Members Present: Chair Jeff McDonald

Al Moraska

Jim Donovan

Gordon Troy

Gene Diou

Josie Leavitt

Members Absent: Dave Brown

Officials Present: Dean Bloch

Public Present: Peter Richardson Chris Destin

Alan & Trudi Jordan Richard LeBoeuf

Jonathan Fisher Eleanor Russell

Stephen C. Brooks Debbie Ramsdell

Linda Sparks Chris Boffa

Jack Wallace Diana McCargo

Nancy Sabin Greg Couture

Steven Clark Robin Reid

Mike Hardie Frances Foster

Jenny Cole

Chair Jeff McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Mr. McDonald explained that the Town Planner was exploring a new agenda format and he distributed a copy of an MPO agenda as an example. He said that he wanted to revise the current agenda to be able to address the Affordable Housing Committee first. The Raabe representative said he had no problem waiting until later to be heard. The minute approval will also be put at the end of the meeting. Everyone was in agreement.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Steve Brooks asked the question: if moving consent agenda items to later in the meeting, is it your intention to discuss those items? Mr. McDonald answered by saying that consent items are not for discussion; if you want to comment on them, they need to be added to the agenda. Mr. Brooks asked for the policy regarding information to put on the agenda. Mr. McDonald said that items are put on the agenda when they are ready to be acted on. Mr. Brooks asked if this matter could be moved to the next meeting and Mr. McDonald said it would be put in with the minutes. It was brought to the PC’s attention that the Mushkat matter needs to be discussed and Mr. McDonald said that it would be ok.

The items that have not been raised would be the Dykema written decision and the sketch plan letter for Boffa, Mr. McDonald said. He asked if everyone was ok with this and they were. Therefore, he asked for a motion to approve the consent agenda items (consent agenda means that they are ready for signature or action.) Mr. Bloch informed the PC that there was a site visit on Boffa and asked if the PC was ready to act on this matter. Al Moraska asked if consent items are decided, when do they discuss them. Mr. McDonald said that they are intended for items that don’t need discussion, but if they do, they will be put further on the agenda. Mr. Moraska said he has one comment on the Dykema matter. Mr. McDonald informed Mr. Moraska that this matter was moved to later on before Mr. Moraska joined the meeting.

The PC moved everything else to later.

Discussion with Affordable Housing Committee, including regulatory review and RFP – Richard LeBeouf, Peter Richardson, Robin Reid, Jenny Cole, Nancy Sabin-- John Owen (not here)

Jenny Cole addressed the PC. She inquired as to what the PC wanted the committee’s role to be. They are eager to work with the rewriting of zoning regulations, ways of making affordable housing possible – density bonuses, inclusionary zoning, transfer of development rates. They went over the outline in the Town Plan and talked about each item on the list and she distributed copies. Relating to page 84, Elderly and Affordable Housing Strategies, Mr. Troy asked if the committee was looking at “elderly” and “affordable” simultaneously. The committee said that they were. JIM DONOVAN ARRIVED AT THIS TIME. Mr. Moraska said that the RPC came up with a report on affordable housing in Chittenden County and he asked if the committee had reviewed it. Ms. Cole said that they have a copy of it. Robin Reid said that they are talking about Charlotte and not Chittenden County and how much is the fact that it is part of Chittenden County going to rule the situation. Ms. Cole said that the Town Plan recommends having a member of the Affordable Housing committee be part of the regional housing organization (liaison). Peter Richardson thanked the PC for meeting with them. The purpose here today is to get some guidance, he said. He also inquired if affordable housing should also include senior housing – do you mean affordable or regardless of price, e.g. Mr. Troy said that his understanding of the parameters of senior elderly housing are different than affordable housing, but from a planned development density issue, they seem to be intertwined as far as planning.

Mr. Richardson said that each would be dedicated to limited income. Senior means affordable senior, Mr. Troy clarified. The first task directs a needs analysis for Charlotte. Mr. Richardson said they looked at a study from 11-12 years ago It concluded that there was 15-20% of housing that was affordable in households that are at or below the median in the county (1991). The conclusion is the same now – there is a huge gap and huge demand for families whose incomes are at or below median and they agree with that, so there’s no need for a new study, Mr. Richardson said. Ms. Reid said that it may be worse actually now. Mr. Troy asked if there was a projection, to which the reply was no, just status. What is the type and amount that is needed, Mr. McDonald asked. Mr. Richardson said the need is huge if the objective is to try and embrace affordability at a mean income or less. He said the second point is to look at resources to assist the Town in defined needs and mechanisms to provide the housing. The PC would like this committee to be involved in the RFP process. Mr. McDonald said that the language in the scope would direct the consultant to involve the affordable housing committee. It will be voted in 2004. Mr. Moraska said that the bylaws that are currently being used were outdated and needed to be revised and updated. Mr. Richardson said that the third directive is to create affordable housing lots and establish relationships with other developers. They think their role is advocacy, he said. The density bonus would be a useful tool and help people save money. Affordable housing and subdivision review could work well together, Mr. Bloch said. Ms. Cole said that there is no particular person to direct people to. Mr. Troy noted that Champlain Valley Co-Housing is an example of a proposed project that the PC has been working on and they added 2 affordable housing units to the proposed development. Ms. Sabin said that their role is education as well; a brochure would be helpful. Mr. McDonald said that the immediate task for them is comments on the RFP and to work with Mr. Bloch on how to better work and communicate on upcoming projects.

Debbie Ramsdell asked if the committee came up with what median income is. Mr. Richardson said that the median income in Chittenden County is about $60,000 for a family of 4. A $190,000-$200,000 home would be affordable for this family. If applied to Charlotte, the median income – about 80% of Charlotte’s income is the median for the county – in Charlotte it is the low $70,000s. Steve Brooks said that maybe where you’re going with new bylaws is to make affordable housing economic. Mr. Moraska said that Habitat for Humanity is a group that the committee could contact. Ms. Read agreed. Ms. Sabin said that it is also rentals, not just home ownership.

Daniel and Susan Raabe/Wings Point Homeowners Association: Subdivision Modification to transfer a portion of house-lot to homeowners’ association. Property located at 158 McNiel Cove Road in the Shoreland and Conservation Districts.

Chris Destito, representative for Dr. Raabe, addressed the PC saying that Dr. Raabe wants to transfer a portion of his property (to the south of, and including, the road to the beach) to the homeowners’ association. However, they need more time for the conveyance; therefore, this is a request for additional one or two months, to get in order the appraisal and mortgage. Mr. Bloch said the recommendation is that they actually transfer the property within a certain period of time. He said three months is a hypothetical date, not a requirement. They looked at a survey. Steve Brooks asked if the other applicant was represented here tonight. Mr. Bloch answered saying that the other applicant is the homeowner association, who is actually Raabe. Mr. Troy asked if the PC had received anything from the homeowners association and Mr. Bloch showed him a letter they had received. Mr. Brooks asked if this was a 1987 subdivision, wouldn’t it have the early fire pond condition language and if so, haven’t we recently learned that that language is not enforceable and if so isn’t this the time to make a condition of approval that the amendment includes the new so-called subdivision language so that the non-operative dry hydrant problem doesn’t remain a problem and in fact that is one of the non-operative ones down there. Mr. McDonald said that it is not a subdivision, just a boundary adjustment. Mr. Destito asked Mr. Brooks for clarification. Mr. Brooks said the dry hydrant doesn’t work and there’s early draft language that went with earlier subdivisions and that language the Town has learned recently is not enforceable to assure for public health and safety. There is newer language, Mr. Brooks said, that has resolved that problem, so the Town could send a letter to have it fixed. Jonathan Fisher said that the subdivision had covenants and force mains that required easements across it – is that taken into account on this parcel, he asked. Mr. McDonald said nothing that has been brought on the table and he said that this is a good point, but the issue at hand is a boundary adjustment. Mr. Fisher said it was warned as a subdivision modification. Mr. Troy said it is a PRD. He also suggested that Mr. Brooks’ point is valid, but should we ask whether or not because it is a boundary adjustment in the existing PRD that was granted, does the PC have authority within the context of a boundary adjustment where the association gets more property to reword the enforcement mechanisms as contained in the dry hydrant provision of that subdivision, which opens up whether or not just doing this, does that require the entire subdivision to come in and be parties to the application? The homeowners association was a result of that PRD application. The letter from that association says that it wants this to happen and is happy to get it, but they are a collective body of the original subdivision. Mr. Troy said if you open up one thing, you open up the whole thing. Mr. Donovan said that it is a valid point, except that they have created lots. Once the PRD is done, they have created lots and when opened up again, we are only dealing with lots that have been created. Mr. Diou said that the PC needs to look at 2 issues – one is a simple boundary adjustment and the second is that a lot of the dry hydrants don’t work so if we want to attack them as they come up which may lead to more delays or take a review and set this problem as an issue to review and come up with a unified approach to all these dry hydrants. Mr. Bloch said that he doesn’t think the Town attorney would agree that it opens up the whole issue of dry hydrants. Ms. Leavitt asked if this would be under zoning’s jurisdiction. Mr. Moraska said it looks like this matter is evolving from a subdivision modification to a whole new area which has gone beyond what has been presented and seems to be a hydrant issue. He said that it shouldn’t be holding up this so it looks like an issue to decide separately. Mr. Troy asked if the PC could act on this if the homeowners association was not in compliance. Mr. Bloch will check on this. Mr. Fisher asked if this adjustment would create a need for a side yard variance and Mr. Donovan said that it doesn’t need a variance because it is a PRD. Mr. Fisher said that a zoning problem will be created if a line moves and then the lot line is within 10 feet of the house.

Mr. Troy said that it would be helpful to have an answer to this question, based upon PRD’s decision and upon setback requirements in the district by moving the property line, are we in fact creating a condition of non-compliance? Mr. Fisher said there is an example of splitting up property on Hills Point; he doesn’t think it was a PRD, but it was a 2-lot subdivision. Mr. Bloch asked if the applicant can look into if it is in compliance.

Mr. McDonald said that it is in the interest of the PC to continue this matter and the PC agreed. After discussion, the PC directed Mr. Bloch to take care of the administrative part of this application (having a form signed by homeowners association to become a party). This matter will continue to February 6, 2003.

Jack and Joyce Wallace, Applicant; Felicia H. Gecewicz Trust, Property Owner: Sketch Plan Review for 8-lot subdivision located on Spear Street and Spear Gervia Road in the Rural and Conservation Districts.

Jack Wallace addressed the PC and distributed a slightly revised map in response to Mr. Bloch’s comments. Mr. McDonald said that it is a sketch plan and the PC can only classify and give input. The darkened areas represent wetlands and the central dark area is Mud Hollow Brook which runs north-south, Mr. Wallace said. The right-hand side is Spear Street where the frontage of the lot is and there’s an unnamed stream which is a darkened squiggly line on the right side and Mud Hollow Brook is in the center. They are proposing to use the old road that has access. The highlighted area that the house lots are shown in is a wooden area on the property that has historically been that way and the lighter area surrounding are fields that have been in agricultural use – they are currently being hayed. The dark line connecting the wooded area to the center shaded area is a wildlife crossing. The diagonally hatched area that leads into is the conservation district that’s referred to in the application, so this property is in 2 districts. The west is logged off recently. The original proposal was an 8-lot subdivision, 7 house lots and 1 open space lot. Now, they are asking the PC to consider the handed-out proposal which would be 9 lots which would consist of 7 house lots, Lot 8 which would be retained and contain mostly agricultural fields and intended to continue as ag use and then Lot 9 would consist of approx. 80-83 acres which would be to the west of Mud Hollow Brook. After getting feedback and having some other information they were able to propose this with Lot 9 being created and they are asking that Lot 9 be subdivided off and not be considered in any way in evaluating the improvements; then Lot 9 could be transferred to someone who could donate the development rights. In zoning regs, there is a provision for lots larger than 50 acres to be subdivided off with minimal review and considered at a later date (principal of it) – deferral. In other words, no change in use would be proposed at this time he said. Mr. Donovan asked where the line was between 8 and 9. Mr. Wallace said it is intended to follow Mud Hollow Brook. Wetlands are off from Town maps and not fully delineated, Mr. Troy noted. Mr. Wallace went on to say that the east side where they are proposing to access the house lots, is approx. 95 acres and the lighter areas which are currently being mowed and hayed are approx. 48 acres and the remaining on the east side conservation district wetlands and wildlife areas comprise approx. 12 acres and the lots themselves, road right-of-way and septic area are located on 35 acres. The location of houses was created in an effort to try and retain the farm land, he said. The visual from Spear Street is minimal, if not at all. One of the lots is enveloping a farm pond, which is included in the house area because it could be used as a fire pond. Mr. Moraska asked how big the building lots are; Mr. Wallace answered 3-5 acres. Ms. Ramsdell asked if they were serious about asking every subdivision applicant that comes to them if they had considered affordable housing. Mr. Donovan said that they are. Mr. Wallace said that he thinks that people are happy to give feedback and that the report on this project characterizes a dense development, so with that type of thing, it’s not conducive to affordable housing. Ms. Ramsdell suggested making a duplex. Mr. Wallace said that it is possible. Ms. Sabin asked the definition of supporting wildlife habitats. Mr. Bloch said it is off the Town Conservation Wildlife Map. Mr. Donovan said one of its categories is supporting wildlife and said that there is data is available that tells how the map was created and that it is based on plants that are there and how they are compared with wildlife in the area.

Michael Harding asked what would be the disposition in Lots 8 and 9? Mr. Wallace said that the disposition of Lot 8 is that it would either be retained in some fashion either by himself or a homeowners association or possibly sold to someone who wanted to use it for farming; otherwise, leased to someone who would use it for farming and attached to it an open space agreement, so nothing would fall into a land trust category. The disposition of Lot 9 is that it would be sold to another party and in terms of this application, it would be proposed to not changing its current use. Mr. Harding asked if development rights would be included in that sale; could that piece of property be developed later? Mr. Wallace said that wouldn’t be considered; as part of this proposal, he said we are not saying that that couldn’t get developed. Mr. Troy said that he understands what is being suggested is that the goal is to have that property as a separate lot so that it could be sold to an organization that would have the ability to strip the development rights off from it and keep it perpetually open, but if you put a restriction on it, it would cause a problem because of tax implications. Debbie Ramsdell asked, “does that mean that issue of opening up Spear Gervia Road a non-issue. Mr. Wallace said that it is not a non-issue, but defers the question. Ms. Cole said that the density bonus would be 4-7 affordable housing units and could that be worked into the plan? Mr. Wallace answered by saying that to get the bonus, first he’d have to go from 7 to 20 and then get the bonus. Mr. Troy disagreed and said that you could get a bonus, if you consider affordable housing, consider one more house. Mr. Bloch said that number of lots is less than allowable density, so density bonus is not a carrot, but is there another bonus that the Town could offer. For instance, while we are discussing affordable housing, if the Town is offering this, could you as a developer build another house or two, he asked. Mr. Troy said that we are only dealing with the east side. Mr. Fisher asked if the issue was septic. Mr. Brooks said there are economic questions, e.g. what is the way it becomes attractive to build and trigger that? There has to be some incentive that goes to the developer-incentivized building, Steve said. Mr. McDonald said that he thinks that 20 units might be an economic project with an affordable housing element in it. Mr. Wallace said the only way on a piece of land like this is multi-family. Mr. Wallace said that the staff report indicates that the ag piece isn’t significant. Mr. Moraska disagrees with staff’s assessment on the ag part; likes the second plan much better; he has concerns on the wildlife corridor on Lots 4 and 5, but it is a beautiful parcel of land and so much diversity within it; he said that the PC needs to have a site visit. With a site visit, the PC can give Mr. Wallace a better idea on location of lots, etc. Mr. Donovan agrees; ag is valuable and working; what is the nature of wildlife connection and how is it determined to go across Lots 4 and 5 particularly and is there any way to actually provide a slightly larger buffer on Lots 5 and 6 to connect down to the rest of it or is the corridor not going that way. Mr. McDonald said that they need to have a wildlife assessment to see if the wildlife corridor could be shifted. Mr. Donovan wants to recognize that the applicant is addressing other issues and the PC has conflicting criteria. Mr. Wallace asked if all woods were considered habitat? Mr. Bloch said that when it is over 50 contiguous acres, it is. Mr. Donovan said that at this point, it looks like an excellent job of preserving ag land and excellent job of preserving the views, and not so good for wildlife. The PC has to determine how 3 things balance off and whether they sacrifice views and ag to make wildlife better, e.g. Mr. Troy moved to classify this application as a major subdivision under PRD. Mr. Donovan seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was approved.

Mr. Troy encouraged the conservation commission to get involved early. Mr. Brooks said that the applicant may want to call Linda Hamilton; however it was noted that she was in Australia.

The site visit for this application will be December 15 at 10:00 a.m. and this matter will be put on the agenda for December 19. Mr. Troy directed Mr. Bloch to send out an email the Friday before the site visit to remind members. Debbie Ramsdell asked about the houses in Section 9 (2 houses) from the first time and what happened? Mr. McDonald told her that the applicant eliminated those and put them in with the cluster. Ms. Sabin asked the PC to tell the Affordable Housing committee when they get the appropriate maps that go with the west village plan. Mr. Donovan said that within a week, they should have them.

Meeting Minutes.

The PC went into deliberations to discuss the minutes of previous meetings. The following meeting minutes were approved with changes:

August 15, 2002 – APPROVED

September 5, 2002 – APPROVED

September 19, 2002 – APPROVED

October 3, 2002 – APPROVED

October 17, 2002 – TABLE

TABLE THE REST

Respectfully submitted,

Kim Johnson