CHARLOTTE
PLANNING COMMISSION
THURSDAY,
NOVEMBER 20, 2003
6:30
PM
Charlotte
Town Hall – 159 Ferry Road
Members Present:
Jim
Donovan
Jeff
MacDonald, Chair
Al
Moraska
Robin
Pierce
Linda
Radimer
Members Absent:
Gordon Troy
Staff
Present:
Dean Bloch
Others Present:
Fred and Shirley Patnaude
Stuart Bennett
Jonathan Fisher
Chair McDonald called the meeting to order at 6:41
p.m.
APPROVE
CONSENT AGENDA AND REGULAR AGENDA (NOTHING ON CONSENT AGENDA)
He
asked if there were any changes or problems with the agenda. Jim Donovan said that he wants to add at the
end of the agenda a report on the Burns Committee.
None.
FRED
AND SHIRLEY PATNAUDE; REQUEST FOR
REAFFIRMATION OF EXISTING SUBDIVSION.
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 298 WHALLEY ROAD IN THE RURAL DISTRICT.
Stuart Bennett,
representing the Patnaudes, addressed the PC.
He explained that in connection with a proposed sale of their remaining
property of 14.64 acres, when they looked at plat that was recorded, it wasn’t signed
by the Planning Commission in 1981 and there is a 10-acre lot and a 4.6 acre
lot. He went on to say that he has
reviewed the PC minutes from that time and they were very sparse. There was no reference of the plan and right
after that meeting, the plan was filed.
Dean Bloch found that several months prior to that meeting, the zoning
board granted a variance for the 4.64 acre lot. Then the PC blessed it.
Mr.
Bennett explained that tonight, they want reaffirmation from the PC of what it
did in 1981 so that they can get the mylar signed and the property sold.
Mr.
Moraska noted that in July of 1981, the PC approved a 2-lot subdivision (10.1
and 14.6 acres) and subsequently the zoning board granted a variance on the lot
that didn’t exist at that time. On
September 24, the PC approved as shown on a plan without any discussion or
reference without acknowledging that they had a substandard lot. Linda Radimer asked if the 4.63 subdivision
was done to create the 10.1 to not have to trigger Act 250. Mr. Bennett said that he surmises that is
the reason but wasn’t there at the time.
Ms. Radimer then asked if there was any topography that would show that
that would be a natural place to separate the land. Mr. Bennett asked the Patnaudes. They said that’s the way it was surveyed so they could give each
child 10.1 acres of land. One of the
lots came back to them. One ten acre
lot has a house, one doesn’t have anything on it. Mr. Donovan asked him to clarify which was which; Mr. Bennett
showed him on the map. Lot 3 is the lot
that is owned by another party and has a building on it, Lot 2 has nothing on
it and Lot 1 is the one that the Patnaudes’ house is on. They want to sell
Lots 1 and 2 to the same owner. Mr.
McDonald asked if there was anything in the minutes that said why the variance
was given by the zoning board. The
answer is “no.” Mr. Donovan asked if it
was merely a matter of signing the existig mylar or creating a new one. Mr. Bloch said there is a form that can be
used which gets stuck right onto the mylar which states that the PC is
reaffirming the existing one. Jonathan
Fisher asked what year the zoning board gave the variance. He was told it was 1981. He then asked if it was done to create less
than a five-acre lot because the zoning board doesn’t have jurisdiction, he
said. Mr. McDonald asked Mr. Fisher what standards were in place in 19881 that
would do that and Mr. Fisher answered that they weren’t that different.
Mr.
McDonald asked for any other comments.
Ms. Radimer asked if the PC had jurisdiction when the action of the
zoning board was not correct; does it pose a legal issue? Mr. Bloch said in general a reaffirmation is
just to correct the technical deficiency of a lack of a signature or a
signature after 90 days after approval.
As far as the fact whether or not either board had authority to do what
they did, he said he was not sure if that was the issue which was under
consideration at this point.
Mr. Donovan made a motion to
reaffirm the decision of the Planning Commission, dated September 24, 1981. Mr. Pierce seconded the motion.
Mr.
Moraska said he has no problem with this as long as it has no legal effect to
the Town or the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bennett said that, because of the time passage of 15 years, it
should be fine. All were in favor and the motion
was unanimously PASSED.
REVIEW OF MAPS
DETERMINATION OF MEETING
DATES IN JANUARY 2004
DISCUSSION OF UPDATE TO LAND
USE REGULATIONS WITH BURNT ROCK, FOCUSING ON CHAPTER III (GENERAL REGULATIONS)
AND CHAPTER VI (SUBDIVISION)
MINUTES: OCTOBER 2, OCTOBER 16, OCTOBER 30
O:\Planning
Commission\Minutes\Unapproved\November 20.doc