as Regulations. He asked that they have it outlined for information on the Village Historic Districts. On Page 91, 5.7.2.1 it starts with “Zoning Regulations shall ...”.

Clark Hinsdale, Jr. asked to speak. On Page 90 under General Policies, 5.6.1 #3, regarding Meadows and Pastures, it say the Town should be protective of these things. But what happens if someone digs a well and then there is protection of their new “well head” which extends over into the cornfield that he can no longer put fertilizer on?

Linda Hamilton talked about the Town’s Open Space plan. Page 101 has a timetable, #6. It says that the town develop an open space plan and it refers back to the plan. She says to reference Page 90 in Natural Resources #11, with input from the Conservation Commission. They will prepare within two years, a town-wide open space plan, she said. The plan may include water quality-related items. The Lewis Creek Association and The Conservation Commission will work together on water quality.

Page 82 and Page 90, and Page 93, Strategy #1 will be to work with the Lewis Creek Association on the LaPlatte River to monitor and restore water quality. Actually these are entities that are capable of assisting the Conservation Commission, Linda said.

Clark Hinsdale, Jr. asked if anyone can go on private property without permission. He said there should be some reminder that these things need to be done within a framework, and look for a way to put this into perspective. Jeff said that even if land is not posted, permission should be asked for and granted before they just go onto private property.

Mary Beth Freeman commented about Pattern of Development, Villages, Rural Areas, second paragraph. She said that raising of minimum lot sizes is not favored. In the village, 5-acre zoning didn’t make sense, so it has been suggested that there could be some increased density within the village areas, but changing the density to something other than the 5-acre zoning is not favored.

Jim said the simplest example is that there is 5 acre zoning everywhere, and 1 acre zoning in the village. If one 5-acre lot is divided into 5 lots, this means that they must preserve 20 acres somewhere else (4 extra acres for each of those 1-acre lots). The wording has to be re-done so everyone understands it.

Martha Perkins (referring to Page 79) cautioned that further increases in density should only be done if linked to open space in other areas of the Town. (Strategies, and Page 79 under Policies.)

Dave Garbose: Referring to Page 105, proposes language to replace existing utility line with buried lines. Gordon Troy replied that in the Regional Plan, it is desired to bury them.

Dave Garbose continued with this suggestion: When town roads are improved, we should include an empty conduit so the Utilities have a place to put the lines. When digging a culvert, he suggests that the Town put some conduit in there as well. Larry Hamilton agreed with the suggestion, saying that this sure would make the job of Tree Warden much easier.

Gordon said that under Future Pattern of Development, 5.7, and 5.8 they could add a Utility Line section.

Stephen Brooks commented that this should not only be for Utility Companies, but for individual properties also.

Clark Hinsdale, Jr.: Will these Utilities bury the lines in road right of ways? This is the same; there is rarely any notification to landowners by the Utilities, and it is done before anyone finds out, usually.

Jeff: This is not in the Town Plan, but is something that should be in the regulations.

Larry Hamilton suggested that on public roads in the scenic areas there should be no poles. Down on Ferry Road, he remembers, the Utilities had to consult either the landowners or the Town.

There was some discussion of Biological Diversities, and whether some language should be put back in there that was removed. Gordon said there was a simpler statement on Page 87, #8. This needs not be dictatorial but just says we should preserve and enhance biological diversity.

Page 46, Strategies. Hunting discussion says in there that it should not impede “quiet enjoyment.” Strategies mean that the Town will research something, and that there may be a next step..

Stephen Brooks brought up the increased lot size (to 25-acre zoning) again. Jim said there is no public support to change the size of zoning. Research has found that the Village residents do not want that. The farmers don’t want the increased lot sizes either, because this means, for a farmer who would like to have his children inherit (or be deeded) land. For instance a 50-acre lot could only have two 25-acre lots on it and he could not give land to his (for instance) three children.

Bruce Pendleton spoke about Page 82, Industrial Zone Policies: “Meets need or desires of area” fits, but this sounds like Charlotte is against business. Increasing density in Town: He mentioned the new plans for Champlain Co-Housing which would be not far from the village. Jeff said the “co-housing” is denser in order to have some conserved land.

It was suggested that on Page 82, d, e, and g be deleted. Jim said they cannot re-zone an area without a vote.

Al Moraska said the ability of commercial development needs to be assessed for each area. That is, the soil types, the availability of water etc. As to Ferry Road, Bruce said that “Only a State agency could get anything built on that wetland!”

Dean said, Strategies should be that they be re-zoned, either the existing ones or any that are proposed, for districts which do not meet the majority of the requirements. If they do not, they should be re-zoned. It is better that they have to meet a majority of the criteria. This Strategy puts meat back into it.

Jim said if we have to meet all 7 Policies nothing would pass. A should be mandatory, B should be mandatory, and at least two of the four remaining ones have to pass. Don’t avoid congested areas, though because if these are not close to a major area that hurts the industrial potential.

Rail and Truck access is important and there should be some way of evaluating this to be considered, but the zone must meet criteria A and B or it should be re-zoned.

Clark Hinsdale, Jr. asked about Page 86, Ag 5.4.1, #2, Potential agricultural soils “where possible” he asks that Gordon change the word “will” to “should.” He again brought up Page 96, Well heads next to their line, and “100' to 200'” on either side. “This takes away my land without compensation.” He said the well-head’s restrictive must be on their own property, and not extend onto his. He noted that State laws that protect water supplies sometimes have a large radius, and said if the well radius extends onto someone else’s property then someone should have to purchase those rights to protect common water supplies.

Charlie Russell said when someone puts in a well, they, in a way, dictate where the next person puts their septic system. This applies to the septic disposal stage.

Small Structures: If this is changed, every dog house would need a variance. Under 100 s.f. has a separate set of criteria. There is a proposal to change that section.

Gordon Troy moved that the Planning Commission close the hearing of the proposed Town Plan. After he and the Planning Commission make further changes relating to this hearing, it will be sent to the Selectboard, who will hold two more hearings. Jeff McDonald seconded the motion, and the vote was 4-0 with 3 members not here for the vote. Jeff said the Town will investigate the issue of wellhead setbacks.

Policies, should be done without adverse impact on neighbors, or on neighborhood land use. Gordon suggested that a well-head should have property line setback requirements like a structure.

Jeff said the hearing is closed, but Jonathan Fisher said there are still some issues that will need to be addressed, relating the Historical Districts.

Gordon moved that the Planning Commission approve the proposed Town Plan per the amendments made tonight, and that they then be forwarded to the Selectboard before November 21^st, 2000. Martha Perkins seconded the motion. Gordon said that by Wednesday afternoon, he would have a final version. The approval vote was 4-0, with 3 members not here for the vote.

APPROVED BY THE CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION ON

Chairman Date

O:\Planning Commission\Minutes\nov152001apprvd.doc