CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION

7:00 P.M. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1999

TOWN OFFICES, 425-3533



Members
Present:







Members Absent:

Officials
Present:

Guests Signed
In:

Chairman Al
Moraska

Ed Melby

Jim Donovan

Josie Leavitt

Planner David
Bloch

Jeff Davis

Daniel Rosen

Dan White

Raven Davis

Clark Hinsdale, III

Jeff McDonald

David Woolf



Dave Brown





Sylvia Sprigg

Louis Cox

Laura White

Stuart Morrow

Wallace Smith













Mike O'Brien 

M. B. Brown

David Kerr

Helyn Kerr

Jim Wells













Linda Radimer

Richard G. Greene

Lance R. Fournier

Tom Jackson





1. General Business: Review of Minutes for September 2, 1999. Corrections were made regarding
details in the descriptions for Thibault, McCarty and Ten Stones subdivisions, and a statement by Marty
Illick about accessory apartment approvals in the village. Al added an omitted word, and a change in the
Perry's subdivision trails proposal instead of "under the railroad," to "alongside" the railroad. Also note
that Mr. Perry agreed to the request by Mike Yantachka that lots 10, 11 and 12 will have a height limit of
30'. In the Village Master Plan discussion the grant is for $12,500 from the State.

Al Moraska moved to accept the December 2nd, 1999 Minutes with the corrections noted. Ed
Melby seconded the motion and it was approved, 4-0 with one member abstaining and with two members
absent.

Next Al discussed the Minutes of October 7th -- when discussing the Charlotte Sports and Recreation
Club's application for the soccer field, Al's question of whether the grass is wet referred to the grass in
the proposed parking area. Al Moraska moved to approve that change in the approval of the
Minutes for October 7, 1999. Jim Donovan seconded the motion and it was approved, 5-0 with two
members absent.

2. Haight/Callery application for subdivision modification: Clark Hinsdale, III represented the
applicants. Clark showed the proposed changes on the properties. The proposal is to shrink the Haight
property and to move the boundary of the Callery property to include the property beside their
already-owned 61-foot strip that looks like a right-of-way. The Callery's property would go to 71.9 acres
from 62.52 previously.

Clark said there is one house site planned near an oak tree almost at the junction of the end of the 61'
wide strip and he stated he is not aware of anything planned by the Callerys to further subdivide the rest
into lots. It was an owned strip before, he said, and now it's an owned swath. He said the planned
concept is to make more valuable, that oak tree site.

Clark said there was a sketch plan that was presented to the Planning Commission in an informal hearing
and that the rights of way were requested to be shown on the final plat. He pointed out all the rights of
way and the houses that are on the adjacent parcels. He showed where there is a right of way that was
reserved in the past, moved from a wet area but it does not have any house on it. He said he sometimes
uses it for his farm equipment. Al said the reason it was moved was that there were some gullies and
there was less site distance if anyone wanted to come out on Rte. 7 from there.

Jim noted that in Dean Bloch's recommendations if there is future subdivision there, care should be taken
not to have additional curb cuts on Route 7. Clark agreed that the Town does have a policy to minimize
curb cuts on Route 7. He showed the location of all the related properties to those in this application.

Dean Bloch suggested certain legends to be put on the plat. One of the neighbors said she would hate to
see all of that open land turned into a big neighborhood. She asked that the deed be given while giving up
the rights of development on a piece behind her backyard. The Planning Commission would not have the
right to make that a condition, Jim said, but new development would have to come here for approval
anyway.

Al Moraska moved to approve a subdivision modification to reduce the Howard and Jacquelyn
Haight's parcel to 10.08 acres and to increase the Callery parcel to 71.9 acres, the resulting 71.9
acre parcel to be considered building lot, and any future subdivision on that parcel would be
accessed, if possible from Thompson's Point Road, and that the location of the old property line
be added into the legend. Jim Donovan seconded the motion and it was approved, 5-0 with two
members absent. There was a short discussion following the motion where folks were reminded that
there is a regulation that where it is possible to access a lot from other than Route 7, that must be the
access rather than Route 7.

3. Discussion of Tony Perry Subdivision, Conclusions of Law and Decision: All the conditions are in
Number 4 of the Decision, agreed to by Perry. It is not feasible to build a fire pond on Lot 9 so the
alternate conditions that were proposed by Fire Chief Chris Davis would be implemented.

4. Richard and Martha Greene subdivision modification: Martha's grandmother had passed away last
spring and Martha inherited 3.62 acres. Richard pointed out the location on the map and said they are
basically just asking to do a boundary adjustment to add that parcel to theirs, to total 13.97 acres.

Jim Donovan moved to approve the subdivision with the following conditions: 

The old and new lot lines shall be labeled and the adjusted acreage shall be shown on the
plat. 

(2) The line at the north end of the trees on Lot #2 and the line bisecting (northwest to
southeast) of the Greene's parcel shall be removed from the plat. 

(3) The second sentence of Number 5 note shall change to read, "The additional 4.15 acres will
probably be transferred from the estate to the Bosworths."

(4) 3.62 acres will be added to the Greene parcel, making it a total of 13.97 acres and Lot 2 will be
changed to 12.35 acres.

Ed Melby seconded the motion and it was approved, 5-0 with two members absent. 

5. Gary Wulfson, Preliminary Plat Hearing for a 3-lot subdivision on Dorset Street (represented by
Mike Brown): At this point the Chairman excused himself and Ed Melby, as Vice Chairman, convened.
This is part of the former Rose Aube estate.

Mike Brown stated that Lot 2, with a total of 89.6 acres, will have two 10-acre lots subdivided from it,
leaving the remaining 69.6 acre lot as a single family residential-agricultural unit.

Mike said he had been asked to move the building envelopes for lots 3 and 4, easterly of the swale. To the
west of the swale which runs north/south and is just about halfway in on lots 3 and 4. Just to the west of
the swale is the upper meadow, contoured area on the map.

Mike said he further indicated the right-of-way. If they share the right of way they've widened it so that
the road will not have an unattractive, straight line in across the meadow. There is now room to make it
into a more aesthetic road that meets the fire truck access requirements but that could be landscaped to
make it more attractive.

Ed asked about the sight distance from the driveway onto the road. Mike replied that there was 800'
distance and showed the curb area in the other distance. Jim asked if they could minimize curb cuts by
having only one access point for all three. Ed showed Mike on the map, what the Planning Commission is
suggesting. Mike said he feels it doesn't make sense to do this and have a drive going between properties.

Mike said they will still have only two curb cuts for the three lots. He said it doesn't make economic
sense to have the construction equipment go across and (he said) ruining one of the lots to accomplish
having only one curb cut for the three lots.

Jeff McDonald questioned about the open space. Mike said they have offered to expand the conservation
area with a wider strip along the waterway to further protect the transitory wildlife. In the previous Rose
Aube subdivision the required Open Space Agreement was deferred. Linda Radimer suggested that in the
15% to 50% that is required, the agreement should be on the higher end of the percentage, particularly
because of the expected placement of the building envelope for Lot 2. Mike Brown suggested the creation
of a common area in case someone wants to have horses or barns. It was pointed out that the 9+ acre
building envelope for Lot 2 is ample enough space to include the horse barns. 

Sylvia Sprigg suggested if they eliminate one of the two curb cuts and put the driveway right close to the
road, it is not obtrusive to the lot, such as one that is like that in Shelburne that has a tree row and
shrubbery hiding it. Mike said as a realtor this would be a drawback. He said no one would want to have
a right of way across his property even if it were only next to the road and he thinks Dorset Street in that
area is a low travel road with few traffic safety concerns.

David Kerr, who lives directly across from the property, disagreed. He said he would rather see only one
driveway instead of two, and he would have to see that every day.

Jim Donovan said he is not excited about seeing a tree row there. Sylvia Sprigg said it doesn't have to be
a tree row but at least some shrubbery would suffice. If driving down Dorset Street she would only have
to be wary of one driveway instead of two, for a car coming out onto the road. She said there are
concerns with safety issues of the school bus stops, etc. The Selectboard is already talking about
widening Dorset Street and paving it, she said. Jim Wells recalled the feeling a few months ago, at a
hearing where there was concern about the number of lots and the number of curb cuts, and feels
promises made a few months ago are not being kept.

Jim Donovan said with the first subdivision the lot was too large, so they could not have made this
condition. Mike said he had said at that time they would probably come back in for further subdivision.
Linda said there isn't much gain to a driveway that is paved because with any loss of soil it's not a benefit
to wildlife. Sylvia Sprigg said a lot of it is the impact all over town of having too many curb cuts. Mike
Brown said aesthetically, two curb cuts would look better.

Jim Wells said he still thinks there is so much traffic that a driveway across the first lot, closer to the
road is the best. Mike Brown said if the Planning Commission forces him to have only one curb cut that
is the only option that he would consider, because additional traffic is, he feels, unfair to the owner of the
front lot. He said they had already considered all of these options but found one access unreasonable.
Further discussion was related to the placement of the houses and where the garages would be with
various scenarios; he said placing a garage to the north made the most energy-efficient sense.

Jeffrey Davis, who has a lot next to David Kerr across the street, asked where the curb cut would be if
there were to be one curb cut. Ed Melby suggested one option, somewhere in the middle of Lot 3 but it
has not been decided. Mike said, however, if such an option is decided, there would be an impact on that
front house from the lights of cars entering and driving past to get to the other houses.

Dean Bloch asked about the "no-build zone" in the back. He said the area past the ravine is already a
no-build zone because of the building envelopes. He asked if there is any reason the back areas couldn't
be connected to the no-build zone for the larger lot. Jim Donovan said it gives more validity to preserving
that for wildlife if the areas were connected. Several folks pointed out that lots are more valuable if there
is protection on land nearby.

Sylvia Sprigg related that the Selectboard has had as many as five requests for various kinds of signs to
slow down the traffic in that area and that they are considering, as she said before, widening and paving
that part of the road. Curb cuts are a concern to the Selectboard, she said.

Mike Brown asked where he can go from here, and Jeff pointed out that there is no Open Space
Agreement as yet. Mike is concerned that it would take away the owner's rights (of the large lot) if such
an agreement is in place. He said there is close to 100 acres that could be in 5-acre lots, yet we are talking
about only 3 lots. He said he is trying to protect some rights (for the owner of Lot 3 -- with 60 acres --
to be told he can never subdivide), not subdivision at this point. Jeff McDonald suggested some
alternatives to the proposal other than an O.S.A., such that a condition be written in to have no further
subdivision. Perhaps with the building envelopes the objectives have been met for the 15-to-50%
protection that is in the bylaws. Jeff suggested that they continue the hearing to get input from the
Conservation Commission and to get a alternative proposals from the applicant.

Mike said with the issue that has just been described, we're taking a lot of property rights away from this
person with more than 60 acres, to tell him he can't subdivide on that lot. Jeff said that's the rules we all
go by in Charlotte. Mike said, "No, it isn't. Why isn't it 15% instead of 50%?"

Jim said when they originally dealt with the 130 acres it was said the open space issue was deferred until
such time (now) that further subdivision would be done. Mike said he would have to ask the original
owner if he had thought about making the agreement because it wouldn't be fair to have all of the impact
happen only to these three lots now and not be shared with the total amount of land.

Ed Melby announced that the Planning Commission would continue the hearing until January 6, 2000.

6. Lance and Kelly Fournier, Final Plat Hearing for 2-lot subdivision: Property is located on
Greenbush Road in the Rural District. Lance Fournier is subdividing 22.73 acres into 12.66 and 10.19
acre parcels and he plans to build on the 12.66 acre lot. He referred to adjustments made to the property
lines per suggestions resulting from the Planning Commission's earlier site visit, and showed that there
will be only one curb cut. He described the building envelope and its location because of wildlife that use
the ravine.

Lance said he chose the building envelope based on location near the driveway, near power, 50' from the
top of the bank, and being away from the wildlife corridor as well as a stream. He said the building
envelope is relatively small but is willing to delineate it on the map.

Lance had to have a finished design for the septic which he hired Civil Engineering Associates to do, and
he had to have the power lines buried. There was some testing for the septic done on the site. There was
frustration over the fact that the officer for the septic was not present, but since his appeal to the
Selectboard and a letter from the Selectboard instructing Lance on what to do to meet the requirements,
he has worked to follow their instructions and he feels when the two attorneys get together they will
determine that the issues are resolved.

Lance said his existing home houses his equipment and he lives above it. The only thing that will change
is that he will live in the new house after it is built. The existing mound system has no problems and has
been designed for 5 bedrooms. There are 2 bedrooms in the existing house and he wants to build a 3
bedroom house. The two houses will be joined by a force main going to one leach field. Lance said the
existing mound would be expanded by minimal 9' on either end.

Jeff asked whether the existing house could be sold. Lance agreed that it could, but there could never be
more than the two bedrooms. David Woolf saw that in the notes it says there has to be an engineer
present during the construction of this engineered mound system. Jeff said he has never seen two houses
using one mound system. Lance said he believes the Claflin Farm has one section where there are five
houses on one system.

Spencer Harris had said he wanted to view the information for the most recent test pits. Lance said
Spencer had requested that they expand the existing mound. Louis Cox said Spencer Harris must have a
letter from the engineer saying it is alright before he approves it. Louis said he can't stamp it approved
until Spencer is satisfied. Lance said he realizes that Spence has to be present when the expansion of the
mound system is done.

Tom Jackson, an abutting neighbor, asked that the exact location of the building envelope be designated
on the plat. Lance said it would be 50' from the top of the bank, over to the lot line and 500' from
Greenbush Road.

Jim Donovan moved to approve the proposed subdivision as shown on the preliminary plat of
minor subdivision dated July, 1999 with the condition that the building envelope be shown on
proposed Lot 2, south of the top of the bank to the southern setback line, and no further towards
Greenbush Road than 450 feet east of the property line on Greenbush Road, and an extension of
the northern portion of the eastern property line, and also with the condition that Lot be issued
an approved septic permit; and the label for the force main easement shall be corrected. Both
lots will be served with one curb cut as shown on the plat. Al Moraska seconded the motion and it
was approved, 5-0 with two members absent.

7. Continuation of discussion of Tony Perry decision: There was a concern about whether the
plantings had to be done before the issuance of building permits. It should be clarified that this condition
refers to lots 3, 4 and 13. The applicant agreed to include 10, 11 and 12 in the height restrictions per a
neighbor's request. 

The condition referred to, is Number 5. If the planting is in place then the height restriction on Lot 13 is
not necessary. 

There was also a discussion about the trail easement because Jim said leaving it open-ended may allow a
future landowner to keep stalling and stop that from happening. There will be an agreement put in there
giving a time limit for the trail easement location to be made, such as a year. Jeff suggested that words be
put in an irrevocable letter.

Dean said he doesn't think the landowners have decided what they are going to do with lot 2 yet, so that
part of the agreement is not clear. Lot 2 is the part with the agricultural building and it would not be a
building lot at this time.

A map of the trail easement is expected to be received within 30 days. Dean will make sure the language
for the hiking trail is coordinated and will have more specific delineation than "as generally shown on the
map." Al suggested there should be a time limit on this as well. Jim suggested that the time limit be two
years from the time of this approval. They could extend that with mutual consent. Dean suggested that he
would put in there, "If no mutual agreement is reached within two years of this decision, the Town shall
have the right to determine the location."

One covenant is that the houses be designed to fit with the surroundings and have compatible colors.
Those were conditions previously agreed to.

Jeff McDonald moved to approve the Perry Subdivision with the changes discussed this evening.
Ed Melby seconded the motion and it was approved, 5-0 with two members absent.

8. Minutes of September 23rd, review: Ed Melby had some technical changes which were agreed to
and Al Moraska moved to approve minutes of September 23, 1999 with the technical changes
discussed. Jeff McDonald seconded the motion and it was approved, 5-0 with 2 members absent.

At 10:30 p.m. the meeting was adjourned.



APPROVED BY THE CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION