CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION

Guests Signed in:

Debbie Ramsdell

Sylvia Sprigg

Jonathan Fisher

Mary Beth Freeman

Harley D. Allen

Shirley Bean

Shirley W. Allen

Jack Clemmons

Lydia Clemmons

Caitlin Labarge

Ted Braun

Joan Braun

Kevin C. Keanan

Allison C. Lockwood

Nancy Sabin

Linda S. Hamilton

Jim Wells

Peter & Tricia Coleman

Jennifer Owen Adsit

Chris Kingston

Dana Farley

Davis Cherrington

Stephen C. Brooks Marty Illick

1. General Business: Jack Clemmons and a group of neighbors of the Charlotte Rail Station came to ask if the Vermont Railway had obtained permits to build a freight car storage depot north of the rail station. Approximately a month ago they added new tracks connected to the side rails parallel to the existing tracks, extending north at a distance of three quarters of a mile along Greenbush Road as far as the Roberts= house, and have stored old, rusty train cars there. This is new construction.

Jack said when the rail station was constructed, there were two sets of rails. Now, because of this extension of rails they cannot cross over to their fields because the trains have remained there for a month or more. Jack said that they had called the railroad personnel several times to ask to have those cars moved so they could cross. Instead, the railroad has added more cars there and they extend all the way from the Roberts= house to the train station, just parked there.

He asked again, if when Vermont Railway had approval for the train station there was also approval for the storage depot.

Al Moraska said there has been no application for a freight car depot. Jack Clemmons produced a copy of State Statutes regarding development, Section #6001 of Title 24, Chapter 151. There are regulations that the railroads are supposed to follow to do that.

Kevin Keanan asked to speak. He said if, when he purchased his land and built a home, he had thought this area was going to be a dumping ground for rusty train cars, he would not have done so. He believes there is an environmental hazard and that this is a safety concern as well, in that children could climb into these 30 train cars left unattended.

Gordon Troy made a suggestion. While the Town of Charlotte needs to find out where jurisdiction may lie, if in fact there is jurisdiction, this is a threshold issue. He would highly recommend, he said, that these neighbors take photographs with a camera that has dating on it, if not daily, at least several times a week showing the dating on it in order to build the evidence that these railroad cars are parked there, until such time as the legality of them doing so is determined. Regardless of the viewshed issues and the wildlife issues that the Town can address if it can, the rights of the private citizens can be addressed, Gordon said, but it is important that they start building the evidence for the case.

Dean Bloch said that the Zoning Administrator, Tom Mansfield, would not be in on the following day, but that he himself would make some calls to the State and see if they are aware of what is going on. Jack Clemmons asked who in the State can answer questions about this; they had already talked to Mr. Wulfson and Vermont Railway. Gordon said he believed the rails now fall under the Agency of Transportation (AOT). One name comes to mind, Jim Fitzgerald. Dean said the people concerned could call him later on in the morning, and he would try to have some answers.

Stephen Brooks suggested that someone get a copy of the Vermont Railway=s lease, to see if this operation is written in there.

Al Moraska said this depot is not consistent with the Town Plan.

2. General Business, Senior Center draft decision. The consensus among Planning Commission members was to agree with the written decision on the approval. Stephen Brooks asked for details and it was explained to him that the rest of the approval issues regarding the landscaping is being addressed via an Aad-hoc@ committee.

General Business: Review of Minutes: Minutes for October 18, 2001 were reviewed. Gordon Troy suggested several additions to sentences that will make them much more clear to future review. Also as pertaining to the Stearns= application when they were describing their talks with the Land Trust, it was the fact that the Stearns wanted to retain 30 acres, that the Land Trust declined to accept the offer, according to Marty Illick. The rest of the Planning Commission agreed with the suggested changes, and Al Moraska moved that the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of October 18, 2001 as amended. Gordon Troy seconded the motion and it was approved, 4-0 with 3 members absent.

Meeting with State Police regarding suggested changes for the traffic lights at Ferry Road and Route 7: Various suggestions were made including having a rotary there, but the State Police are not in favor of that. The strobe beams inside the traffic lights will be removed from the northbound module, however.

3. Zoning Bylaws: The Telecommunications Bylaw to replace the Interim Telecommunications Bylaw will be made a part (Chapter 9) of the regular Zoning Bylaws. Gordon Troy supplied copies of the Interim Bylaw, in which the new sections are highlighted in blue, and the sections highlighted red have been deleted. There are additional grammatical corrections which he will discuss after this discussion, which he has highlighted in yellow (such as removing the word Ainterim@ and other minor changes).

Dean Bloch explained that the Interim Telecommunications Bylaw was adopted two years ago, and that expired a year ago and was extended for another year.

This Public Hearing is being held by the Planning Commission, then there will be a Public Hearing by the Selectboard and a vote on it in March. The Interim Bylaw has been refined due to federal jurisdiction.

Mary Beth Freeman said the biggest change is in the Insurance and Indemnity Section because of federal legislation which exempts telecommunication companies from liability. Gordon said a clause that has been added, that insurance is provided for any catastrophe. The purpose of Bylaws is to protect the health and welfare of citizens of the Town of Charlotte, Mary Beth added, and they address aesthetic issues, while minimizing a proliferation of Telecommunications facilities.

The next section is, Authority to Hire a Consultant. The Town needs to have consistency with federal law, and the purpose is to make sure that the Town does not prohibit personal wireless services.

Harley Allen address the first paragraph, which addresses the issue of mobile units such as from a television station setting up a portable unit near an accident. They are not exempt, therefore they would have to go before the Zoning Board, which takes four weeks, and by that time the accident is all over, he said.

Gordon said that couldn=t happen because these jurisdictions are for property and an antenna has to be grounded. Harley suggested a scenario where a mobile unit was parked in a driveway, then moved to another spot, then another, each for a few days at a time so that the effect is to have a tower while bypassing regulations.

Nancy Sabin agreed, saying that large signs can be put on four wheels and moved around, so a telecommunications facility could also get around the regulations in the same way.

Gordon said that is a valid point, and he would try to find a way to incorporate that point.

Harley Allen continued; dBm and dBu terms regarding decibels are used throughout the regulations. When measuring field strength of decibels, it is in dBu. It is important that the right terms are used.

A decibel (dB) stands for one bell. 1 dyne/cm² = 1 dB. There are 2.248 X 10^-6 lbs.//cm². Harley said these are standard measures. 10 billion dbu=s equals 10 thousand dbm=s which equals 10 decibels, which equals one bell. Gordon indicaed; ABut these are standard measurements.@ Harley said if we make a mistake by putting dBm here, then somebody with a high powered transmitter could come in under there, where they couldn=t if that was dBu. There is a thousand times the power.

Gordon asked if the terms are used correctly in this Bylaw. Harley said they were generally acceptable, but dBm is Antenna strength, and dBu is Field Strength in open spaces; the output is in microwaves and is a finite unit of signal measurement. Dbm relates the output of the antenna in microwaves, to the current and voltage input to that antenna. There is generally a gain: you transmit more power than you put in. There is a concern, which Gordon will watch for when going through this, that the dBm and the dBu terms are used correctly.

Martha Perkins asked Mary Beth Freeman and Allison Lockwood what they think about this, since they put these terms in. Mary Beth said the definitions came from copies of regulations in Massachusetts, but she would like to have consulting engineers look these over to be sure the terms have been used correctly.

There was then a discussion about who would pay for the engineer, and Mary Beth said she might have a volunteer for this since this project has been ongoing for two years. Gordon pointed out that there is very little that has been changed in this version from the one that has been in place for two years. Mary Beth said there has been some concern about how this was drawn up. Theirs was a committee appointed by the Planning Commission. This group gathered legal bylaws from other towns. They looked at setbacks that were safe. Towers cannot be outlawed so they identified five areas where towers could go, mostly in swamps. They did consult with two engineers and this has been reviewed by an attorney. They have made it a priority to keep apprised of new changes and have reported back to the Planning Commission prior to the future Selectboard hearing.

Some questions were discussed about having towers put on existing silos and other tall structures, and the objections to that are the setback distances from people and livestock. Gordon said there may be a lot of opportunity to use silos and since the new ones are digital rather than analog, they can be placed in such structures. If the antennas can satisfy the setbacks, the town should encourage it. Al Moraska agrees with that opinion.

It should be noted that Section 5.10 of the Zoning Bylaws already addresses towers. Telecommunications antennae can=t be put on church steeples or windmills unless they go through the approval process.

Tricia Coleman noted that Section 9, A & B, protects scenic/environmental resources in the town. Using that, some people were against having a view of a windmill.

Allison said while it might be good to have antennas hidden, it is important to make sure people are aware of where these antennas are.

Jonathan Fisher noted that if there is an antenna in a church steeple, a lot of people are exposed to it. If there is some technology to shield it, that would be good.

Nancy Sabin recalled that when the first hearing was held, a professor from UVM had said that these are radio frequencies, and that signals bounce.

Gordon moved to close the public hearing. Al Moraska seconded. In discussion, Gordon noted that the changes agreed to in this hearing were to define decibels, clean up language issues, and deliberate in the next meeting for the completed version to be given to the Selectboard for their public hearing. Copies will be made available in the Town Offices and on webtm.com, or gordontroy.com. The motion to close the hearing was approved, 4-0 with three members absent.

4. Chris and Heather Kingston, frontage setback for restrictions on Barber Hill: This is Lot 4 in a final subdivision that has gone before the Selectboard which was originally Lot 1. They are looking for approval of the gifting of 5 acres to the Town of Charlotte. They have a deed for Lot 4 which is on the very top of Barber Hill.

Jeff McDonald noted that there were four items in the conditions:

#1 the corrections were made regarding the title of the survey,

#2 the applicant has met with the Selectboard,

#3 the force main remains with the applicants, and

#4 the driveway has been built as designed.

Gordon Troy moved to close the hearing on Chris and Heather Kingston. Martha Perkins seconded the motion and it was approved, 4-0 with three members absent. There will be a draft written decision from Dean Bloch, which is to approve the two-lot subdivision.

Gordon Troy moved to approve the Chris and Heather application with the following conditions:

1) That a mylar and survey map be submitted to the Planning Commission for review within 60 days and recorded in the Charlotte Land Records within 90 days.

2) That the proposed deed shall be executed and recorded in the Charlotte Land Records within 6 months.

Martha Perkins seconded the motion and then there was discussion. Al proposed an amendment:

3) Move the septic disposal area for Lot #1.

Chris Kingston said there had been a pre-existing septic for the bath house. This was supporting both the bath house and a number of camp sites. Civil Engineering Associates investigated this for them, and there is a letter enclosed. They will put the tank and pump station by the house and connect over the top of the hill to the existing station, decreasing the distance by a little over a third.

Nancy Sabin asked if the aquifer is identified on the map. She noted that the aquifer is the base of the water system for the Town, and was concerned that the septic on a higher elevation would hurt the water supply.

Dean said the engineers had looked at that. When the septic design was done, these same engineers said there was sufficient septic distribution to purify it.

Gordon had an overlay, which Nancy Sabin came over to view.

Gordon Troy moved to close the hearing on Chris and Heather Kingston with the following conditions:

1) The primary replacement septic disposal areas which were originally approved for Lot #1 shall be maintained in a condition that would allow for their use in the event of a failure of the proposed system.

2) Upon completion of construction of the applicants= residence in a manner which conforms with the Zoning Permit, the Administrative Officer shall issue a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (pursuant to section 6.2.C of the Charlotte Zoning Bylaws). The applicant shall apply for a permanent Certificate of Occupancy after one year. The Administrative Officer shall inspect the septic system for signs of failure after six months of use, and again after one year of use, and only issue the permanent Certificate of Occupancy if the septic system is found to be in good working order.

Al Moraska seconded the motion and it was approved, 4-0 with three members absent.

5. Conservation Fund: Sketch Plan Review for a 2-Lot Subdivision located on Greenbush Road and East Thompson=s Point Road: Dana Farley represented the Conservation Fund, along with Davis Cherrington. Dana said this is part of a national organization to preserve high quality farmland. It has done 22 projects in Vermont; notably in Charlotte it was the Demeter Fund project.

The Conservation Fund became interested in the Laberge Farm at the corner of East Thompson=s Point Rd. and Greenbush Rd. a few years ago, Dana said. This is one of Charlotte=s most significant farms, including a historic structure and a very visible viewshed from Mount Philo. The objective was originally to preserve the farm in its entirety. Now they want to carve off a part of the farm that is 14 acres north of East Thompson=s Point Road and to the east of Greenbush Road.

Dana showed a map of the entire farm. They are seeking to separate the 14-acre portion of the farm that encompasses the existing farm building. The farm was subdivided into 7 lots in 1981, and this Lot 7 is the one that is being subdivided.

Dana said the lines on the map are not lots; they are pastures and fields. There are no fences there. The remainder of Lot 7 (144 acres) will forever be preserved for farming. They are in the process of seeking funding from the State of Vermont to strip off the development rights on the larger section as well as the two that are not in this application. They hope this will be done in 2002 but this could take 3 to 5 years.

Davis Cherrington said the tillable land is 131 acres and at present this is leased to Roland Ayer, Jr. in North Ferrisburgh. He is using a corn/alfalfa rotation. There is also a 5-acre piece that is leased to Tim Laberge for pasture.

Davis continued, saying the thing they found out about the farm house, is that beneath the asphalt shingles is a very, very significant historic structure. As a conservation organization they were not able to follow the advice they were given locally which was to burn it. To restore it, however, would probably require an outlay of up to $500,000. They even had some elevations done, and showed the Planning Commission what it would look like under ideal circumstances.

Normally they would try not to separate the farmhouse from the farmland but in this case, in order to affect the historic preservation part of this project we feel we have to do that, Davis said. Those are two different constituencies: the people who are going to farm this land this land on a commercial basis vs. the people who could afford to restore the farmhouse.

Nancy Sabin asked if, when the building is restored, they will bring back the tavern that was once there. Davis said they would not; AThis will not be a >living museum=.@

Marty Illick asked what the long term agricultural plan is. Davis said the plan is to find one or more farmers who want to add this to their crop land base. Roland is interested, and others are interested.

Marty asked if the barn is of interest. Davis said it is not; when it was sold at auction, it was stripped of its gutter cleaner, pipeline, and it is a tie-stall barn which is labor intensive, and it=s not in great shape. The cost of even restoring it to even a tie stall barn would be significant. It is way too long to be usable for horses, he said.

Whether to keep the barn is a decision to be made by the people who bought it. Shirley Laberge=s plan was to tear down the tall part of it that blocks the view from the house and keep the newer, short end.

Marty Illick asked who is going to be using the 14 acres. Davis replied, Aa nice American family.@ The Land Trust does have a buyer for this, a couple who are teachers at UVM.

Gordon Troy moved to classify the Land Trust application as a Minor Subdivision. Al Moraska seconded the motion. In discussion, there is no basis to make this a Major Subdivision, as requested by David Miskell in a letter sent to Dean Bloch. (David Miskell is a resident of Shelburne.) Gordon said the reasons that Mr. Miskell gave including the fact that 21 years ago it was part of a seven-lot subdivision are not relevant. Dana Farley said this is a simple two-lot subdivision.

Dana said the removal of the development rights is an important part of this and the wording must be such that when the Conservation Fund would take this over the development rights are not already legislated away. She produced a copy of a motion made regarding the Lavalette Farm, from the time that she was the Director of the Land Trust in Charlotte. There were two lots and a lot of open space, and they really labored to produce the language that would enable this Open Space Agreement to be acceptable and yet not take away the tax advantages from donating the land.

The motion would stipulate that there is no waste disposal design and no intent to develop the rest of the land, and that in the case that the lot should ever come before the Planning Commission for further subdivision then all three lots would come under the open space regulations in the bylaws. Dana said without the right language is to donate the conservation easement on the property and then sell it. Gordon agreed that this is an intelligent means to preserve the open spaces, and how we can do that within the context and framework of the federal tax system, and the ability to raise that using a non-profit means to accomplish the goal is an important part of that.

Clark Hinsdale, Jr. asked if the classification issue is the only thing the Planning Commission can do this evening, and if his comments would be listened to. Davis said he would be interested in hearing the comments. Clark said it was unfortunate that this means dividing up the farm. He said on the Hanlon farm the house and barn were divided, and now there is never more an opportunity to have an active farm there. This is a historic structure but the house can be lived in by a farming family. He said it loses its value as a separate farm and there would be never another house or a barn on this farm. He asked if the house can be held with this barn. He said UVM might have a training program for young farmers and would need the buildings and a planned subsidizing arrangement so these interns can get onto a rented farm. He said it is a lot less expensive to start with a barn that has been used. He said he is in favor of maintaining farms and this is big enough.

Davis replied that using AIncubator@ farms assumes there is a non-profit entity. This is a different type of project. He would not put an intern farm resident in there because that requires that the Conservation Fund retains the title while an intern is leaning to farm.

Marty Illick asked if the map that goes with the 14 acres also has the rest of the property identified on it.

Nancy Sabin said there appear to be two issues: the 14 acres and the large farm. She asked why David Miskell, who doesn=t even live in Charlotte, and others want to stop this large conservation project from going ahead.

Stephen Brooks observed that this parcel is an original town lot, with significant intersections of roads and said this was an unusual situation, to be dealing with one of the original lots in the town. (He said he is not protesting.)

Jeff McDonald called for a vote on the motion to classify this two-lot subdivision. The motion was approved, 4-0 (with 3 members absent).

The Planning Commission can make recommendations for when the applicants come in for Preliminary Plat Approval. He said that removing the house and barn from the property diminishes it as a working farm, so the placement of lot lines may be done in a different manner more suited to the actual topography rather than the U-shaped design.

Davis said one of the reasons that it is drawn up that way, is the soils at the end of the field seem to be the best for a garden. This is a very minor withdrawal of the tillable portion of the land. He said if someone is going to have a $600,000 property it can=t have a weird-shaped lot and it has to have the ability to have multiple domestic uses.

Martha Perkins said most of us agree with Clark=s concept of having incubator farms. She asked Dana and Davis if there is any chance that when they go to VHCV that somebody could build one farmhouse. Davis said they have already thought of that, but the problem is, that when you put a farmhouse on a piece of land in Charlotte, you blow the values through the roof. Under the use-value of a farm, it goes to a value of $850,000. If you put a farmstead on this land, whether there is a conservation easement on all the rest of the land or not, it will be worth $650,000 and not what Charlotte is going to assess it for. This is a beautiful farm overlooking a beautiful viewshed.

Dana noted that none of the farmers listed in David Miskell=s letter have approached the Conservation Fund to say that they are interested in buying the property. This has been in the works for several years, she said.

Al Moraska said he also has sympathy with Clark=s position because the available farms are diminishing every year, and he agrees that it is nearly impossible for a young farmer to locate in the Town of Charlotte. It is the Planning Commission=s job to try to balance out what we can preserve, and do the best for the town.

Nancy Sabin noted that the Demeter Farm was unable to get even the $3,000/year rent from any farmers in the vicinity, and that she, as a taxpayer subsidizing that is asking, at what point is any taxpayer in the Town of Charlotte going to be able to afford to live in the town with all these subsidies that the common person is given. David Miskell pays $600/year on a $250,000 business in Charlotte.

Clark said he wanted to know what Davis meant by saying that AEverybody knows what=s going on here.@ Gordon advised Clark to go to David=s greenhouse and ask him. Jeff said he doesn=t know. Martha said it is her opinion that David Miskell wrote that letter because either Mr. Mack, or Mr. Dykeman, Mr. Ayer or Mr. Hinsdale is probably interested in the land or in keeping it for a farm.

Dean Bloch said everything appears to be in place already for a Final Plat hearing. Jeff said the applicants appear to be doing everything the Town wants, and that is keeping the open land.

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

APPROVED BY THE CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION ON

Chairman Date

O:\Planning Commission\Minutes\2001\dec62001apprvd.doc