1. INTRODUCTION TO THE PLAN

1.1 A VISION FOR THE FUTURE OF CHARLOTTE

The Town Plan expresses a vision for the future of Charlotte. This vision is a reflection of the Town's history, the Town and the region as they are today and the aspirations of the residents for its future. The vision consists of community-wide goals and objectives. It also recognizes and addresses special needs.

Charlotte's physical setting has influenced its form and character since its early days. Its location on the shores of Lake Champlain within the Champlain Lowlands has impacted the Town's industry, agriculture, and settlements. Today, Charlotte with its magnificent scenic qualities, its working landscape of farms and forests, and its convenient location near employment centers is attracting many new residents. The Town is witnessing the decline of one of its more important assets - dairy farms - while interest in commercial and light industry is slowly on the rise. Encroachment on wildlife habitat, wetlands, and productive woodlands is an important issue. Increased use of Lake Champlain, shoreline development that threatens water quality, and public access are also issues addressed in the Plan. As growth occurs, concerns arise about additional cost of town services and the ability of the Town to meet the needs associated with growth. In addition, as the value of land and cost of housing soars, the social and economic diversity of the Town is threatened, and the availability of affordable housing for residents and land for farming decreases.

In its vision for the Town's future, the Charlotte Town Plan builds on its most valuable characteristics - rural landscape and environment, diversity of its population, small town character, history, and active participation by citizen volunteers. Essential components of this vision are:

· To reinforce historic settlement patterns by focusing growth in village centers and promoting a town center;

· To maintain and enhance the scenic beauty and open land of the Town through protection of working farmland and the creation of conservation areas;

· To recognize and preserve the Town's unique environmental and cultural resources through both regulatory and non-regulatory actions;

· To promote social, economic, cultural and racial diversity and sense of community through actions that encourage affordable housing, enhance the agricultural economy, provide essential commercial services, and enable environmentally sensitive rural enterprises;

· To enable access and appropriate use of open land and recreational resources, both public and private;

· To plan for capital improvements consistent with the fiscal ability of the Town; and

· To promote community interaction and spirit.

1.2 THE PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING THE PLAN

Previous Town Plans

The Charlotte Planning Commission is responsible for developing the plan. For the first Town Plan, the Planning Commission sought broad citizen involvement in the preparation of the Plan. Work on the plan began as early as 1984 when an advisory committee submitted preliminary findings and conclusions on planning issues to the Planning Commission. In 1986 a questionnaire was distributed at Town Meeting to obtain public opinion on the most pressing planning issues.

In July of 1987 the Planning Commission took a significant step to involve the community in planning for its future. With the assistance of the Town's planning consultant, the commission organized eight citizen committees to research issues important to the Town and to develop recommendations for future action. The committees were Housing, Farming, Pattern of Future Growth, Lake Champlain and its Shoreline, Community Facilities and Services, Town Environment, Natural Resources, and Commercial and Industrial Development. The committees were given instructions on what tasks they were to accomplish, the form for their reports, and the time-frame for their work.

Three months later the committees presented their findings in a townwide meeting. The results of the committees' work were astounding. Utilizing the talent and commitment of residents, the Town was able to obtain detailed analysis of its natural resources, the farm economy, affordable housing opportunities, water quality data for Lake Champlain, commercial and industrial potential, and significant views among other items. The reports were pulled together in papers summarizing goals, objectives, and strategies for the Town. These papers were reviewed by each committee.

A townwide meeting was held in August of 1988 to present the proposed land use strategy for the Town, to show slides illustrating the significant features and pressing planning issues facing the Town, and to obtain public comment. Many summer residents as well as year-round residents were present at that meeting. Maps of the Town showing the proposed land use strategy were then displayed in the Town planning office. People were invited to comment on the maps and to leave their phone number if they had questions or comments about the plan that they wished to discuss with a member of the Planning Commission. Neighborhood meetings on the plan were held in the East Charlotte and West Charlotte villages. Public hearings on the plan were held by both the Planning Commission and the Board of Selectmen to obtain formal comments on the plan by residents. However, the most significant part of the public involvement in the plan occurred during its formulation through the survey, committee work, and informal discussions with neighborhood groups and individuals.

In response to a petition signed by Charlotte residents, the Board of Selectmen warned a public meeting to determine by Australian ballot whether the Town Plan would be voted on by Australian ballot at a duly warned Town Meeting. Residents voted in favor of a town vote on the plan. The 1990 Town Plan was the Town's first "Act 200 Plan." This meant that the plan was developed and adopted according to the procedures of Act 200. These procedures include requirements that the plan be consistent with statewide goals and policies set forth in Section 4302 of Chapter 117 and be compatible with the approved plans of adjoining municipalities and the regional plan.

In August 1994, the Planning Commission decided, provided the plan's statistical information was updated, that the Town Plan should be re-adopted. This decision relied upon two premises: one, considerable effort and public participation was conducted to develop the plan as originally adopted by Australian Ballot at the March 1990 Town Meeting; two, based on the confidence in the process to develop the plan, the policies, goals, objectives, and other pertinent sections remained applicable for the ensuing five years. Between 1994 and 1998 zoning bylaws in the Conservation and Industrial areas were amended.

The Current Plan

In January 1999, the Planning Commission began a comprehensive assessment of the plan for the 2000 update with the help of a part-time planning consultant and Town staff. Seven Town Plan Update Committees were established and chaired by Planning Commissioners, their task being to review the existing plan and make recommendations for any changes based on updated information and trends. The committees were: Housing; Economy; Community Facilities and Transportation; Agriculture; Natural Resources; Lake and the Lakeshore; and Neighborhoods and Villages. After several invitations to town residents to join in the work, approximately 100 volunteers attended weekly community workshops of the various committees over a five month period. Throughout this report the work of these volunteers is expressed as recommendations of the various Town Plan Update committees.

As part of the Town Plan 2000 update, two written public surveys were conducted to collect additional information about residents' desires for Charlotte's future. One survey was placed as an insert to the January 28, 1999 Charlotte News. With 125 responses, the results of the survey were published in the Charlotte News on March 11, 1999 and discussed at a subsequent Community Workshop. The second survey, prepared by the Economy Committee, addressed economic development. It was distributed at 1999 Town Meeting. Nearly 90 residents responded and results were discussed at a Community Workshop. Survey results are integrated and specified throughout this plan and are also included in Appendix A.

After the first complete draft of the Plan was completed in ___________, a joint working session of the boards and commissions in the Town was held, and recommendations were made for changes. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on _____________, and then approved and submitted the Plan to the Selectboard. Prior to holding its public hearings, the Selectboard felt that there were unresolved issues in the draft under review at that time. With the five year deadline approaching, the Selectboard decided to place the 1995 Town Plan on the ballot for readoption at the March 2000 Town Meeting. The 1995 Town Plan was reapproved and adopted by the voters on March 7, 2000.

During the Spring and Summer of 2000, the Planning Commission and Selectboard worked on a new draft of the Town Plan. Public hearings were held in the Fall and Winter of 2000. The new draft of the Plan was on the ballot for the 2001 Town Meeting. That draft of the Town Plan was defeated at the polls.

After the 2001 Town Plan was defeated at the polls, the Planning Commission undertook to determine the reasons why it was rejected. The consensus of opinion by the Planning Commission members was that the version of the Town Plan that went to the voters: 1) rezoned the industrial/commercial district on East Thompson’s Point Road to residential, and 2) language regarding Transfer of Development Rights (TDR’s) was understood to require the Town to enact such a program. The Planning Commission concluded that neither of these development issues had been fully investigated and evaluated. In that regard, the Planning Commission undertook to incorporate the evaluation of these issues during the succeeding years.

A final warned Public Hearing for this Town Plan was held by the Planning Commission on November 15, 2001. The Planning Commission approved this Town Plan on November 15, 2001 and passed it on to the Selectboard for further steps in adoption, as required by law. The Selectboard held Public Hearings of this version of the Town Plan on ______________ and _____________ and approved it for a vote at Town Meeting day 2002 (March 5, 2002). [Dates are to be completed by administrative amendment before March 5, 2002, with this direction to be deleted.]

This plan maintains much of the structure and content of the earlier plans; the main structural change is the delineation of policies and strategies in some of the plan's sections. The principal content change in this plan is the focus on the villages, particularly the West Charlotte Village.

The reasons for this focus are twofold. First, the West Charlotte Village has become, within the last five years, a real town center where municipal, cultural, postal and commercial services are provided. The fact that this village hosts these services currently and may in the near future provide additional services warrants a close look at how these services interrelate and how they can be provided most effectively, efficiently, and aesthetically.

Secondly, in looking forward, the town's need for housing is projected to grow stronger. The provision of housing in village areas accomplishes several goals: 1. it addresses affordability issues by allowing for smaller lots and shared structures; 2. it reinforces the village concept by providing a ready market for commercial services and also by establishing a clear contrast with the surrounding rural countryside; and 3. when coupled with protective mechanisms for outlying areas, reduces the potential for sprawl-style development.

This plan lays the groundwork for future studies, such as groundwater studies, village master plans for the West and East Charlotte Villages, and a townwide plan for open-space protection, in order to assure that future growth in the Town will be environmentally sound and will be in keeping with the current character of the village and non-village areas.

1.3 THE LAYOUT OF THE PLAN

The chapter entitled "Goals for the Future of the Town" states the community-wide aspirations and the objectives that will lead to the accomplishment of those aspirations. "Charlotte Yesterday" provides a brief history of the Town. "Charlotte Today" describes the current social, economic, land use, environmental, and community service conditions of the Town. "Charlotte Tomorrow" outlines the policies and strategies necessary to implement the vision for the future of the Town.

1.4 USE OF THE TOWN PLAN

The Town Plan is prepared for use by the Town Selectboard, Planning Commission, Zoning Board of Adjustment, Conservation Commission, School Board, Recreation Committee, residents, seasonal home owners, employers and employees in the Town.

In some places the plan specifies policies, and these are meant to be used to review and guide development proposals. In other places the plan offers suggestions of possible strategies that would need to be enacted, for example, in the Zoning Bylaws or through a Town Committee; these suggestions are meant to guide discussion and would need further action and scrutiny by the Town in order to be implemented.

The plan is intended to be used as:

· The plan for the future of the Town;

· The basis for revisions to the Zoning and Subdivision Bylaws and for the adoption of an Official Town Map;

· A guide for decision-making under the Zoning and Subdivision Bylaws;

· The framework for the capital budget and program;

· A guide and a resource for community programs and decision-making;

· A standard for review under the provisions of Title 24 Chapter 151 (Act 250);

· A standard for review under the provisions of Title 24 Chapter 117;

· A resource for the development of the Regional Plan and the plans of neighboring municipalities; and

· A source of information about the Town.

1.5 PROCESS FOR MANAGING AND AMENDING THE PLAN

It is the Planning Commission's responsibility to develop, maintain, review and revise the plan. The Planning Commission will review annually the plan to determine progress towards its implementation. As part of this annual review process, the Planning Commission will note any changes that should be considered in the next five-year update of the plan.

In preparation for the five-year update of the plan in 2007, the Planning Commission will conduct a comprehensive assessment of the current plan. Statistical data on changes occurring over this period will be reviewed, the status and effectiveness of policies and implementation strategies will be reassessed, and assumptions on issues facing the Town reevaluated. With this information policies can be amended and new implementation programs developed as necessary.

Title 24 Chapter 117, Vermont's growth management and planning statute, requires that Town Plans be consistent with statewide planning goals as provided in the statute, be coordinated with the plans of neighboring municipalities, and be compatible with regional plans. In particular the Town should consult with the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission which reviews towns' plans to determine their conformance with the requirements of the statute.

When considering an amendment to the plan, the Planning Commission is required to prepare a written report on the proposal. The contents of the report are specified in '4384(c) of the Vermont Municipal and Regional Planning and Development Act.

2. GOALS FOR THE FUTURE OF THE TOWN

Goal 1. To Maintain and Protect Charlotte's Rural Character and Heritage.

Objectives:

1.1 Support and enhance a viable farming community within the Town and to preserve an agricultural land base for this purpose.

1.2 Preserve the quality of the landscape through the protection of open land, panoramic views of the Green Mountains, Lake Champlain and Adirondack Mountains, the rural night sky, and valuable natural resources.

1.3 Preserve the small town character in the villages and rural areas.

1.4 Promote social, economic, cultural and racial diversity in the population.

1.5 Preserve historic structures and districts, including covered bridges, agricultural structures, public buildings, and village areas.

1.6 Maintain and promote volunteer services.

1.7 Respect the rights of individual property owners while balancing the public’s values and interests.

Goal 2. To Direct and Manage Growth in the Town.

Objectives:

2.1 Provide for residential, commercial, industrial, and public uses that meet the needs of existing and projected populations and retain the social and economic diversity of the Town.

2.2 Balance property owners' rights to reasonable use of their land with overall public health, safety, and welfare.

2.3 Reinforce historic settlement patterns and focus community growth in village areas and the Town center;

2.4 Support housing that meets a range of incomes, local needs, and the Town's fair share of Chittenden County needs for affordable housing throughout the Town.

2.5 Provide for commercial and industrial uses that are compatible with the rural character of the Town and broaden the tax base without creating a negative fiscal, social, or environmental impact on the Town.

2.6 Manage growth and development to be in harmony and scale with the rural character, historic pattern, and quality of settlement in the Town.

2.7 Publicize, administer, and enforce Town regulations for the control and management of growth.

2.8 Coordinate the plan with adjacent communities, the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, and the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization.

2.9 Encourage citizen participation in the development, adoption, and implementation of the plan and its implementing by-laws and programs.

Goal 3. To Provide Adequate and Efficient Governmental Services.

Objectives:

3.1 Meet the needs of existing and projected populations in keeping with rural community goals;

3.2 Where possible reduce fiscal burdens on the Town and associated burdens on residents and encourage fiscal responsibility.

3.3 Enable and support continued strong and vital voluntary participation in local government.

Goal 4. To Encourage Sound Conservation Practices in Land and Water Uses and Provide a Healthy Environment for People, Plants and Animals.

Objectives:

4.1 Protect and manage use of the lake and its shoreline for its scenic beauty, unique character, and recreational and environmental values.

4.2 Protect and manage the quality and quantity of surface and groundwater supplies.

4.3 Protect valuable wildlife habitat, wetlands, productive or unique forest lands, and natural areas.

4.4 Provide controlled access to open land, the lake, and recreation areas designated for public use.

4.5 Restrict development in areas where it may create hazards to public health and safety.

4.6 Limit development in areas of the Town where significant environmental and natural resources are located and promote development away from those areas.

4.7 Promote a long-term strategy for the disposal of solid waste with the Chittenden Solid Waste District.

4.8 Encourage energy conservation and the development and use of renewable energy resources through land use planning which enables village patterns of settlement and local employment opportunities that reduce travel requirements, integration of bicycle lanes and pedestrian walkways, protection of productive woodlands, and on-site production of environmentally clean power such as solar or wind energy.

4.9 Develop a long-term strategy for sewage disposal in the west village area.

3. CHARLOTTE YESTERDAY: A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE TOWN

3.1 EARLY SETTLEMENT

The Town of Charlotte was founded in June, 1762, when Benning Wentworth, Royal Governor of the Province of New Hampshire, granted charter to a group of 65 men in Duchess County, New York, for the Town "Charlotta," in the name of King George III, and in honor of his bride, the German princess Charlotta Sophia of Mecklenburg Strelitz.

Thousands of years before this event the land that was to be Charlotte lay beneath the glacier, and after its receding, beneath cold glacial seas. Marine fossils can still be found in the fertile valley that remains. When the Rutland & Burlington Railway was cut through Charlotte in 1849, the bones of a small whale were found just north of Thompson's Point Road.

Before its settlement by Europeans, the land was home to nomadic American Indians, probably Algonquins, who camped and hunted in the heavily forested, rolling terrain where bear, deer, beaver, and all manner of animal life prospered.

Though some of their children did, none of the original proprietors ever settled in Charlotte. They were the first of the Town's landowners with, as W.S. Rann relates in The History of Chittenden County, Vermont, the "desire to 'buy cheap and sell dear.' " Consequently they "did little more than open roads, construct bridges, and provide for the building of the necessary mills, in order to increase the market value of their property."[2]

The first settler of Charlotte is said to be a German named Derrick Webb who, in March of 1776, arrived, and left, as he did again the following spring. The true settlers of Charlotte came, Webb among them, in 1784, and in greater numbers over the next ten years, primarily from Massachusetts and Connecticut. They came alone or with families, up the Champlain Valley following a trail of blazed trees, down the lake from Whitehall by raft, sometimes across the frozen lake. Settlement was rapid, induced in part by the thick forests of oak and pine which were felled and rafted to Quebec for the masting of the Royal Navy of Great Britain. The settlers soon found the good soil, gentle slopes and flat, well-drained meadows of Charlotte to be ideally suited to agriculture, which quickly became their principal industry.

In less than ten years, Charlotte was the county's largest settlement, a Town of 635. James Hill and his family had settled on Hill's Bay, at a place still known as Hill's Point. John McNeil had arrived from Litchfield, Connecticut and, using a sailing vessel, established a ferry service to Essex, New York. Land was cleared, wheat was planted, roads were opened and Charlotte was a major stop on the stage route from Montreal to southern New England and New York.

In many ways, water determined the pattern of colonial development in Charlotte. Holmes Creek, emptying into the lake in the northwestern corner of Town, just south of Hill's Point, powered the Town's first gristmill and drew development in the west. The covered bridge at the Town Beach marks this historic site. The lake itself and the advantages of ferry transportation offered further incentives to western settlement. In Charlotte Center, just at the intersection of what are now Church Hill and Hinesburg Roads, arose a fresh, clear spring which provided settlers with good drinking water and fostered development. Farther to the east were Lewis Creek and the "LaPlotte" River, ideally suited to powering the gristmills and sawmills that were needed in the growing community.

Also critical to the pattern of Charlotte's development is the ridge of hills which runs north/south, Mutton Hill, Pease Mountain, Mt. Philo, dividing the Town through its center, separating east from west and limiting their mutual access. Not only has it led to the growth of separate villages, some feel it has demonstrated how "peoples separated by territorial barriers cannot always be at one in sentiment."[3] As early as 1869, the "Vermont Historical Gazetteer" said "the effect has been a separation of interest, mutual jealousy, and want of harmony between the two sections."

Be that as it may, villages developed in three distinct spots: Charlotte Four Corners, at what is now the intersection of Greenbush and Ferry Roads; Charlotte Center, on Church Hill Road; and Baptist Corners, at what is now the intersection of Hinesburg Road and Spear Street.

3.2 PATTERN OF SETTLEMENT

Charlotte Four Corners developed quickly from its earliest days as a crossroads, with gristmill to the north, ferry to the west. In 1811, Joseph Barton built his tavern at the northwest corner, famous for its upstairs ballroom with a swing floor. The Methodists built a church in 1823. Sixty years later the corner was home to two stores, a shoe shop, a blacksmith's shop, the Charlotte Female Seminary, a cheese factory which produced 40,000 pounds of cheese a year, a post office and, just to the west, the railroad station. In 1882, at the railroad depot, Wilbur Fields operated a hay barn and hay press which received and pressed some 700 tons of hay a year. In the later part of the 1800s, John Holmes had a 100-acre orchard on a slope overlooking the lake, and a dock on Hill's Bay from which he shipped apples not only to cities across the United States, but also to London.

The late 19th Century saw the rise of two unique communities in the west of Charlotte. The first was at Thompson's Point at the south end of Converse Bay. The Town of Charlotte purchased the entire point of land in 1839 and has owned it ever since. Its earliest use was for a poor farm supported in part by tent camping, but in the late 1800s, striking Gothic cottages were built on lots leased from the Town, and a thriving summer community evolved.

Cedar Beach was the site of another summer colony which developed in Charlotte but in a manner quite different from Thompson's Point. In 1872, J.T. Bagley, a gentleman from Burlington selected a campsite and pitched his tent for a few weeks of summer camping. He so enjoyed himself that the next summer he invited friends to join him and the "Jolly Club" at Cedar Beach was born. From one cottage in 1873, the community grew over the next ten years to include an ice house, a stable, a large pier, many cottages and some 1,000 people. In 1883 the Jolly Club became the Cedar Beach Association, Inc., more houses were built, and improvements made. The pier was extended to facilitate the docking of the great lake steamers which stopped in the morning to pick up commuters to Burlington and returned them to their families in the evening. For the next thirty years or more, the colony prospered, a utopian summer community of swimming and boating, card games, dances, and canoes of young singers floating in the moonlit night. The Association and the camps still remain, but the end of steamer service on the lake signaled the close of an era at Cedar Beach.

Progress on Church Hill Road was early and swift, as it quickly became the principal stage road north to Burlington. In 1786, Hezekiah Barnes, Captain in the Colonial Army and later General of the Vermont Militia, with his wife and four children, settled and built a large log tavern next to the great spring. Across the road, on the southeast corner of the intersection, General Barnes established a trading post. Added to and changed over the years, the structure stands today. In 1789, he added the stone house, now the home of Mr. and Mrs. William Pinney. In 1790, Gen. Barnes's clientele overflowed the log tavern, and he built a substantial frame tavern with ten fireplaces just north of the stone house. This building served many purposes over the years and ended as a two-family tenement in the 1940s. It stood empty when in 1948 Mr. & Mrs. J. Watson Webb purchased the building for the Shelburne Museum, where it now stands proudly renovated as the Stage Coach Inn. When stage travel was at its peak, Gen. Barnes kept a team of oxen in yoke day and night to help teamsters through the mud, up the steep hill to the north. With the decline of stage travel, this hill became a sledding favorite for young Charlotters of the 1880s and 90s. The Congregational Church was the first church in Charlotte, built in Charlotte Center in 1798. The Charlotte Town House, or Town hall, was built in 1850; it now houses the Charlotte Museum. By 1880, Alanson Edgerton and Sons operated a cider mill, horse-powered, which produced 20 barrels a days, 700 a year, from apples grown along Greenbush Road, Hill's Point, and Mt. Philo Road. These farmers shipped their best apples by freight to New York City and took the remaining apples to the mill for cider and vinegar. H.D. Alexander had a vineyard and fruit farm on Church Hill Road with several thousand choice vines covering eight acres.

Baptist Corners saw early growth and industry. In 1798, Gad Root ran a tannery and shoe shop; in 1807, the Baptist Church was built which gave the settlement its name. By 1815, the section of Spear Street between Carpenter Road and the Four Corners boasted a brickyard, blacksmith shop, gristmill, sawmill, chair factory and marble mill. Lewis Creek just north of what is now the Quinlan covered bridge was the site of many mills. Both covered bridges across Lewis Creek saw great activity; sawmills, gristmills, clothing mills, woodworking mills, a cooper's shop, a butter tub manufactory and a foundry were all established along the banks of the creek. By 1858, Baptist Corners was home to a Catholic Church as well, and in 1870, the Charlotte Young Men's Literary Club had raised funds to build the Lyceum Hall where the club, renamed the East Charlotte Lecture Association, carried out spirited debates on Friday nights. Lyceum Hall now houses the Charlotte Grange.

3.3 ROLE OF AGRICULTURE

Despite its mills and smithies, taverns and stores, Charlotte's principal industry was always agriculture, as its pattern of development demonstrates; apart from the villages, settlements in Charlotte were individual and widely separated. In its colonial days, Charlotte's agriculture was one of self-sufficiency; cattle were kept for milk, butter, cheese and beef, as well as for shoe and harness leather; sheep provided mutton and wool; swine, turkey, geese and chickens were kept for family use; maple products provided sweetness in lieu of imported sugar; and wheat, corn and oats were grown for family needs and livestock feed.[4] "The superior adaptation of the Town to agricultural purposes was one cause of its rapid settlement."[5] As early as 1806, the grand list of Charlotte was $31,961, surpassed by only ten other towns in the state.

Because of its excellent farming, by the early 1800s, the Champlain Valley was known as New England's breadbasket. Wheat was of great economic importance and was taken to markets in Albany and Troy, New York. Dairy and poultry products found their way as far as the markets in Boston. In 1806, Charlotte had eight hotels, supported in great part by farmers on their way to market. This shift from self-sufficiency to a market-oriented agriculture was aided by changes in transportation, in particular the building of the southern canals. The addition of a railroad to Charlotte in 1849 contributed greatly to her ability to reach other markets. By 1837, a large industry of Merino sheep breeding had developed in the area for export to Australia and the west. After the Civil War Australian wool was, in turn, flooding the American market, and dairying became dominant in the Valley primarily in the form of butter and cheese production.

By the 1880s competition from western markets, and later from oleomargarine, transformed the dairy industry, and the shift to fluid milk was started. With the advent of the automobile and the truck and highway system, Charlotte farmers were able to reach the big Boston market with their high quality milk.

In the late 1800s, Charlotte produced some notable agriculturists including field botanist Cyrus Pringle, a renowned collector and hybridizer, whose extensive collections were housed in UVM's Pringle Herbarium. Orson Alexander introduced eight new potato varieties including the still dependable "Green Mountain." Frederick Hinsdale Horsford, who studied botany and later specialized in hybridizing, introduced the telephone pea and "Little Giant Corn." He and Pringle went into the nursery business in 1883. By 1893, Horsford had bought out Pringle's interest and established the F.H. Horsford Nursery at its present site. Horsford went on to become internationally known as a pioneer in lilies. His sons and grandsons continued his horticultural work.

The 1900s have seen a decrease in the number of farms in Charlotte. As has been the case throughout the Champlain Basin, farm size and herd size have tended to increase. An increase of herd size has generally meant an increase in the amount of pasture land a farmer must have, a development that can be extremely expensive in an urbanizing area.

Since the end of World War II economic opportunities in Vermont have increased, decreasing the economic importance of agriculture in the region. Yet if one considers the income from recreation and tourism, much of which is related to a working rural landscape, and the income from those economic opportunities which are drawn to Vermont because of its high quality, rural life, then agriculturally-derived income is still substantial in the State.[6]

3.4 MUNICIPAL HISTORY

The municipal history of Charlotte is a straightforward one. The first Town Meeting was held in Moses Yale's log cabin facing Converse Bay on July 6, 1785. The Town was officially organized at a meeting in March of 1787 at which men were elected to serve as clerk, constables, selectmen, listers, leather sealer, half-tithing men, surveyors of highways, and sealer of weights and measures. Twelve prominent men were appointed jurymen. It was decided that hogs should be confined. In 1786, Daniel Horsford was elected first justice. John McNeil was elected as the first representative to the legislature of the independent Republic of Vermont in 1788.

By 1886, Town offices included: Selectmen, Treasurer, Town Clerk, Constable and Tax Collector, Overseer of the Poor, Listers (3), Auditors, Trustee of Public Money, Fence Viewers, Grand Jurors, Inspector of Leather, Inspector of Wood and Shingles, Superintendent of Thompson's Point, Town Agent, and Superintendent of Schools.

In 1869, Charlotte had fourteen school districts; by 1948, nine remained. In 1949, the four remaining districts were consolidated and Charlotte Central School was built. An addition to the school was completed in 1968 and a kindergarten added. Further additions were completed in 1989 and 1997 providing additional classrooms, gymnasiums, and support facilities. Today, students in kindergarten through 8th grade attend CCS. Charlotte high school students, with students from Hinesburg, St. George, Williston and Shelburne, attend Champlain Valley Union High School built in Hinesburg in 1963.

It wasn't until the mid-1960s that Charlotte developed planning and zoning ordinances to control growth over the Town's 26,520 acres and to protect its resources. Interestingly enough, those resources haven't changed significantly since Charlotte's earliest days; her superior soil and breathtaking environment are still valuable assets.

Charlotte circa 1869

(from Beers Atlas, Tuttle Publishing Company)

4. CHARLOTTE TODAY

4.1 THE PEOPLE

The Town of Charlotte is proud of its diverse population which is a product of many years of change in the character of the community and the economy of the region. In 1791 the Town, with 635 people, was the most populated in the county. Charlotte held this position until sometime between 1800 and 1810 when it was surpassed by Burlington. In 1840 Charlotte reached a peak in its population for that century of 1,702 people. However, over the next one hundred years the Town experienced a decline in population to a low of 1,082 in 1940. This pattern was consistent with that of the state during that period when there was a large migration of Vermonters to the west. This situation turned around over the next 40 years as the population steadily increased. Between 1940 and 1960 Charlotte's population grew a little less than 20%. By 1992 the Town's population had grown by 155% to 3,239 residents. The population in 1996 was 3,507, 268 new people, or an 8.3% increase, in four years. The Town Plan Update Committees, formed to assist in revising Charlotte's Town Plan, identified growth pressures and the rate of growth as one of the biggest challenges currently confronting the Town.

Table 1

Population Growth in the Town of Charlotte: 1791-2000[1]
Year	Population	Year	Population	Year	Population
1791	635
1800	1,231	1900	1,254	2000	3569
1810	1,679	1910	1,163
1820	1,526	1920	1,160
1830	1,702	1930	1,089
1840	1,620	1940	1,082
1850	1,634	1950	1,215
1860	1,589	1960	1,271
1870	1,430	1970	1,802
1880	1,342	1980	2,561
1890	1,240	1990	3,148
[1][1] Source: U.S. Census, Vermont Department of Health

Charlotte's population consists of both seasonal and year-round residents. In addition there are tourists who visit or travel through the Town on a daily basis. There are no estimates of the number of seasonal residents in the Town although the Vermont Health Department estimated there were 184 seasonal housing units in 1992, and that figure decreased to 166 in 1996. Some of these units have been renovated to year-round residences. Due to the limited number of overnight accommodations and tourist attractions in the Town, the number of transients is estimated to be very low. Therefore, the Town's Service Population is comprised almost entirely of year-round and seasonal residents.

Charlotte exhibits the characteristics of many of the "outer ring" towns of the county - a relatively small but growing population. Table 2 compares Charlotte's growth since 1960 to that of Chittenden County as a whole.

Table 2

Population Growth Rates in the Town and Region: 1960-2000 [7]

Population

Avg. Annual Percent Change

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

1960-70

1970-80

1980-90

1990-00

Charlotte

1,271

1,802

2,561

3,148

3,569

4.18%

4.21%

2.29%

1.34%

Chittenden County

74,425

99,131

115,534

131,761

146,571

3.32%

1.65%

1.40%

1.12%

Population trends serve as an important indicator of the potential pressures and demands a community must consider in planning for its future. Data on the size of and growth in population assists in determining needs for facilities, services, and housing, and indicates potential land use patterns. For the 1995 Town Plan the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) estimated that Charlotte's steady rate of growth may slow during the first portion of the century, however the rate of growth will still be positive. There have not been more recent population projections undertaken.

Between the years 1992 and 2000, it was projected that Charlotte would receive 1.8% of the county's growth. Of the 17,337 additional persons expected to reside in the county by 2000, 307 of them would live in Charlotte. This increase in population represents an average annual growth rate of 1.3% for the decade 1990-2000. From 2000 to 2010, CCRPC expects Charlotte's population to reach 4,062 persons. That growth would constitute 2.8% of the county's growth and would represent an average annual growth rate of 1.5%.

These projections were prepared before recently announced expansion plans of several large employers located in the region. They believe that their expansion plans include labor needs that cannot be fulfilled by the existing county labor pool. The IDX projections included in their Act 250 applications indicate that their expansions could result in approximately 95 new Charlotte residents and the need for 37 new homes by the year 2008. This suggests that the CCRPC estimates may be low.

Consistent with regional trends between 1970 and 1980, Charlotte saw a growing share of its population in the 25-34 age category and a smaller share in the school-age category as the "baby-boom" generation matured. As this generation in turn created its own families, the "baby-boom echo" affected the demographics of the current school-age population. In 1980, the percentage of those less than 5 years old was 7.3%. This percentage grew to almost 10% in 1990. This growth has impacted elementary school enrollment.

Over the decade between 1980 and 1990 there was also an increase in the absolute population in the 65-and-over age group, although there was a percentage decline. In 1980 the percent of persons aged 65 or older was 7.1%. It was 6.3% in 1990. However the absolute number of persons 65 or older increased from 181 in 1980 to 199 in 1990. This situation has continuing implications for the provision of community services and housing for the elderly, especially as the large middle-aged group of residents move into older age.

The Town has witnessed dramatic changes in the composition of its residents from the early settlers of the eighteenth century who were primarily farmers or people engaged in local Charlotte businesses and industries. Today, a significant majority of the Town's workforce commutes to jobs outside the Town. In 1990, the top three industry categories in which Charlotte's labor force were employed were: retail trade, educational services, finance, insurance, real estate, and other professions. The Town has also seen a small increase in its ethnic diversity in recent years, although there is not a lot of data regarding this trend.

Of the 2,317 residents in 1990 16 years of age or older, 1,825 were employed full-time (78.8%). Unemployment in Charlotte in 1990 was 1.3%, a figure that is considered equivalent to "full employment".

In spite of the changes in the size of the Town's population and the composition of its workforce, the continued presence of a farming population and the Town's low population density help explain why Charlotte's character remains rural. Nevertheless, the Town's agricultural sector has experienced some contraction. In 1980, 9% of the population, or 223 residents, lived on farms; by 1990, the percent declined to 2.3%. Interestingly, while the number of people employed in agriculture or forestry in the Town declined between 1970 and 1980 from 144 to 116 (-19.4%), the number rose to 159 in 1990, a net increase of 15 jobs (10.4%) in the industry since 1970.

In 1980, the population per square mile was 62.0, or about one person for every 10 acres. Charlotte's density grew to 76.2 persons per square mile by 1990 and to 77 persons per square mile in 1996. Towns in the county with a lower density than Charlotte include the towns of Bolton, Huntington, Underhill, Westford, and Buels Gore.

According to the 1990 U.S. Census, per capita income in Charlotte in 1989 was $20,769; median household income was $51,004; and median family income was $59,920. The Vermont Department of Taxes reported in 1997 that Charlotte had the 13th highest median adjusted gross income in the state at $33,283 which represented 141% of that reported for Vermont as a whole ($23,577). The 1997 median adjusted gross family income was $66,164 in Charlotte. Median income for a family of four in Chittenden County is $49,000. Statewide data show the Town to have one of the highest per capita incomes in Vermont at $24,861, the fourth highest per capita income in the state.

Although these data indicate that the average income of Charlotte's population is high, the data on the number of families with very low, low, and moderate incomes should be considered. Nearly 50% of Charlotte's families earned less than the 1989 median family income, and 46 families maintained incomes below the poverty level.

Several trends in population raise issues that the Town must address in order to accomplish town-wide goals. They are:

· How to maintain the social and economic diversity of the Town in the face of increasing incomes of residents and the declining farm population

· How to identify and address the needs of the low and moderate income persons and the over age-65 population in the Town

· How to monitor the Town's growth rates in order to plan for the efficient delivery of town services

· How to plan for energy-efficient and economical transportation for the commuting workforce without encouraging further unconcentrated growth.

4.2 HOUSING

The type, location, and price of housing affects the social, economic, and physical character of the Town. Historically, housing in Charlotte has been concentrated in village settlements, clustered in summer camp areas along the shoreline, or located in a dispersed pattern on farms and in the surrounding countryside. It is this dispersed pattern that has become prevalent in the last thirty to forty years; the village settlements have remained virtually unchanged, while the summer camp areas are increasingly serving as year round residences.

While this dispersed pattern has offered many people a desirable rural lifestyle, it has limited the establishment or expansion of residential neighborhoods and the location of housing more convenient to services and major transportation corridors. The dispersed housing development trends are finally beginning to erode the open spaces and viable farmland of the Town's landscapes. This trend is now creating strips of development along the Town's roads and highways. Residents have begun to refer to these development patterns as sprawl. Since at least 1990, the Town Plan has discouraged these dispersed patterns of development. During the Town Plan 2000 update, the 100+ residents attending community meetings, others working on Town Plan Update Committees and the 215 people completing written surveys reinforced the importance of curtailing these development patterns. They generally recommended that clustered housing and well designed, integrated, viable Planned Residential Developments should be even more strongly encouraged by Town regulations to help better protect natural resources and large undeveloped parcels of land.

The majority of respondents to surveys and those attending Town Plan Update Committee meetings want the Town to remain rural and to protect the working farms. In some parts of Town conflicts exist between farming operations and their residential neighbors. Although homeowners choose to live in Charlotte for its rural character and open farmland, some have complained to the Selectboard about the impacts that farming can sometimes have on nearby residences, such as odor from manure, noise associated with field-work, or slow, over-sized farm vehicles on Town roads.

4.2.1 QUANTITY OF HOUSING UNITS

The number of housing units in the Town has grown nearly 104% since 1970, from 714 in 1970 to 1,456 in 1996. Zoning permit trends for single family units indicate that the rate of growth in housing units in the eighties represented the highest rate of housing growth since 1970. The number of year-round units has grown faster than the number of vacation homes. The Vermont Department of Health reported Charlotte's year-round housing unit stock totaled 1,290 in 1996, an increase of 678 units (111%) since 1970. The current quality of housing stock in Charlotte is good; for example, less than 2% of all housing in the Town lacks complete plumbing.

The growth in housing units in the Town is due in part to the changes in the size and composition of households over the last two decades. In 1970 the average household size for year-round units was 2.94 persons per unit. In 1980 household size increased to 3.00 persons per unit. In 1990 household size decreased to 2.75 persons per unit. Based on the total 1996 population (3,507) divided by the total year-round housing units (1,290) the 1996 average household size is 2.72 persons per unit, an insignificant change since 1990.

Table 3

Growth in Housing Units by Type, Charlotte [8]

Average Annual Percent Change

Type of Unit

1970

1980

1990

2000

1970-80

1980-90

1990-00

Year Round

612

855

1,145

1,287

3.97%

3.39%

1.24%

Vacation/Seasonal

102

188

184

174

8.43%

-0.21%

-0.54%

Total

714

1043

1329

1461

4.61%

2.74%

0.99%

Table 4

Permitted Residential Units, 1980-98[9]
Year	Permits	Year	Permits	Year	Permits
1980	27	1990	30	2000	24
1981	24	1991	13
1982	23	1992	26
1983	32	1993	32
1984	34	1994	23
1985	40	1995	25
1986	41	1996	29
1987	53	1997	28
1988	39	1998	20
1989	25	1999	13

Smaller household sizes may be due to several trends in the Town and county. In general, households with non-related people grew rapidly in the seventies and are continuing to do so in the eighties. The percentage of people in Charlotte living with non-related household members was 2% in 1970 and 11% in both 1980 and 1990. The percentage of people in single-parent households grew from 3.8% in 1970 to 10.9% in 1980. Though not readily comparable, in 1990 the number of family households with a single-parent householder with children under the age of 18 years totaled 31. In theory, the trend toward smaller and more fragmented households creates demand for a greater number of housing units.

Table 5

Average Household Size, 1970-2000[10]
Year	Average Household Size
1970	2.94
1980	3.00
1990	2.75
2000	2.89

For the 1995 Plan the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission developed projections for the total number of housing units, shown in Table 9. These projections do not include the potential impacts to housing needs as a result of the expansion by IDX, whose projections show additional demand for approximately 37 new homes in Charlotte by the year 2008.

Table 6

Charlotte Housing Projections: 2000-2010[11]
				Percent Change
Area	1990	2000	2010	1990-00	2000-10
Charlotte	1,329	1,479	1,658	11.3%	12.1%
Chittenden Co.	52,091	57,984	64,998	11.3%	12.1%

4.2.2 AFFORDABILITY OF HOUSING

There are a limited number of units that are affordable for low income families. For example, about 90% of the units in Charlotte are single-family and 80% are owner-occupied, based on the 1990 U.S. Census. The predominance of single-family units is due not only to historical precedent but also to zoning limitations. In 1980, of Charlotte's total number of housing units, 172 were renter-occupied, and 90 units were in structures with two or more units. In 1990, Charlotte's housing stock included 188 renter-occupied units, but only 68 units were in structures containing two or more units.

Housing prices are high in the Town relative to the county. According to the Multiple Listing Service, the 1993 average price of a single-family home in Charlotte was about $230,000 while the county's average home sold for approximately $138,000. In 1998, the average sale price was $331,094 regardless of acreage, and $245, 803 for residences on lots of five acres or less.

Average single family home prices increased by 102% in the twelve years between 1986-1998. Average sales price for homes on less than five acres increased by 143% in the same period.

Many factors play a role in the price of housing, including the desirability of the Town as a place to live. Many building sites have magnificent views of the countryside, the Adirondacks or Green Mountains, or Lake Champlain and are considered prized residential locations in Chittenden County and even New England.

Other factors include raw land prices and site development costs which are somewhat interrelated. The predominance of poor quality soils for on-site sewage disposal, the lack of municipal sewer or water systems, and the required minimum lot sizes have resulted in the siting of most new residential housing units on large lots of five acres or more. Most of these sites require costly mound systems to overcome the limitations for sewage disposal, which contribute to the high-cost of housing in Charlotte.

As a result of these factors, most new housing in Charlotte is expensive. The resale value of existing homes is also high due to the limited availability of new housing and the desirable quality of life and rural character in the Town and the region. This situation has contributed to a lack of affordable housing for low and moderate income families and a concern for the Town's ability to achieve the goal of social, economic, racial, and cultural diversity in the Town.

Table 7

Housing Price Trends in Charlotte 1986-2000
	1986	1993	1998	2000
Avg. Sale Price All Sales	$163,906	$230,000	$331,094	$347,040
Avg. Sale Price Less than 5 Acres	$101,048		$245,803	$258,144
Source	Property Transfer Returns	Multiple Listing Service	Property Transfer Returns	Property Transfer Returns

One of the factors contributing to the high price of housing may be changing in the near future. Modern on-site wastewater disposal systems are enabling a wider variety of land to be developed with less concern for the soil types or slopes on a property. These "high tech" systems may begin to remove the traditional growth constraints associated with soils and open a wider variety of land in greater quantities for development in Charlotte. These systems, while now relatively expensive, could eventually become more economical, supporting the Town's goal of fostering social and economic diversity by making housing more affordable.

Table 8

Summary of Housing Affordability in the Town of Charlotte [12][13][14]
Chittenden County Median Income for a family of 4	Income Level	Max. Monthly Housing Cost at 30% of Monthly Inc.	Less Taxes, Ins. And PMI	Maximum Mortgage Pay't P & I	Max Mtg Amt: 6.75 %, 30 yrs.	Maximum Price Afforded with 5% D/P	Estimated Property Tax
100% of Median Income	$ 57,500	$ 1,438	$ 427	$ 1,011	$ 155,849	$ 164,052	$ 3,600
80% of Median Income	$ 46,000	$ 1,150	$ 357	$ 793	$ 122,315	$ 128,753	$ 3,000
50% of Median Income	$ 28,750	$ 719	$ 237	$ 482	$ 74,327	$ 78,239	$ 1,800
Income Required to purchase the average priced home sold in Charlotte in CY2000	$ 89,219	$ 2,230	$ 641	$ 1,590	$ 245,100	$ 258,000	$ 5,547

Charlotte land and housing values are high and currently out of the range of lower income people. Provision of housing for moderate, low and very low income families in Charlotte is likely not to happen on large lots. Multi-family structures would likely need to be constructed to create one type of affordable housing, particularly for the low and very low income levels. Additionally, collaboration with non-profit housing organizations could also lead to the creation of single family affordable housing opportunities in Town

Where housing costs for home-ownership may exceed 30% or where the price of housing is higher than a family can afford, that family most likely must look to the rental market for affordable housing. The home-ownership issue is particularly acute for senior citizens living on fixed incomes. Many senior citizens in Charlotte live on less than $8,000 a year, which means that in order for their housing to be affordable, at a maximum, it would have to cost $200 a month. Approximately, 20% of the existing Charlotte housing stock would be affordable to moderate income families. In order to maintain the goal of economic and social diversity in Charlotte, this imbalance of housing opportunities must be addressed.

VHFA provides mortgages with lower down payments and lower interest to qualified Vermonters. The programs also limit purchase price to lower than what a person could qualify for through a conventional loan. The barrier that many lower income families face when trying to purchase a home is the issue of the down payment, for many do not have enough savings to qualify for a conventional loan which requires a higher down payment and closing costs amount.

The Town has an obligation to consider the needs of the region in planning for future housing. As the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission develops statements of housing needs, the Town's fair share of the region's need will be identifiable. A study conducted by the Vermont Department of Housing and Community Affairs in 1986 found that the Burlington area's most severe housing problem is an inadequate supply of affordable rental housing. Charlotte's current low percentage of rental units is not in keeping with the county's regional plan allocations.

Goals in previous Town Plans have expressed the Town's commitment to encouraging social, economic, racial, and cultural diversity in Town. Town Plan Update Committee participants are still committed to achieving this goal. In order to achieve this goal, the Update Committees concluded that the current zoning bylaws need to be more supportive of low and affordable housing opportunities.

Table 9

Residential Values in Charlotte – 2000[15]
Total 2000 Residential Values	Total Residential Sales = 47	Total Residential Units = 1231
less than $100,000	3	61
$100,000 - $150,000	5	186
$150,000 - $200,000	11	220
$200,000-250,000	4	180
$250,000 - 300,000	5	181
$300,000 +	19	403

The Update Committees summarized their findings by indicating that the Town must address several issues in order to meet townwide goals. They are:

· How to locate housing to protect the Town's high quality landscape, environment, and historic qualities and to minimize conflicts with the agricultural community;

· How to meet the needs for affordable housing to promote the goal of social, economic, racial and cultural diversity of the population;

· How to meet the special housing needs of the elderly; and

· How to participate in meeting the region's housing needs as those needs are identified by the regional planning commission.

4.3 THE ECONOMY

As a rural community, the Town of Charlotte has a local economy primarily based on agriculture, local services, small industries, home occupations, water-related recreation and transportation, and education. Local agriculture employment in Town includes 16 dairy farms and numerous specialty farms, including orchards, fruit farms, organic vegetables, flowers and livestock. A recent survey conducted by the Economic Committee showed a strong desire among residents to establish a farmer's market and encourage farm stands on farm property. Both of these types of enterprises could increase farm income and help protect working farms. There are 91 people employed full time and part time (67 full time equivalent) at Charlotte Central School and more people occupied in home businesses.

Home occupations include, but are not limited to, such businesses as bed and breakfasts, antique dealers, offices, woodworking, crafts, agricultural enterprises, repair shops and varied occupations connected to the regional, national and international economy through technology. Home occupations are important to the local economy and provide employment in rural areas. This type of economic activity enables more flexibility for working parents, reduces travel and commute time, and can provide an incentive for residents to preserve historic buildings on their property if they can establish an income producing business in the space. In addition, people working daily in Charlotte can help to satisfy need for fire and rescue volunteers available in Charlotte during regular working hours (8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. more or less).While the bylaws do not restrict home occupations to dwelling units, and they allow the use of accessory buildings for home occupations, it is not intended that home occupations detract from the rural residential character of the Town.

According to the Department of Employment and Training, there were 494 jobs[16] in Charlotte in 1997, up 20.5% from the 410 jobs reported in 1992. There have been nearly 100 jobs added in town since 1980 when 389 jobs were reported. There were 102 businesses[17] in Town in 1997, and home occupations are increasing, though the exact number is not registered with the Town at this time. The Economic Committee identified the need for a Business Directory for Charlotte. It would be useful for networking and inexpensive advertising for home occupation businesses, who would voluntarily join the directory.

The Committee also identified a need for the Town to pursue and facilitate more local and home business employment opportunities.

There is little industry in the Town due to its location at a distance from the interstate highway system, regional facilities, and lack of municipal water and sewer service. The 1990 Commercial and Industrial Committee found that the additional tax base from industrial development would not pay the cost to the Town of developing municipal water or sewer. As a result the Committee found that small workforce, low water use and non-polluting industries would be most appropriate for the Town.

According to the 1990 US Census, there were 1,825 employed people who reside in Charlotte but do not necessarily work in Town. By type of industry, 11.7% of those persons worked in retail sales; 11.3% were employed in educational-related professional and related services; and 10.1% worked in finance, insurance, and real estate. This total 33.1% reflects the top three types of industries in which Charlotte residents were employed in 1990. Residents employed in manufacturing, health, agriculture and construction each comprised between 8-10% of Charlotte's total employment.

In 1990 the top three occupations held by Charlotters were: managerial and professional specialty occupations (44.8%); sales (16.3%); and precision production, craft, and repair occupations (7.7%). While recent census data is not available, it is expected that these percentages will not change drastically in the next five years.

In 1990 about 84.4% of the labor force living in Charlotte commuted outside the Town to work. Of Charlotte's working residents, 15.6% worked in Town, 34.7% worked in Burlington, 16.2% in South Burlington, 11.2% in Shelburne, 10.9% elsewhere in Chittenden County, 10.1% outside Chittenden County but in Vermont, and 1.2% worked outside the state. More recent census data is not available at this time but it is estimated by the Economic Committee that these statistics will not change drastically in the next five years.

The local retail and service operations accommodate primarily year-round and seasonal residents needs, although town businesses do provide some services for other communities as well. There are small grocery stores in both East and West Charlotte; a sub shop and video store in East Charlotte; veterinarian and medical offices as well as other offices, and light manufacturing businesses near the railroad tracks in West Charlotte. The commercial district in West Charlotte Village also includes the historic Old Brick Store and the Flying Pig Bookstore.

Residents travel to nearby communities for some of their convenience goods such as grocery, hardware, and drug store purchases, and to regional centers for comparison goods such as department store, apparel, and home furnishing purchases. Based on the Economic Committee's findings from two resident surveys, desirable future services mentioned by residents include a larger grocery store, a hardware store, a pharmacy, a cafe or small restaurant, and a bank or ATM machine. These retail and commercial services should be relatively small in scale but large enough to be marketable and profitable. All new business structures should be designed in a way to be consistent with Charlotte's rural and historic character.

The Town Plan Update Economic Committee found that the general location and size of the existing commercial zones (Ferry road and RR tracks, East Thompson’s Point, East & West Village) are adequate to meet the Town's commercial needs, however, in order to accommodate existing commercial uses and to reinforce the concept of a Town center, the Committee thought that some modification in the boundaries and standards may be needed.

Specific site-planning standards have been added to the Zoning Regulations since 1995. Additionally, The Town Plan Update Committees identified a need for more specific Design Guidelines for the industrial and commercial areas located adjacent to the village areas to augment the existing Design Review standards in the Zoning Bylaws [Section 4.6.F]. A major concern with the West Charlotte Village commercial/mixed use area is the potential impact of commercial development on traffic on F-5 and Route 7, particularly at the intersection of these two highways. Standards limiting the scale and location of development to reflect these concerns need to be added. Standards should be based on the recommended West Village Master Plan.

The Economic Committee found that the boundaries of the Charlotte East Village commercial district included areas that may not be suitable for commercial use. In particular, the easterly boundary is contiguous to a significant wetland designated for inclusion in a Conservation District. This boundary should be moved westward to provide a buffer for the wetland, and northward to follow Hinesburg Road. Also, access to commercial properties should be carefully considered so as to avoid traffic congestion and safety problems and to promote a commercial core along this street. With these changes, and the implementation of site-planning standards, the size and location of this district should be adequate, given the commercial services requirements of East Charlotte.

The Town needs to address water and sewer capacity in the Village and Commercial Districts in order to meet the Plan's goal for compact settlement in the village areas. The analysis should include the consideration of a small community system to serve the West Village and Commercial District. This could help to increase developable land opportunities to achieve the current goals for small increases in local employment, some basic retail services, and a concentration of development in the village centers.

The groundwater and soils analysis study recommended throughout this plan will provide clear information regarding wastewater disposal capacity of the existing industrial districts. The study will also provide an overview of new wastewater disposal technology that is being adopted by the state. These modern systems broaden the type of soils and slopes that are capable of disposal, which will allow development to occur in areas were it has been limited. Soils, groundwater, and slope constraints are no longer fool-proof indicators of wastewater disposal capacity.

Currently 3.5% of the Grand List is commercial or industrial property consisting of 37 parcels of land. While it appears that sewage disposal capacity is limited in the industrial and commercial districts at this time, the recommended groundwater/soils analysis and review of new wastewater disposal technology will provide up-to-date information about the development capacity of the sites. There is support in the Town for increasing commercial and industrial development within the existing districts.

Both the Economic and the Village Town Plan Update Committees encourage expanding the job base in the existing industrial and commercial districts near the planned Commuter Rail station to enable jobs within walking distance of the station. Employees commuting to Charlotte from Burlington or other northern areas could take the commuter rail and potentially reduce overall traffic in Town. In addition, Charlotters working in communities along the rail line could ride the commuter rail and would be more likely to shop at or use commercial services located near or adjacent to the rail station.

The Town Plan Update Economic Committee believes that trends in the local economy have raised the following issues that the Town must address in order to meet town-wide goals:

1. How to increase employment opportunities in the Town;

2. How to guide commercial development to meet community needs, prevent burdens on services, and be compatible with the rural character of the community;

3. How to plan for transportation for the commuting population that is energy-efficient and economical, and ensure auto, pedestrian and bicycle safety if commercial and industrial businesses and services increase;

4. How to use the Commuter Rail station location in Charlotte to the Town's greatest economic advantage.

Each of these issues will need to be addressed. However with regard to issue #2, criteria for determining the appropriateness of industrial or commercial zones include the following: A. the Town's need or desire for the industrial facilities or commercial services; B. the fit with the surrounding area; C. access to transportation; D. avoidance of a congested area; E. avoidance of residential areas; F. preservation of important scenic areas; and G. proximity to existing commercial or industrial areas, in order to take advantage of infrastructure and avoid a sprawling pattern of development.

The Town Plan Update Economic Committee generated a number of good initiatives, outlined throughout this Plan, that would take time to implement. To help get them started and to keep them active, the Committee also thought that an appointed, permanent Business and Economic Development Committee could be helpful in overseeing them and in pursuing appropriate businesses to locate in Charlotte.

4.4 THE LAND

4.4.1 THE SETTING

The Town of Charlotte is situated in northwestern Vermont on Lake Champlain about ten miles south of the urban center of Burlington in Chittenden County. The Town encompasses approximately 50 square miles (32,320 acres), almost 20 percent of which is water. The Town is bounded to the west by the lake, to the north by the Town of Shelburne, to the east by Town of Hinesburg, and to the south by the Towns of Ferrisburgh and Monkton.

Charlotte's overall physiographic character is one of small rolling hills with numerous flat terraces and bisecting streams. Three general regions can be identified. Between Lake Champlain and Route 7, the land slopes gradually from an elevation of 100 feet at lake level to approximately 250 feet. East of Route 7 the Town is divided by a range of hills which includes Mutton Hill, Pease Mountain, and Mt. Philo. The highest elevation is Mt. Philo - 980 feet. East of these hills the land features gently rolling terraces ranging in elevation from 300 to 400 feet. In the southeast corner the land becomes more rugged with steep stream valleys and elevations of up to 800 feet. Major water bodies in addition to Lake Champlain are Lewis Creek, the La Platte River, and the smaller tributaries of Thorp Brook, Pringle Brook, Holmes Creek, Bingham Brook, and Mud Hollow Brook.

A description of the Town from the top of Mt. Philo from the 1880's is, in many respects, still fitting today:

Looking eastward, a panorama is presented to the beholder, only exceeded in beauty and grandeur by that extending before the westward-looking eye. Eastward, the Green Mountains stand against the horizon, with Camel's Hump and Mansfield piercing the clouds, silent, grand, "rock-ribbed, and ancient as the sea," between which and the beholder lie many peaceful glens and rural glades, well-kept farms and modest homesteads. Westward, a more glorious scene is presented to the beholder, for just enough of the intervening country with its beautiful farms and neat dwellings, just enough of the blue waters of the unequaled Champlain, backed by the long stretch of the Adirondacks, rough, rugged, silent and sublime, to form a picture beautiful in the extreme, one that perhaps may be the better summed up in the two words, - >Vermont's best.'

Since that time, the setting has changed, though the scene is still glorious. While the views from Mt. Philo to the west still contain many beautiful farms, there is a marked difference as one looks east toward the Green Mountains. Much agriculture has disappeared, replaced by regrowth of brush and forests. However, now a myriad of homes of those seeking the rural character of the Charlotte landscape lie within much of this woodland and regrowth.

4.4.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Geology

The bedrock formations of Charlotte consist principally of dolomite which interbeds with limestone near the southwestern side of Route 7. Surrounding this dolomite-limestone is a belt of shale. East of this shale belt lies a bed of quartzite mixed with dolomite which eventually turns into predominantly dolomite in the most eastern part of Charlotte.

The two stream valleys, Mud Hollow and Bingham, include a thin belt of limestone that flows wider in the north and Shelburne area. The hills and low mountains mark the western edge of a low angle thrust fault where the overlying bedrock has been moved to the west. The hill and low mountains are erosional remnants caused by this folding and faulting. They dip eastward with their steeper sides to the west.

The hills are covered with glacial till in contrast with the majority of Charlotte which is covered with Lacustrine and Marine clays and silts. Tills are usually poorly drained and include gravels instead of silts. One long belt of this silt lies on the western side of Pease Mountain stretching north-south. In the northeast corner lies a section of ice contact gravel. It is well-sorted and well-drained above the high water level. A gravel quarry is located in this area. Other surficial materials include peat and muck in swamps and poorly drained areas. These areas lie in the mideastern edge and southwest corner of the Town.

Soils

Soil characteristics are an important consideration for all development and for natural resource based operations such as agriculture and forestry. The NCRS has classified the soils in the Town as part of the Chittenden County Soils Survey. The information in the survey is valuable for identifying soils that are suitable for agriculture, forestry, recreation, and land development. Extreme stoniness, shallow depth to bedrock, high water table, and low permeability create severe limitations for buildings, roads, and septic systems. Much of Charlotte consists of silts and clays with very low permeability.

The Soil Conservation Service, the predecessor to the NCRS, in 1986 re-evaluated soils in Chittenden County according to their capability to support conventional on-site sewage disposal systems and mound systems. Because the Town has no municipal sewage disposal systems, this classification has been an important information base for determining the capability of land to support development. According to the SCS criteria, 12% (3,198 acres) of the land was suitable for conventional on-site sewage disposal systems; 44 % (11,562 acres) was suitable for mound systems; and 44% (11,681 acres) was unsuitable for any on-site sewage disposal. This analysis showed that the development potential of the Town is constrained by its soils; that costly mound systems are required for nearly half of the land; and that the 12% suitable for on site systems will be very important for shaping the growth of the Town. It should be noted that portions of the 12% are already developed and, further, that some of these soils are also primary agriculture soils under active agricultural use.

The State has classified all surface waters in the Town, including Lake Champlain, as Class B waters. The State prohibits discharges of treated water from sewage systems into Class B waters without a designated waste management zone, and there are no waste management zones established within the Town. Therefore treated water from sewage systems in Charlotte must be disposed through indirect discharge methods.

In more recent years there have been more frequent applications for subdivisions with community disposal systems. While these community systems may help to foster desirable patterns of development by clustering homes using a common system, the Town must assure they will be adequately installed by developers and maintained by homeowners to protect the Town from having to take them over in the future. It is also projected that there will be more applications involving long sewer lines to connect subdivisions with the good disposal sites. These sewer lines raise concerns for hook-ups and long-term maintenance as well.

Modern wastewater system technologies are making soil and slope conditions less important in guiding where septic systems can be placed. These modern technologies are more expensive but can be placed and approved by the State on lands previously unsuited for septic. The existence of these new technologies makes it even more essential to plan for development and protection of natural resources. Poor soils can not be counted on to protect Charlotte from over-development.

Slopes

Elevations in Charlotte range from 100 feet above sea level along the low-lying lake shoreline to 980 feet on the top of Mt. Philo. Steep slopes and high elevations are found along the spine from Mutton Hill to Mt. Philo. Steep slopes are also evident on Barber Hill, in the Lewis Creek area, in the extreme southeast corner of the Town, and in the eastern side of Town east of Bean Road and Dorset Street.

Steep slopes present a significant limitation to development. In addition to increasing construction and maintenance costs, development on steep slopes can create environmental hazards such as erosion. Care should be taken with development in areas where slopes range from 15-25%. Slopes greater than 25% are generally unsuited for development.

Flood Hazard Areas

Flood hazard areas are areas that are likely to be inundated by flood once every 100 years. Portions of the shoreline of Lewis Creek, Lake Champlain (on McNeil's Cove, Converse Bay, and Holmes Creek, and the mouth of Thorpe Brook have been designated flood hazard areas, based on the one hundred year flood, by maps prepared by the federal government and approved by the Town of Charlotte under its Flood Hazard Area Zoning Regulations. The rest of the Town's flood hazard areas have not been inventoried. The Town has requested the Federal Energy Management Authority to map the flood hazard area of the LaPlatte River. Additional flood hazard mapping should be coordinated with the wetlands mapping project.

If a flood hazard area is improperly used and unprotected, a flood can create a serious threat to the public; private investments can be destroyed; and significant natural resources can be damaged. The Town of Charlotte does not allow development within these flood hazard areas.

4.4.3 PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT

The historical pattern of development in Charlotte is that of several small, compact village settlements surrounded by open land in which rural homesteads and farms lie. Additionally, summer home communities are clustered along the shorelines of Thompson's Point and Cedar Beach, served by a system of interconnecting roads.

This historical pattern has increasingly changed over the last few decades. A growing regional population, new wastewater technology, and the desirability of living in scenic rural areas relatively close to Burlington has resulted in extensive residential development throughout the town. The continuation of this trend will ultimately shift the character of Charlotte from rural to suburban. Furthermore, additional development in rural areas is not cost effective, in that the Town’s resources are spread more thinly to support such development.

The Villages

The villages of West Charlotte, once called Charlotte Four Corners and East Charlotte, historically know as Baptists Corners, are two existing settled areas in the Town where residential development is more dense than surrounding areas and where commercial services and public uses are located.

Charlotte's current planning goals and policies support the concentration of growth in existing settlements such as the East and West Villages. The Zoning Regulations treat them both as "Village Districts" with common zoning regulations covering both villages. The evolution of these village areas and the conditions in each are noticeably different from one another. The Village Committee recognized that it would be more appropriate to distinguish East Charlotte Village and the West Charlotte Village from each other in any future land use regulations.

The West Charlotte Village is currently focused on the intersection of Greenbush Road and Ferry Road (F-5); it extends generally from this intersection to the north and south on Greenbush Road and to the east and west on F-5. Most of the developed area, about 100 acres, has lot sizes ranging from .15 of an acre (7,486 s.f.) to nearly 8.00 acres. There are approximately 67 primary buildings in the West Village area, up from 60 in 1990. Commercial and public uses are located on F-5, which is compatible with current zoning. The State of Vermont has designated portions of the West Village area as a State Historic District on the State Register of Historic Places

The West Village includes the Town Center area. Since 1990, significant investment has been made in this area including the Town Hall, the Library, Fire and Rescue station, Senior Center, and the Post Office. Locating public services in this area has reinforced the "village feel" of the West Charlotte Village, and encouraged additional investment in public facilities here. More densely settled residential uses, a few retail stores, and an industrial/commercial area to the west on Ferry Road also exist in West Charlotte.

The Town Plan Update Neighborhoods and Villages Committee (Village Committee) analyzed the extent of the boundaries of the West Village "area." The Village Committee agreed that the West Charlotte village area extends beyond the current village residential and commercial zoning districts designated in the Town's Zoning Bylaws and includes part or all of the current West Charlotte Industrial District. The exact limits of the districts is not clear, however, because there are no written descriptions in the regulations. When needed, the exact limits must be interpreted from the zoning map.

There are no public water or sewer systems serving the village area. The private supply of water in the village area is inadequate for some homes and more than ample for others. All sewage disposal in the village area is on-site, with the exception of the Town Offices, Library, Senior Center and Fire and Rescue station. The approximate size of the West Charlotte Village Residential Zoning District is currently about 230 acres. The District includes the Greenbush Road and F5 intersection, extending east to Route 7, west to the railroad tracks, and south approximately to the Old Lantern .

The West Village area experiences significant traffic volume, especially in the summer due to ferry and boater traffic headed to or from Route 7 and Lake Champlain. This volume creates a legitimate traffic concern in the area, especially at the intersection of Ferry Road and Greenbush Road. The Municipal Planning Organization has not conducted traffic counts on Ferry Road since 1995, at which time they measured the Average Annual Daily Traffic Count at 2,650 just east of the intersection with Greenbush Road.

Just to the west of the Village District on either side of Ferry Road is the Industrial District. This area was considered by some on the Village Committee as being part of the West Charlotte Village. This district includes the location of the new train station for the proposed commuter train. The Village Committee noted that the addition of public transportation to this area could make it very attractive for mixed uses, including residential units. They felt that the Town should consider the opportunities to create further concentrated growth around the station to facilitate further preservation of the farmland resources elsewhere in Town.

The East Charlotte Village District is about 210 acres of which an estimated 34 acres have been developed. It covers the two western quadrants of the Hinesburg Road and Spear Street intersection. The East Charlotte Village is less densely settled, and the immediate surroundings contain more open land. In general, East Charlotte experiences less traffic congestion than the West Village.

The small, historic portion of the East Charlotte village area is presently developed to the south of the intersection of Hinesburg Road and Spear Street. Most of the development is along Spear Street. The village has 34 acres of developed property and about 41 primary structures, including a general store, the Charlotte Grange Hall, a Catholic church, several single family residences, a small apartment building, and a small mobile home park. A dairy farm is also located in the village and a small hay farm is located at the southern end of the village area. A telecommunications tower is located at the south edge of the village.

Sheehan Green, a relatively recent residential subdivision, expands the village area to the northwest. The homes cluster around a preserved farm field. This subdivision expands the size of East Charlotte village and suggests a reevaluation of the current limits of East Charlotte with respect to future growth.

In the 1940's the Town selected a location between the villages, on Hinesburg Road, as the site for a new school. The school has seen several expansions in the years since its construction. The School's playing fields also provide recreational space for the entire Town. Because the school area has had limited potential for further building expansion, due to soil conditions and topography, the West Charlotte Village should strongly be considered for siting future expansions. It serves as the educational center for the Town and provides a place for large gatherings, such as Town Meeting.

Today the historic pattern of development in the Town is changing rapidly. The village areas are no longer the primary location for settlement due to zoning policies and soils limitations. Housing is filling up the frontage along rural Town roads. Farm and forestlands, no longer in active production, are being divided into large, residential lots served by private roads. The use of the historic road network has changed; roads that were once farm-access roads are now busy through roads. Some less-used roads have been closed off, limiting accessibility between some areas of the community. There are also new private roads serving a residential developments and unconnected to the rest of the Town. This pattern is primarily due to the five acre minimum lot size throughout Town and to the decline in the dairy industry.

Commercial and industrial uses are primarily confined to districts established on Ferry Road in West Charlotte, and Hinesburg Road in East Charlotte. Public buildings are located in the West Village and at the site of Charlotte Central School. The construction of a new Town Hall in 1994, the Post Office in 1992, the relocation of the Quinlan Schoolhouse in 1998 and the new Library completed in 1998 in West Charlotte village provided a Town center and a focus for growth in the future. The public buildings and historic residences create a unified, attractive, friendly village core with its own unique character. The Town does not wish to lose this character. The update committees stressed the importance of preserving the existing character of the village areas as one of the Town's most important goals. They felt that while it is important to concentrate future growth in village areas, there was still a need to do some amount of disbursal so that no one area of the Town is overburdened at the expense of other areas.

Rural Areas

In Town surveys, committee reports, and public information meetings, Charlotte residents have continued to express a desire to see the open land of the Town preserved and the rural character protected. Over and over they have stated their fears that the current pattern of development will harm those values. On a recent survey (January 1999), over 70% of a total 123 respondents stated that future growth and development should be focused in the village areas to help prevent disbursed development and protect open space and farms. In addition, the number one problem facing Charlotte cited by the majority of respondents was development/growth/sprawl and loss of open space and rural character.

One reason for their concern today is the steady rate of land subdivisions and the construction of single family housing. Between 1983 and 1986 alone the annual number of lots created through subdivision increased from 31 to 122. Over 4000 acres were affected by land subdivision in 1986 alone. By 1988 the number of lots created through subdivision had declined to about 50; however, another 112 lots were still pending review by the end of the year. Over 1800 acres were involved in these approved or pending projects in 1988.

While some important actions have been taken to help alleviate these patterns, the issues raised in 1990 and 1995 by the trends in land development still hold true today. Additionally some new issues have come to light in the last few years as growth has continued. They are:

· Subdivided open land in large lots wastes important agricultural and natural resource land such as farmland, forestland, and wildlife habitat;

· Large lots are beyond the means of an increasingly larger share of the population and are affecting the social and economic diversity of the Town;

· Scattered development of housing along roads and in open meadows is ruining vistas and views;

· There is an increasing danger of losing the focus for community life and the small-town residential neighborhood environment;

· Public costs for roads, emergency services, and school transportation are increased by sprawling, rural development;

· Public access to recreational resources, including water resources, is being cut off by development;

· The proliferation of on-site sewage disposal systems can impact ground water resources;

· Excessive curb cuts for driveways along state and Town highways will impact traffic safety and cause congestion;

· Houses located in forested lands are fragmenting habitat for wildlife; and

· The current zoning and subdivision regulations do not necessarily make it easy or economically feasible to follow the goals presented in the Town Plan.

To date, poor soils and steep slopes have partially "protected" Charlotte from extensive development by limiting wastewater disposal options. Poor soils and limited septic capacity will no longer protect Charlotte from development. Soil and groundwater conditions may be becoming irrelevant with the introduction of modern wastewater disposal systems currently being reviewed and approved by the State.

With this new technology wastewater systems can be placed on a much broader variety of soil and slope conditions, opening more land for potential development. On the other hand, this technology can be used to promote concentration of new growth in designated areas such as the villages in cases where traditional wastewater systems have been limited by soil conditions. This new technology creates an added incentive to plan effectively for how future growth should be directed.

Through the subdivision review process there have been major efforts to minimize the adverse impact of large-lot development. Applicants have been encouraged to protect resource land by clustering lots and using building envelopes. Planned Residential Developments (PRDs) available in the zoning and subdivision regulations provide an alternative to traditional subdivision patterns that break up the landscape into five acre lots. PRDs allow for clustering lots in a smaller area in order to preserve a portion of the land as open. Private community septic systems are also allowed to help make clustering feasible.

PRDs, however, have not been fully used by developers, perhaps because adequate incentives have not been adopted by the Town to encourage PRDs. Clustered development using PRDs, when well done, can serve to protect resource land and the rural character in Town. It is also important, however, to recognize that a pattern of numerous scattered clusters of residential development may also be contributing to sprawl patterns of development.

In spite of these attempts to address land development problems, the landscape that is so important to Charlotters is changing. This landscape was created when agriculture was the dominant local economy and the community was relatively self-sufficient. Because 'of Charlotte’s increased desirability as a “bedroom community” for the greater Burlington area, Charlotte residents are realizing that more proactive planning techniques must be used to protect the Town's natural and cultural resources. At the Town Update Committee meetings and in the Town Survey, several proactive planning techniques were mentioned or discussed, including those in the following text.

Expand the Town Center and the Focus Future Growth in the Village Areas

The number-one element of the vision for the Town expressed by this plan is that the Town is committed "to reinforc(ing) historic settlement patterns by focusing growth in village centers." Every plan since 1990 has stated that "The villages of East and West Charlotte will provide for housing, commercial services, and public buildings and facilities. These areas were selected based on their central location, the presence of existing development at a higher density than the remainder of Town, the presence of and potential for commercial services, the availability of land for additional development, and the presence of soils with slight[18] limitations for development."

Every Town Plan since 1990 has supported compact patterns of development that place more people within close proximity to services, public transportation and each other to reduce the need for extensive automobile travel and to create a center for community activity. Additional policies in this plan state that the Town will provide for a variety of housing opportunities, especially elderly and family affordable housing, and maintain economic diversity of the population here.

Match Zoning By-Laws with the Goals of the Plan

Parts of the Zoning Bylaws and Subdivision Regulations are not consistent with important goals of the Town Plan. Specifically, the five-acre-minimum lot size does not allow for focusing sufficient future growth in village areas any more than it allows for focusing growth in other areas of Town. In addition, a minimum five-acre lot size in today's housing market does not provide affordable housing opportunities for moderate or lower income people, another central goal of the Plan. The bylaws also do not allow the conversion of existing buildings on the smaller lots in the West Village area to multi-housing units.

During the Town Plan update discussions, the Villages Committee noted that it would be appropriate to reduce the minimum lot size and adjust the dimensional requirements in the West Village area. They believe that this will enable greater density of residents in close proximity to public services and transportation corridors. In the existing West Village area, the intention is that higher density would primarily be achieved through the reuse of existing structures, existing undeveloped small lots, and possible subdivision of existing larger lots, but not at the expense of the existing desirable village character or the loss of existing buildings. The Village Committee did not believe that similar reductions in lot sizes would be beneficial for the East Charlotte Village at this time but did recommend expansion of accessory apartment allowances. During later Town Plan work-sessions, reduction of the 5 acre per unit minimum density in the West Village and raising the 5 acre per unit minimum density in rural areas was not favored. The consensus of opinion was that programs such as a Transfer of Development Rights program or similar program that would encourage development in village areas in lieu of rural areas should be explored.

The Town Plan Update Village Committee recognized that residents' understanding of the village "areas" can extend beyond the Village and Commercial zoning district boundaries drawn in the zoning bylaws. The Village Committee referred to village areas, but the areas are not currently defined on the zoning maps. The Village Committee analyzed the boundaries of the villages areas and focused particularly on the West Village Area and the Town Center.

Other areas adjacent to the West Village /Town Center area were identified by the Village Committee as potential "expanded growth center infill areas," where higher density residential development could occur on the periphery of the historic district to support the village growth center concept. These possible infill areas were described as expanding west to just beyond the railroad tracks on Ferry Road, to the east across Route 7 up Church Hill Road to Hinesburg Road, to the south between Greenbush Road and Rt. 7, and to the north along Rt. 7 to approximately the location of Horsfords Nursery. See Future Land Use Map for existing boundaries.

Other modifications to the Zoning By-Laws were also discussed that would advance the goals of the Town Plan. Some of the ideas had been considered by the Town in the past. The Village Committee felt that it would be beneficial to reconsider these ideas as well as others that had been used elsewhere in the last few years, such as non-contiguous Planned Residential Developments or an all agricultural district.

Establish Design Guidelines

Also, the current Zoning Bylaws do not provide any recognition of the existing State Historic Districts. There are no guidelines for land owners or the Planning Commission as to how changes within the historic districts should be addressed. A gradual consensus emerged from the discussions that historic design guidelines would be the most appropriate first step.

The Village Committee discussed the importance of delineating the State Historic Districts on the official zoning map. While recognizing the reasons and values for enabling a higher density concentration of growth in the village area, the committee emphasized that the State Historic Districts are some of "our treasures" and the Town must be careful to protect them. They had a lengthy discussion on what types of mechanism would be appropriate to help preserve the integrity of the districts, ranging from Historic District Review Committees to doing nothing.

The Committee stated that higher density in the West Village Historic District or in the adjacent village areas should not occur without the corresponding design guidelines. The guidelines they envisioned would be flexible, but would be intended to ensure that the rural, small town, historic character of Charlotte is preserved and reflected in new development in the State Historic Districts. Further discussion brought out the idea that the design guidelines would also be appropriate for the village areas adjacent to the Historic Districts.

Complete A Master Plan for the West Village with a Soil and Groundwater Study

During its discussions, the Village Committee concluded that before redefining the zoning districts in the west village area, more physical information is needed and an overall Master Plan must be completed. The Master Plan process, as they envisioned it in their discussions, would provide a forum to discuss and conduct a more detailed analysis of the existing conditions and future opportunities for the development of the area. It would analyze desired density, transportation improvements, potential design guidelines, existing historic character, and water and sewer capacity, among other things.

It is absolutely clear that water and wastewater disposal capacity in the West Village area must be studied and resolved prior to an increase in density. The Village Committee felt that a complete understanding of the groundwater and soils conditions and the location of existing wells and septic systems in the West Village area was an important part of the information that would be needed to help determine how exactly the West Village area could or should grow.

Adopt an Official Town Map

An Official Town Map would allow the Town to designate areas that would be appropriate for future roadway development or Town facilities. It could help the Town plan for the future expansion of the Town's facilities proactively, rather than addressing them individually over time as crises arise.

Couple Village Area Density Increases with Open Land Protection

One of the goals of increased density in village areas is to help preserve farmland and open space in the rural areas of the Town. This pattern provides more living and commercial opportunities in the village areas, absorbing future growth and reducing scattered patterns of development that break up open space throughout Town. The Village Committee thought that smaller lot sizes in the West Village area should not be established without also establishing strong measures to enable preservation of working farms and farmland, and to protect natural resources and open land.

One method to fulfill this goal is to separate the development rights or credits for land from the density permitted to be developed on such land.

The Village Committee summarized its discussions by stating that higher density village areas, village design guidelines, and expanded and effective techniques and regulations to preserve farms and important natural areas would be helpful, and indeed necessary, to achieve the goals of this Town Plan.

4.4.4 AGRICULTURE

As the brief Town history notes, from the Town's early settlement to today, agriculture has been a significant part of the landscape, rural character, and economy of the Town of Charlotte. Beers Atlas in 1869 stated that "the superior adaptation of the Town to agricultural pursuits was one cause of its rapid settlement." Child's Gazetteer in 1882 mentions that the industry of the people of Charlotte has always been devoted to agriculture due to its rich fertile soil.

Based on surveys and community meetings, preservation of working farms and open land is a clear priority for Charlotte residents. Loss of farms and farmers will dramatically change the Town's character, which was established from the earliest period of settlement and is strongly valued by current Charlotte residents.

Charlotte Land Trust hired a consultant with Town sponsored funds to perform an agricultural inventory to inform future planning and land conservation priorities for the Town. The Land Trust was mandated in the 1995 Town Plan to do this study. The inventory's purposes is to map existing and potential farmland, to identify the agricultural uses of each farm unit, and to map conservation lands, agricultural management districts, and agricultural soils. This inventory, when complete will be used to update the following information.

The Land

Charlotte has an abundance of soils well suited to agriculture. Of the total land area of 26,520 acres, 3,301 acres are identified by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) (Formerly the Soil Conservation Service) as having a high potential. High and medium potential soils are called "primary agricultural soil" by Vermont's Act 250 and are considered to be worthy of preservation by the state. Fifty percent of Charlotte is primary agricultural soil as compared to only 20% of the soils state-wide. Currently (1999) approximately 10,706 acres are in active agricultural use, and another 5,524 acres are "open" and capable of being utilized for farming purposes.

Charlotte's stock of high potential soils consists primarily of glacially deposited loams located on the higher ridges. These soils largely correspond with the earliest settlement patterns as they were sought out by Charlotte's first settlers. West Charlotte and East Charlotte village areas are located on these soils as well as sections of Route 7 and Spear Street Extension. The high potential soils are capable of varied agricultural enterprises and are essential for intensive agriculture. Their preservation even in small plots is important.

Charlotte's medium potential soils are primarily lacustrine clays deposited by the Champlain Sea below 300 feet in elevation. These soils support our dairy industry and are best used for grazing and extensive forage production. These soils are often found in large contiguous blocks facilitating the use of large modern machinery. With the trend towards larger and fewer dairy farms, it is important that medium potential soils be preserved in blocks larger than a current farm unit. It is essential that the development pattern not fragment the use pattern of this resource.

Charlotte's 13,142 acres of low potential soils are an agricultural resource, particularly where they are in association with medium potential soils and have been improved through artificial drainage. Some loams, too steep or stony to cultivate, produce excellent stands of sugar maples.

The Farms

Dairying is the primary form of agriculture in Charlotte. The number of dairy farms has declined, however, to 16, down from 20 in 1989 and 40 in 1979. Due to lower prices of milk, higher production costs, capital problems, development pressures, and labor problems, many small to medium dairy farms have ceased operations. It was projected by the 1989 Town Plan Agriculture Committee that the number of dairies would decline and stabilize at 10 to 12 large farms by 1995. They projected that these dairies would require an average of 500 good acres to operate or a total of about 5,000 acres. Fortunately, farming did not decline as much as the 1989 Committee's projections; 16 dairy farms still exist and the current Town Plan Update Agriculture Committee projects that dairy farms will decline and stabilize at 13-15 by 2005. These dairies would require an average of 500 to 2000 good acres to operate or a total of about 7,000 acres.

Historically Charlotte's agriculture was diversified; sheep, beef, and small grains were predominant in the 19th century. Today, the Town is witnessing increased diversification in its agriculture. Perhaps the most promising form of extensive farming is hay production. Growing hay is well-suited to Charlotte's clay soils and compatible with Charlotte's desire for well-groomed open land. Marketing of high quality horse hay by one farmer has proved successful and has spawned satellite haying operations and interest in a regional hay cooperative. Diversification into sheep, and beef production has increased livestock products in the Town. Four riding stables provide still another form of agricultural business in the Town.

Several specialty farms in the Town, some of which are new and some of which have been operating successfully for years, provide breeding stock, wildflowers, berries, organic farm products, nurseries, and orchard products. Many of these enterprises are suited to the Town's prevalent heavy clay soils. The viability of vegetables, small fruits, nurseries and landscaping businesses are enhanced by Charlotte's proximity and accessibility to the large Chittenden County market. The Town Plan Update Agricultural Committee thought that alternative forms of agriculture could succeed in Charlotte to help preserve open, working farmland in the Town.

Farm Economy Issues

The discussions of the Agriculture Committee revealed that farm-related businesses could be another important part of the local economy that could support the economic viability of Charlotte's farms. Direct-marketing, value-added products such as cheese, farm equipment and supply operations, agricultural cooperatives, and fence businesses, among others, are some of the commercial enterprises that would be appropriate. Existing commercial and industrial zones have space for these operations, but they are not currently allowed in the rural district. Farm produce stands located at farms selling produce raised on the property are allowed; seasonal stands selling produce from off the site are also allowed but not on Route 7 except with Site Plan Review.

The Economics Committee conducted a survey at Town Meeting 1999 and an overwhelming majority of respondents supported the further expansion of a local farmers market. Survey respondents stated that the preferred location for the market should be in the West Village area but the location could maybe change from week to week to be more accessible for Charlotters from other areas. An informal but active Farmer's Market already exists in Charlotte in the summers, and it is important to build on what is already established rather than starting from scratch. The Agricultural Committee agreed that an expanded farmers market is desirable and added that a year-round facility should be studied as an outlet for fresh greenhouse and preserved agricultural products and arts and crafts.

The patterns of ownership of farmland indicate which properties or operations are likely to remain in farming and which are at risk for being converted to non-agricultural uses. The 1990 Town Plan Agriculture Committee analyzed the patterns of ownership of farmland in the Town. In 1990, about 60% of Charlotte, including most of our good farmland, was held by 102 owners. These holdings were divided into three categories: farms, estates, and investments. Farmers owned the bulk of Charlotte's farmland (6,949 acres), but many of these farms were not financially stable. Of the farmer-owned dairies, 9 of 16 were considered to be "at risk" of being sold within five years. Of the 11 farms owned by retired farmers, 10 were unlikely to stay completely in agriculture beyond the current owners. Of the diversified farms, however, 9 out of 10 are considered to be strong. Active farmers in surrounding Towns owned four parcels in Charlotte, one of which was likely to be developed in the near future.

Many small farms were bought by professional and business people in the 1960s and 1970s and turned into country estates. In 1990, there were 3,859 acres in this category. Most of the owners are quite committed to open land and therefore, might be cooperative in efforts to preserve this land.

Investors own many of Charlotte's largest tracts of farmland. In 1990, there were 24 parcels and 4,691 acres owned by investors with over half of the acreage owned by four individuals. These holdings are critical to Charlotte's agricultural base.

Recognizing that unfairly burdensome property taxes were forcing many farmers out of business, both the Town of Charlotte and the State developed programs to stabilize taxes on agricultural lands. The Town program is no longer active. However, many local farmers utilize the State's Current Use Program. Table 10 reflects the 1998 participation in this program.

In 1988 a new State working farm tax abatement program was set up to rebate up to $13,000 in taxes per property for farmland and farm buildings. Those who enroll must give a right of first purchase or right of first refusal to the State should they ever go out of farming or put their property on the market. In 1994 6,163 acres or 23% of the land in the Town was enrolled in the State program and another 1,200-1,500 acres in the Town program.

Table 10

Participation by Property Owners in State Current Use Value Appraisal Program ( 2001)
Table 10A – By Program
Type of Program	Acres
Forest Acreage	1941.24
Non Productive Forest Acreage	192.14
Agricultural Acreage	8116.28
Non Productive Agricultural Acreage	28
Total Program Acres	11,194.83
Excluded Acres	917.17
Total Town Acres (approx. 20% is water, +/-6,500 acres and 80%, or 25,820 land)	32,320
Total Program Parcels	106
Table 10B – By Type of Property
Type of Property	Value
Dwellings and Non-Farm Bldgs.	$17,679,600
Farm Bldgs. (100%)	$1,593,800
Subtotal Bldgs.	$19,273,400
943.82 Acres Excluded	$6,400,200
9100.85 Acres Enrolled	$18,395,700
Subtotal Land Value	$24,795,900
Total Property Listed Value	$44,069,300
Table 10C – Total Value of Tax Reduction
Use Value of Acres Enrolled	$1,914,209
Owners Grand List	$26,835,169
Exempt Reduction	$17,234,131
Total Reduction in Taxes for Enrolled Properties	$370,533

In 2001, 106 parcels comprising approximately 11,194.83 acres, or 43% of the land in the Town, are enrolled in the State Current Use Program. Farmers have stated clearly that without such a program they could no longer afford to farm. They have also stated that additional tax abatement and other economic incentives are necessary to preserve working farms in Charlotte. Currently farmers are partially subsidizing, through high local taxes, the rural character and open land enjoyed by all Charlotters. Charlotte residents have expressed over and over again through surveys and public meetings that they want to protect rural character and working farmland in Charlotte. The Town needs to work closely with the State program to ensure predictability of State reimbursements to the Town for the tax abatements offered by the program.

In 1988 the Charlotte Land Trust was formed. The Town appropriated $20,000 in the first year to support the Land Trust's work, and has made contributions in nearly every year since. One purpose of the Charlotte Land Trust is to use private, voluntary approaches to permanently protect farmland and to make affordable farmland available to farmers. The Charlotte Land Trust is a private, non-profit 501(C)(3) corporation and works closely with the Vermont Land Trust. According to the 1998 Town Report, since 1988 the Land Trust has conserved 363 acres of conservation or farmland by itself, and with the assistance of the Vermont Land Trust and the Demeter Fund has conserved an additional 1901 acres.

The Town Plan Update discussion participants felt that it is important that the Charlotte Land Trust initiate more contact with landowners, especially owners of at-risk farms. They also indicated the need for the Land Trust to educate the public more clearly about how the Land Trust can help property owners to protect open land. In addition, residents recommended that the Land Trust focus more on making affordable land accessible to farms.

The Agriculture Committee believes it is likely that a significant percentage of farmland is likely to change hands within the next five years. This situation could result in abandoned farmland, subdivision and development of farmland, reduced family farming and erosion of the Town's rural character. Fragmentation of farmland reduces the potential for extensive agricultural operations such as hay and crop production and dairying. Residential development in farming areas increases the conflicts between residential property owners and farmers.

Land Use Options

Currently agricultural land is zoned for five-acre-minimum lot sizes. As a result of this zoning, land has been divided into large lots for residential purposes. This practice is wasteful of a valuable resource and has an adverse visual impact as well. Farm lands are often subdivided over a long period of time, with small pieces taken out each time, without a real idea of how these small subdivisions hurt the overall unity or continued viability of the farm.

It is common for landowners to subdivide in piecemeal fashions because often they cannot afford the expense of performing an overall master plan for their entire property. When master plans are undertaken the Planning Commission can work with applicants to locate housing units off important farmland and to take advantage of the clustering and PRD designs. As an example, during the subdivision of a 300+ acre farm, 180 acres were protected for continued agricultural use.

The clustering or PRD option is not used enough by developers. To use the PRD, landowners or developers need to prepare a significant amount of information and to prepare a master plan for the entire parcel. The information is useful in preparing a good PRD, but the time and money it takes to gather and prepare the information acts as a disincentive towards the use of the PRD.

A continuing issue in the Town is the compatibility of residential developments with farming operations. Farms create dust and noise from machinery, may often apply pesticides and manure to the land which can create an unpleasant odor, and use roads for oversized, slow-moving equipment. Historically these operations did not create problems; many residents grew up with these conditions and were used to them as a way of life. As the Town has grown and more people have moved in from other non-agricultural areas, conflicts have arisen. The Town Plan Update Committees found that there is still a strong commitment to maintain agricultural operations, unpleasant odors, slow moving vehicles, dust and all.

Four agricultural planning "districts" were delineated in the 1990 Town Plan and are retained in the current Town Plan with some modifications. The term "district" has been replaced by "area" in order to clarify that the delineation is not meant in a regulatory sense (i.e.: these are not zoning districts), but rather in recognition that there are distinctive characteristics that currently exist with regard to the farmland in each of these four general areas, and the Town hopes to protect the particular resources of each area. The four areas are:

Area A-West Charlotte

This area is characterized by a mix of dairy and non-dairy farms; it also hosts significant residential uses and is experiencing strong pressures for development and therefore has high land values. This area is also an important part of the Champlain Valley view shed. There are approximately eight dairy farms in this district (two with barns in Ferrisburgh), six parcels in alternative agriculture (horses, sheep, berries, hay, heifers, vegetables), and several rental parcels available. The land in this area tends to be somewhat rolling.

Area B-North Route 7 Corridor

This area has historically hosted prominent dairy operations, although it appears to be currently in transition away from dairying. There are rental parcels in this area also. The area features significant supplies of prime agricultural soils. These agricultural conditions coupled with scenic vistas of statewide significance and the proximity to Route 7, a regional arterial highway, require special development considerations.

Area C-Central Charlotte

This area is characterized by contiguous farm parcels with generally level topography and extensive primary agricultural soils. The land lends itself to large-scale crop production with modern machinery. The area has the potential of providing the Town with a permanent "critical mass" of agricultural land. Its current use is primarily for dairy and crops. The farmers are the owners of most of this land. Portions of this area afford significant scenic vistas of extensive rolling farmland uninterrupted by housing development.

Area D-East Charlotte

This area is characterized by non-contiguous farm parcels, several rental parcels, and some diversified agriculture, including vegetable, beef, dairy operations. Soils are not as consistently good, however this area, perhaps more than the others, hosts an abundance of wildlife habitat.

By recognizing the particular characteristics of each area, strategies and policies for land use and agricultural protection can be tailored to meet the unique situations, and thereby have a greater likelihood of success.

Development Review Strategies

The Rural District is intended for agricultural, forestry, rural housing, recreation, and resource protection purposes. The challenge of the district is to allow all of these uses without compromising the resources of the district. Significant resources in the district include:

· Prime agricultural soils and productive farmland;

· Open space, scenic vistas and views especially in the center and western parts of the Town;

· Locally-significant wildlife habitat and natural areas especially in East Charlotte;

· Large parcels of good farmland;

· Aquifer protection areas;

· Productive woodlands; and

· The conservation and aesthetic value of roadside environments;

Some of these resources are shown on the maps of Agricultural Potential of Soils, Critical Wildlife Habitat, Environmental Features, and Roads with High Scenic and Conservation Values in this Plan. The rural areas are designed to protect and wisely manage these valuable natural resources through the placement of housing away from resource lands and the establishment of open space requirements. The rural areas of the Town include all lands outside the village areas, commercial/mixed-use areas, industrial/mixed-use areas, Conservation District, and Shoreland District.

The primary uses in the rural areas will be agriculturally related. This will include, where appropriate, not only traditional agricultural activities, but non-traditional agricultural activities and ag-related commercial activities. Other uses shall be in harmony with agricultural and natural resource, and residential areas.

Additional provisions must be made for the long-term protection and management of the significant farm and natural resources in the rural areas when lands are being developed or subdivided. Known agricultural and natural resource values will be identified; where more than one value is identified, the parcel will be managed for the protection of each resource. The Town Plan maps will be used to indicate the general location of these resources. The property owner/applicant will be encouraged to offer more specific information on the location of resources on their property. Some significant natural resources such as wetlands will be required to be delineated on site for proposed projects, and the applicant must work to protect these resources.

The development review process provides an opportunity to protect the resource base. Property owners and developers will plan the entire parcel of land on which land subdivision is proposed for the best management of resources. When development is considered, they will consider the significant farm and natural resources on the parcel and minimize the impact on these resources.

The Town should study and decide the feasibility of creating a funding source for assisting farm and other large property owners with the cost of preparing a Master Plan for their properties. The funds will be used as an incentive for thoughtful PRD designs to help maximize the preservation of natural resources, rural character, and views in balance with reasonable economic gain for the property owner in the development of the property.

The Town should also consider creating a zoning ordinance which separates development rights or credits for a parcel of land from the density of development on such parcel of land. Under such a program, all land in town is given the same development rights or credits. However, the density of development would be encouraged in the villages, established settlement areas, and designated growth areas.

The recommended overall density for the Rural District is and will continue to be one unit per five acres for new structures. However, lot sizes may vary within Planned Residential Developments (PRDs) to reflect site conditions. Smaller lots may be acceptable where standards for protection and management of significant farmland and natural resources can be met and the parcel size may advance other Town objectives. Up to four units in a new structure will be permitted in a PRD. There will be no limit to the number of units in existing structures as long as requirements for septic and water supply can be met and there is no loss to the overall character of the structure or the farm resources of the surrounding area.

On farm parcels or land contiguous to farm parcels, housing will have to meet standards that are designed to minimize the impact on farmland and on farming operations. The land not used for building should retain its eligibility for the state and local tax exemption programs.

Within the Rural District open space requirements currently vary depending on the size of the parcel. The amount of open space may increase on larger parcels because the larger the parcel, the more there is the potential for protection of extensive agricultural land or wildlife habitat areas and the more opportunities there are for locating cluster sites. Therefore, the larger the parcel, the higher the percentage of the parcel that will need to be left open. Section 5.15, D "Open Space Standards for PRDs" of the Zoning Bylaws addresses this concern.

Experience with subdivisions in the Town has shown that a density of one unit per five acres is not appropriate as a parcel gets larger. The development of very large parcels at one unit per five acres could overburden Town services, may infringe on natural resources that the Town has designated for protection, and may adversely impact groundwater through the on-site disposal of sewage. Therefore, within resource areas a density of less than one unit per five acres is recommended on large parcels outside of village centers to keep impacts on town services, natural resources and groundwater at manageable levels; or as an alternative, a Transfer of Development Rights program would separate development credits from density.

Open space lands may be in common or individual ownership; individual ownership will be permitted when the goals of protecting and managing the agricultural and natural resources are met through such mechanisms as conservation easements or the transfer of development rights.

4.4.5 NATURAL RESOURCES

The Town of Charlotte is rich with natural resources. These resources are critical to the Town's rural character and the health and integrity of its environment. Natural resources which have been identified in the Town include forest lands, wetlands, critical wildlife habitat, groundwater (aquifers), surface waters, and special natural areas.

Forest Lands

Forest lands are important for wood and non-wood forest products, aquifer recharge, wildlife habitat, erosion control, streamside buffer zones, nature study and aesthetics. Because other sections of the plan discuss wildlife habitat areas and aquifer recharge areas, this section is directed towards woodlands used for harvesting or having the other values listed above.

Compared to most Towns in Vermont, Charlotte has few commercially productive woodlands remaining. The Town values those few that exist. Poor soils, drainage problems, fragmentation of stands, and residential development are responsible for the small amount of productive woodlands. Ten areas of potentially productive woodlands were identified and mapped by the 1990 Charlotte Town Plan Natural Resources Committee and the County Forester. In 1990 these areas included: (Environmental Assessment Map key indicated in parentheses):

· Johnson Lumber/Burleigh/Sturgess/Olson properties (Wo1): highly productive forest land on north side of Lewis Creek; on south side, valuable as good contiguous forest land; most in current use ;

· LaPlatte River area (Wo 2): good quality pine, oak, and mixed hardwoods; portions in current use; valuable also as wildlife habitat and to protect an adjacent wetland;

· Hinsdale parcels (Wo 3): areas of valuable sugar maple groves; aesthetic value as well;

· Mt. Philo (Wo 4): lower elevation lands surrounding Mt. Philo have been identified as good productive woodlands that are also extremely valuable for recreation, wildlife, and aesthetics; undergoing some subdivision in southeast area;

· Mutton Hill(Wo 5): productive forest land undergoing some subdivision;

· Whalley Woods (Wo 6): mixture of species, owned by Town, valuable for conservation;

· Aube parcel (Wo 7): in LaPlatte River area;

· Eno parcel (Wo 8); small parcel planted in softwoods;

· Kaplan sugarbush (Wo 9): small parcel in active use; and

· Bean parcels (Wo 10): in current use, mixture of hardwoods and softwoods.

In light of changes since then, this information should be reviewed and updated.

Most of these properties are in the State Use Value Taxation Program and as a condition of that program are being managed according to a forestry management plan. 1,321.17 acres of productive forest acres and 191.49 of non-productive forest acreage are in the Use Value Program.

Non-wood forest products such as mushrooms, berries, fiddleheads, nuts, Christmas greens, and, of course, maple sap are harvested from Charlottes forested lands. Only maple syrup has important commercial value, but many residents gather the other products as a hobby or for household use. Many economically unproductive wooded areas are also extremely valuable for firewood, wildlife habitat, wetland protection, aquifer recharge, and their aesthetically pleasing appearance. Because of the limited acreage of productive woodlands, forest lands in Charlotte are of much greater value as multiple use areas than as prime wood-producing areas, although in 1999 there were two small sawmills and one commercial fuel wood provider.

Wetlands

Wetlands are areas that are inundated by surface or ground water for two weeks or more during the growing season and at a frequency significant enough to support vegetation conducive to living in anaerobic condition. Wetlands may include marshes, swamps (with trees), bogs, wet meadows, river and lake overflows, and ponds. Wetlands are particularly fragile areas. They are important because they provide temporary water storage for flood waters; contribute to the quantity as well as quality of surface and ground water by chemical action; control the effects of erosion and runoff; provide especially rich wildlife habitat for plant, animal, bird and aquatic species; provide resources for education and research in natural sciences; provide recreation values; and contribute to community open space and scenic beauty.

In 1999 the Charlotte Conservation Commission completed a wetlands mapping project which updated and expanded previously available information. A computerized database is now available (for use with ArcView software) as well as a wall map for display purposes. The database and map are based on professional interpretation of recent color infrared aerial photographs and preliminary field checking by Agency of Natural Resources staff. Approximately 1,200 wetland units are mapped. These are categorized as: Forested Wetlands, Emergent Wetland, Scrub-Shrub Wetland, Unconsolidated Bottom Wetland, and 4 categories of Mixed Wetlands. See “Wetlands of Charlotte, based on Interpretation of Aerial Photographs” map. Note that this map identifies the approximate location of wetlands but that more detailed examination of vegetation and soils is needed to define the functioning edge of a wetland. Also note that some wetlands may not have been detected in the mapping process due to conditions when aerial photographs were taken or land use changes such as the digging of very recent ponds. All of these mapped wetlands are included as components of the Critical Wildlife Habitat map.

Wetlands are threatened by filling, digging of ditches, draining, and dumping within them. They are also threatened by activities that occur around them including development on adjacent upland areas, diversion of streams feeding or draining wetlands, and shoreline development and boat traffic within shoreline wetland areas. The wetlands in the Town Conservation District are specifically protected by the Town under the Zoning Bylaws (Section 5.12 and 6.5, D, 7). The State of Vermont also has a Wetland Protection Law implemented through the Water Resources Board. Wetlands contiguous with mapped federally and state protected wetlands, come under the same protection.

Critical Wildlife Habitat

Natural terrestrial and aquatic plant communities and the wildlife species they support, contribute to the rural character of Charlotte and represent a special feature of life in the Town which can never be regained once it has been destroyed. All wildlife species have three basic life requirements: food, water and cover, which collectively comprise the habitat of a given species. All species are limited by the life requirement in least supply. To promote a diversity of wildlife species, it is important to conserve not only a variety of habitat types, but also critical areas which contain the limiting life requirement. Without these critical areas, many species will not persist regardless of the total amount of land protected.

Wetlands are essential for otter, beaver, mink, moose, muskrat, raccoon, bobcat, amphibians, reptiles and a great variety of birds including osprey, heron, bittern, geese, ducks and other waterfowl and shorebirds. Wetlands are often the most biologically productive habitats within a region, and provide all three basic life requirements described above. Some species, such as frogs, salamanders and wetland birds, breed only in wetlands where they can find the cover and food sources they require to give birth and raise their young. Wetlands of the Champlain Valley provide the most important waterfowl breeding and nesting area in the State, with many of these species migrating from long distances to these areas they depend on.

The primary threats to wildlife populations (in the US and worldwide) are habitat destruction and fragmentation. Because much of the native forest in the Champlain Valley has been converted to farmland, urban or residential areas, the remaining forested areas are extremely important for wildlife species locally and regionally. Forested areas are critical for species such as deer, fisher, turkey, grouse, bobcat, mink, otter, black bear, flying squirrel, porcupine, gray fox, short and long-tailed weasel, and birds including pileated and red-headed woodpecker, great horned owl, raven, blue jay, ovenbird, red-eyed vireo, solitary tanager, crossbills, warblers, rose-breasted grosbeak, thrushes, brown creeper, kinglets, flycatchers, peewee, nuthatches, veery, American redstart, and finches. The largest patches of forest in a region are especially important, as these areas may be critical for the larger, wide-ranging species that have the most demanding area requirements and are most sensitive to human disturbance. Large forest patches also have less border habitat or edge, where conflict with humans and roads can lead to high disturbance and mortality of certain species.

Wetlands and upland forests contain the greatest diversity of plant and animal species, and therefore are the richest habitat. Other habitats associated with these such as meadows, scrub/shrub areas, regenerating forests, and other open habitats provide key hunting/feeding grounds, staging areas and buffers for forest dwellers. Linkages (or corridors) are linear habitat which connect patches of habitat; these connections are essential to keep habitat patches from becoming isolated and cut off from the local and regional movement of wildlife (especially the important predator species).

While all of the Town can be considered wildlife habitat, this Plan is concerned primarily with locally and regionally-significant wildlife habitat, particularly that which is in short supply, such as wetlands and upland forests. Locally and regionally-significant wildlife habitat in Charlotte includes 18 Vermont Natural Heritage Communities which are also of statewide significance. As part of the 1990, 1995 and 2000 Town Plan, critical wildlife habitat was identified and mapped by individuals in the Town who harvest, study, protect, or just enjoy the natural wild plant and animal life, and by natural science professionals. Each area was inspected and evaluated by knowledgeable individuals.

The areas included on the May 2000 Critical Wildlife Habitat map are considered critical, that is, they together form the minimum network of areas needed to support healthy communities of plants and animals, -- not only communities of game species such as deer and turkey, but also species considered indicators of ecosystem health (such as bobcat, fisher, gray fox, otter, mink, neo-tropical migrant song birds, pileated woodpecker and others).

The May 2000 Critical Wildlife Habitat map categorizes wildlife habitat as follows:

· Forest Habitat (upland forests)

· Wetlands Habitat (all wetlands identified in 1999 through air photo interpretation, as also shown on Wetlands of Charlotte Map)

· Associated Supporting Habitat (such as meadows, scrub/shrub areas, regenerating forests, and other open habitats) specifically identified because of their value for wildlife breeding, feeding or movement

· Major Linkages (linear habitat which connects larger patches of habitat)

In addition, the map documents known road crossings used by wildlife.[19]

During the late 1990s, the Charlotte Conservation Commission carried out a project to map and assess significant wildlife habitat and natural communities in Charlotte, to update the current map and make more detailed information available. Technical assistance was provided by not only local experts but also consulting ecologists, University of Massachusetts air photo interpreters, University of Vermont faculty and graduate students in the School of Natural Resources and the Field Naturalist Program, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Natural Resources Conservation Service, The Nature Conservancy and Chittenden Regional Planning Commission. Computerized databases have been compiled for use with the ArcView software which the Town Office began using in 1999, and wall maps for display purposes printed. Information available includes descriptions of natural plant communities (particularly wetlands and upland forests), probable and documented presence of wildlife species, function and value of habitat within the Town and region, and special features. These databases of information will be regularly updated as more information is compiled by the Conservation Commission and others. Useful maps for planning and evaluation can now be created by combining this information with other layers such as parcel map, land currently in agriculture, conserved public and private land, etc. Critical Wildlife Habitat and associated information files (computer files, photographs, paper documents) are maintained at Town Hall, and available through the Conservation or Planning Commission. The computerized map files are also archived at Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. There are few relatively large and unbroken tracts of wetland or forest left in Town. The connections or linkages between them are also disappearing. These large patches and corridors are particularly important because they provide "reservoirs" for a variety of plant and animal species. If these reservoirs are lost, wildlife populations in small, fragmented areas become unviable and disappear. Many of the smaller wetland and wooded areas in Town retain their wildlife populations only because they are connected to larger, less disturbed areas.

The current zoning and subdivision regulations make some special provisions for the protection of critical wildlife habitat (see sections 4.7 Conservation District, 5.11 Stream bank Setbacks, and 5.12 Wetland Boundaries and Buffer Zones in the Zoning Bylaws; and Chapter VII, Section 1.A. of the Subdivision Bylaws). In addition, the Conservation Commission and Planning Commission will work with landowners to find additional appropriate ways to protect the integrity of critical wildlife habitat and the natural plant communities on which they depend.

Ground Water

Ground water is water found underground in porous rock strata and soils. It is a finite and vulnerable resource and it is the source of most of Charlotte's drinking water. Ground water recharge areas, also called Aquifer Protection Areas (APA's), are land surface areas from which the ground water supply is coming. Through the mapping of these areas potential threats to water supply can be identified, the sources for existing ground water supplies and the limitations of these sources can be better understood, and protection measures can be taken. Lack of information on the location and value of Charlotte’s ground water and recharge areas limits the amount of protection and rational planning the Town can do.

Ground water sources for Charlotte have been identified and mapped by the State of Vermont Ground Water Management Section for the following community water supplies (so-called Class II areas): Pineridge Water System, Lynrick Acres, and Wildwood West. Additional information is needed to identify potential sources of ground water contamination, determine the likely areas of impact of the major potential sources of contamination, provide locations for the construction of wells, and to limit development in areas of shallow depth to bedrock or where existing well water supplies could be adversely impacted.

Major potential sources of contamination exist in Charlotte to all types of aquifers. The Town’s former landfill, abandoned dumps or leaking underground petroleum storage tank may contaminate large areas of groundwater. Other potential sources of ground water contamination include: salt storage piles, treated sand storage piles, and manure storage areas. To a lesser degree, on site sewage disposal systems, parking areas, fertilizer and pesticide applications, and uncontrolled dumping of waste, homeowner products, and petroleum present a threat to at least localized ground water quality. Current Town regulations contain no specific language on the protection of identified aquifer recharge areas.

Ground water supplies in the Town are limited in some areas, such as portions of West Charlotte Village, according to well yield data. The availability of ground water may vary substantially even among contiguous parcels of land. As land is subdivided, there need to be assurances that an adequate supply of potable water will be available for future residents and commercial and industrial users and that existing water supplies will not be adversely affected by new withdrawals.

Surface Waters

The land in Charlotte drains in four directions due to division by one ridge running north-south which includes Pease Mountain, Mutton Hill, and Mt. Philo and another ridge running roughly parallel to F5 and Hinesburg Road. The land in the northwest quadrant formed by these divisions drains north into Lake Champlain; in the southwest quadrant, drainage is south into Town Farm Bay; in the northeast quadrant the land drains northward into the LaPlatte River; and in the southeast it drains south into Lewis Creek.

The following is an inventory of the named streams in the Town:

· LaPlatte River: this river flows generally north through the northeast corner of the Town. It flows through land used primarily for agriculture and has been the subject of an ongoing study by the University and State of Vermont on non-point sources of pollution and stream flow. Portions of the LaPlatte River in Hinesburg and Shelburne contain designated waste management zones. The area along the LaPlatte is of known archeological sensitivity. Throughout its length in the Town the river is suitable for recreational boating.

· Mud Hollow Brook and Bingham Brook: these are two significant tributaries of the LaPlatte. Mud Hollow Brook, a seasonal stream of fairly low volume, flows north from a low-lying, seasonally wet area east of and between Pease Mountain and Mt. Philo. Bingham Brook, also of low volume, flows north from higher land to the east along Guinea Road. Bingham Brook feeds into Mud Hollow Brook north of the Hinesburg Road in a heavily wooded area. The combined volume, significant even in dry weather, flows slowly northeast through a wetland in a deep ravine surrounded by a pine forest west of Spear Street. Both these brooks are of known archeological sensitivity.

· Lewis Creek: Lewis Creek flows generally west through the southeast corner of the Town from Hinesburg to Ferrisburgh. It flows swiftly through relatively rugged terrain that is primarily forested. This creek provides opportunity for sport fishing and boating. Near the midpoint of its course through the Town, it broadens into a body of water known as Scott's Pond, which was once contained by a dam. Two historic covered bridges cross it. It is within an area designated by the Town as both a critical wildlife habitat and a natural area. A portion of this natural area is owned by A. Johnson Company. Delineation of this creek’s watershed and important resources should be more fully developed. Lewis Creek is currently designated as impaired by the State of Vermont. The Lewis Creek Association is working with the State and landowners to reduce erosion, sedimentation and bacterial contamination in Lewis Creek.

· Holmes Creek and Pringle Brook: Holmes Creek flows generally west from the west side of Mutton Hill to a wetland near the Town beach. Near its midpoint, it is joined by Pringle Brook, which drains a perennially wet area north of F5 just west of Route 7. Both Holmes Creek and Pringle Brook are relatively undisturbed streams with important seasonal drainage functions for the flat and slow-draining section of Town. Holmes Creek has been designated by the state of Vermont as a warm water fish habitat.

· Thorpe Brook: this brook originates in a wet area at the foot of Pease Mountain between U.S. 7 and Greenbush Road. It flows generally south to a wetland along the east shore of Town Farm Bay. This area is a significant wildlife habitat and natural area designated by both the Town and the state of Vermont.

· McCabe's Brook: officially unnamed on current Town maps, this stream originates between Old Route 7 and Mt. Philo Road and flows generally north into Shelburne Bay at the mouth of the La Platte River.

· Unnamed Streams: there are numerous small, unnamed streams in Town, mostly of low volume and largely seasonal in nature. They are of extreme importance for seasonal drainage, especially west of Route 7 where the land is seasonally flood-prone and covered with slow-draining soils. Two unnamed streams are especially significant for their association with wetlands:

o a tributary of the LaPlatte which originates near the intersection of Bingham Brook Road and Spear Street Extension and flows generally north through a large, dramatic wetland adjacent to the microwave tower east of Spear Street Extension.

o a stream which originates in a wetland parallel to and west of Bean Road, flows into and out of a wetland near the intersection of Bean Road and Prindle Roads, and then generally south to its confluence with Lewis Creek.

Streams in Charlotte face threats from human activity including:

· Bacterial contamination from improperly functioning septic systems, manure spread too close to streams, and animal grazing too close to streams;

· Chemical contamination from landfills, road salt and sand, herbicides, illegal dumping along stream banks, parking lot runoff, and agricultural chemicals;

· Erosion and siltation from improper controls at construction sites, improper forestry practices, loss of vegetation on stream banks, improper use of culverts and diversions at road crossings of streams; and

· Increases in biological oxygen demand from leaking septic systems, runoff containing fertilizers and manure.

Presently all lands within 100 feet of named streams are in a Conservation District under the Town zoning regulations. This land may not be developed but may be counted for density purposes [Zoning Bylaws Section 4.7 E-4]. In addition, the zoning bylaws require setbacks of 100 feet from the Lake Champlain shoreline, 150' from edge of named streams and 75 from the edge of unnamed streams. Some lands along Lewis Creek and at the mouth of Thorp Brook are classified as flood hazard areas and are also regulated under the zoning bylaws. All surface waters within the Town have a state water quality classification "B". Class B waters are to be managed to achieve water of a quality which consistently exhibits good aesthetic value and provides high quality habitat for aquatic biota, fish, and wildlife. Class B waters may be used for public water supply with filtration and disinfection; irrigation and other agricultural uses; swimming and recreation.

Special Natural Areas

Natural areas are areas of land or water that retain their natural character and contain unusual or significant flora, fauna, geological, or similar features of scientific or educational interest. Information on special natural areas in Charlotte has been obtained by the Conservation Commission from the Vermont Natural Areas Inventory, the Vermont Natural Areas Map, the Nature Conservancy, the Vermont Non-Game and Natural Heritage Program, and citizens of the community.

Only some of these areas have been mapped because of the fragile character and their susceptibility to damage. Of the sites that have been mapped, some are not precisely located in order to protect them. The following is a list of mapped natural areas: (Map key indicated in parentheses)

· Charlotte Road Cut (N1): unique geological feature;

· Pease Mountain (N2): geological feature (Champlain Overthrust), aquifer recharge area, location of rare plants and natural communities;

· Barber Hill (N3, R1): geological feature, aquifer recharge area, rare plant community;

· Mount Philo (N4): geological feature (Champlain Overthrust), exceptional views, aquifer recharge area, location of rare plants and natural communities, deer wintering area;

· Town Farm Bay and Thorp Brook (N5): unusual fossil evidence, wetland, rare animal and natural community; waterfowl area;

· Lewis Creek (N6): whitewater rapids, historic bridges; sport fishing, scenic stretches;

· Landfill (N7): geologic features (fossils, Champlain Sea Beach);

· Railway site (N8): fossils;

· McNeil Cove (N9): fossils;

· Monkton Cave (N10): unique geological feature;

· Scenic overlook (N11): panoramic view of Adirondack High Peaks and Champlain Valley;

· Garden Island (R4): rare plant community;

· Cedar Island (R3): rare plant community;

· Thompson's Point site (R5): rare plant community;

· Vermont Wildflower Farm (R2): rare plant community,

· Williams Woods (R6): rare plants and significant natural community.

There are several parcels of land in the Town which are under public or private non-profit ownership for use as conservation reserves, or in private ownership with conservation easements. A map of some of these properties is available in the Planning Office.

Conservation District

The purpose of the Conservation District is to protect conservation and recreation land that is in public ownership, under permanent conservation restriction, owned by not-for-profit conservation organizations, or privately owned land with high need for protection (for example significant wetlands), or with potential hazards to the public. The extent and location of Conservation Districts should be reviewed within the next five years, in light of updated information on wetlands. Conservation Districts now include the following areas:

1. Mt. Philo State Park

2. Pease Mountain

3. State Fishing Access on Converse Bay

4. Williams Woods

5. Whalley's Woods

6. Charlotte Park and Wildlife Refuge, and Scenic Overlook

7. Town Forest on Old Route 7

8. Thompson's Point outside the Shoreland District

9. Town Beach and Recreation Area

10. Town Canoe Launch

11. Mutton Hill Town Pound 12. Lawrence Conservation Easement

13. Sloop Island (owned by State), Pickett Island (private), and the Dean Islands (private)

14. Williams Point (private)

15. Significant wetlands (some on private land)

16. 100 feet on both sides of the high-water mark of named streams (some on private land)

17. Flood Hazard Areas as shown on the Federal Emergency Management Agency maps of the Federal Insurance Administration adopted in the Zoning Regulations (some on private land).

Biological Diversity

Biological diversity (or biodiversity) can be broadly defined as the variety of living material at all levels, from the genetic diversity within individuals, to species, populations, communities, ecosystems, and landscapes. One hundred and seventy-four nations have signed and ratified an international Convention on Biological Diversity. In so doing they have affirmed their stewardship responsibility to conserve the rich heritage of plant and animal life with which this planet is endowed.

The town of Charlotte is richly endowed with biodiversity, in part deriving from our geography which includes the lake, the Champlain lowlands, some remnants of the Taconic Mountains and the foothills of the Green Mountains. It includes significant wetland and stream species and communities, upland forests, meadows and cultivated lands, some rare native plant communities and rare species, identified in the Vermont Natural Heritage Survey. We in Charlotte have economic, ecological and ethical reasons for conserving this biological wealth.

Our current strategy for conserving Charlotte's biological diversity is the following:

1. Protected Areas.

To maintain and expand a system of public and private protected areas where natural processes are given reign, free from most human interference, yet commensurate with educational, recreational, and scientific use. This includes now such areas as Mount Philo State Park, Williams Woods (The Nature Conservancy), Pease Mountain (University of Vermont), and under Charlotte's jurisdiction: Whalley Woods, Mutton Hill (Town Pound), Charlotte Park and Wildlife Refuge, the Town Landfill and part of Thompson’s Point.

2. Agriculture.

Charlotte’s policy of encouraging the maintenance of agricultural land use is set forth previously in this Plan (see Section 4.4.4). Charlotte is and should continue to be “farm friendly”. While some farm consolidation seems inevitable, family farms are likely to be more nature-friendly. Large industrial type “factory farms” with no farmed land base and most inputs imported, are not a desirable direction for agriculture in Charlotte. Rather, Charlotte desires to continue its tradition of family farms and encourages biodiversity through the use of agro-biodiversity, crop diversification, “heritage” strains, and beekeeping and similar means.

3. Forestry.

All forests are "working" forests, providing services such as erosion control, water quality improvement, carbon storage, air purification, etc. In forests being harvested, we encourage maintenance of productivity to meet reasonable human needs, while not impairing forests' role as wildlife habitat and providers of other ecosystem services. To this end the Town urges good silvicultural practice when harvests or stand improvement occurs, and discourages large clear cuts. Silvicultural guidelines are available from the U.S. Forest Service. The Vermont Family Forests Program is highly recommended for the woodlots of Charlotte. The Town encourages forest landowners to cooperatively band together their small holdings into units of larger size that could support professional forestry services and more rewarding marketing (e.g., Roscoe Road Neighborhood Pilot Project). Encourages maple syrup and sugar production as a benign "industry" in Charlotte. Encourages use of wood as fuel instead of depending on fossil fuel based energy, since it is a renewable resource. Encourages any log production to go to the support of small, local wood industry. Any new forest plantations should be established with species native to the Northeast only.

4. Hunting and Gathering.

Encourages hunting that harvests excessive wildlife populations, within the legal strictures of the State of Vermont. This needs to be balanced with the safety of local residents and the enjoyment of their property. Encourages sportsmen and landowners to collaborate in working out policies and practices for safe hunting and maintenance of healthy wildlife populations. Gathering of non-wood forest products should be carried out so as to avoid over harvesting and to promote their sustained production.

5. Alien Species.

In the wild lands and waters, the introduction of invasive alien species can adversely impact native biodiversity. Landowners are urged to use native Northeastern species in any roadside planting or reforestation. Anglers are urged not to introduce invasive alien species into our waterways. Where alien invasives have taken strong hold (e.g. purple loosestrife or buckthorn) landowners are encouraged to control or eradicate them since they are displacing our native species.

Maintaining our wild and agricultural biodiversity helps keep our terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems healthy and resilient. These ecosystems provide an impressive array of tangible and intangible benefits. Biological diversity is not only useful in terms of economic benefit, but there are strong aesthetic and ethical imperatives for its conservation.

4.4.6 SPECIAL FEATURES

Special features of the Town of Charlotte include its significant open spaces, scenic views, vistas, and roads, archeological sites, historic features and areas, and the naturally dark night-sky. The 1990 Town Plan Town Environment Committee, and other committees since then, listed the types of special features that contribute to the character of the Town and developed criteria for identifying and ranking these features. The committee used the following criteria:

· The visual aesthetics;

· Accessibility, both "passive" (driving) and "active" (skiing, hiking, etc.);

· Uniqueness of the site or resource;

· Usefulness to the Town:

· Representativeness of the Town; and

· Patterns of use, both past and present.

The significant environments were documented through ranked lists by type and through photographic and map exhibits. The inventory is not complete; by using the above criteria new sites can be added to it. The 2000 Town Plan has augmented the inventory. Many of the items on the lists are mentioned in other sections in the plan; these areas are given added value to the Town by their placement on these lists as well.

Views and Vistas [20]:

· Northwest to southwest from Mt. Philo State Park (V1);

· West off Mt. Philo Road, south of the base of Mt. Philo State Park (V2);

· West off Route 7, vicinity of the north end of Old Route 7 (V3)(Town scenic overlook);

· East and north off Route 7, north of Nordic Farm (V4);

· West off Lake Road at the Town beach (V5);

· Southeast off Mt. Philo Road, north of Spear Street (V6);

· Southeast off lower Spear Street, north of the covered bridge (V7);

· Southeast at the intersection of Greenbush Rd. and Thompson's Pt. Rd. (V8);

· Guinea Road near the intersection with Bingham Brook Road (360 degrees) (V9);

· East and north on Spear Street, west of the covered bridge (V10);

· South off of Spear Street on the south side of Mt. Philo (V11);

· East on Hinesburg Road, near Dorset Street and Bean Road (V12);

· East off Mt. Philo Road, just north of One Mile Road (V13);

· West on Lake Road, descending towards Orchard Road (V14);

· East on Prindle Road between Spear Street and Bean Road(V15);

· North on Roscoe Road, vicinity of Lewis Creek Road (V16);

· Both sides of Spear Street, between Hinesburg Road and Prindle Road (V17);

· East on Ferry Road, near Lake Road (V18); and

· West on Garen Road at top of the hill (V19).

This information has been updated and shown on the map of Public Roads with High Scenic or Conservation Values.

Ubiquitous overhead utility lines for power, telephone and cable television have the impact of diminishing the Town’s scenic vistas, views and general landscape quality. These are important services, but the vision for an aesthetically beautiful Charlotte includes the replacement of overhead lines with underground lines and requires the installation of new lines underground. It is the objective of the Town that all utilities will be underground.

Night Sky

One of Charlotte’s most undervalued special features is its dark, rural night-sky. While still relatively undisturbed, Charlotte’s natural darkness at night, augmented by a brilliant array of stars, is beginning to be threatened by light pollution and glare. Light pollution is the upward and outward distribution of light projected directly from fixtures or reflected off the ground or other surfaces. Glare is direct light shining from a fixture that makes it difficult to see or causes discomfort. Light pollution, in particular, comes from the cumulative affect of individual exterior lights within the Town, as well as from development and associated night-lighting outside of Town.

Scenic Roads [21]

· Lewis Creek Road

· Roscoe Road

The 1995 Town Plan called for a survey to identify Charlotte’s scenic roads. In 1998-99 an assessment of the Town’s public roads was carried out by thirteen teams of trained volunteers under the guidance of the Tree Warden and Conservation Commission. Based on a check list of features for scenic and wildlife conservation value, each one-half mile segment was rated, and from these data a digitized map of the most scenic public roads in Charlotte, the most scenic viewpoints or vistas from the road, and areas of significant wildlife value along the roads was prepared. (See “Public Roads With High Scenic or Conservation Values” map). These may warrant town designation as Charlotte Scenic Roads, nomination as State Scenic Roads, or special care by some other means.

Covered Bridges

· Quinlan Bridge, on Monkton Road

· Holmes Creek Bridge on Lake Road

· Rule Bridge, on Roscoe Road

Forestlands

· Williams Woods (The Nature Conservancy)

· A. Johnson forest along Lewis Creek (A. Johnson Co. and Town of Charlotte )

· Pease Mountain (University of Vermont)

· Mount Philo (State of Vermont)

· Whalley's Woods (Town of Charlotte)

· Old Dog Pound on Mutton Hill (Town of Charlotte)

· Forested areas at Thompson's Point (Town of Charlotte)

Marshes/Wetlands

· South of Hinesburg Road, east of Baptists Corners (East Charlotte)

· Former cranberry bog, west of Bean Road and north of Prindle Road

Working Farmlands [22]

· Titus Farm, Guinea Road

· Nordic Farm, Route 7

· Varney Farm, Route 7

· Charlotte Berry Farm, Route 7

· Foote Farm, Mt. Philo Road

· Marble's land, "Garrow" farm

· Mack Farm, Greenbush Road

· LaBerge Farm, Greenbush Road and Thompson's Point Road

· Hinsdale Farm, Spear Street Extension

· Stearns Farm, Spear Street Extension

· Bean Farm, Hinesburg Road

· Bean Farm, Bean Road

· Watson Farm, Dorset Street

· Horsford's Nursery, Greenbush Road and Route 7

· Windever Farm, State Park Road

· Gecewicz Farm, Spear Street Extension

· LaBerge Farm, Lime Kiln Road

· Vermont Land Trust property, Greenbush Road

· Burleigh Farm, Spear Street Extension

· Robert Titus Farm, Spear Street Extension

· Knowles Farm, Ferry Road

· Whalley Farm, Lake Road

· Golden Apple Orchard, Whalley Road

· Hall Farm, Hinesburg Road

· Miskell Farm, Greenbush Road

· Vogler Farm, Hinesburg Road

· Nichols Farm, Spear Street

· Garvey Farm, Baldwin Road

· Goss Farm, Prindle Road

· M. Hinsdale Farm, Hinesburg Road

· Sheldon Farm, Lake Road

· Kaplan Farm, Spear Street

Meadows and Pastures [23]

· Former Dike Farm

· Sheehan Farm, Spear Street and Hinesburg Road

· Plouffe Farm, Carpenter Road

· Larson Farm, Lake Road

· Marshall Farm, Prindle Road

· Hutchins Farm, Carpenter Road

· Broadreach Farm, Lake Road

· Roland Aube Farm, Dorset Street

· Rose Aube Farm, Dorset Street

· Schofield Farm, Roscoe Road

· Former Town Poor Farm, Thompson's Point

· Graham property, Lake Road

· Claflin Farm, Route 7 and Greenbush Road

· Former Hanlon Farm, One Mile Road

· Deeds Farm, Lake Road

· Former Black Willow Farm, Lake Road and Thompson's Pt. Road

· Naud Farm, Lake Road

· Lavalette Farm, Greenbush Road

Villages

· West Charlotte (Charlotte Four Corners)

· Old Charlotte Center (Hinesburg Road at Church Hill Road)

· East Charlotte (Baptists Corners)

· Old settlement at Prindle Corners

Geological Sites [24]

· The cliffs east of Monkton Road on Morse's land

· Lewis Creek Falls near Roscoe-Quinlan Bridge

· Old gravel pit east of Dorset Street

Archaeological Sites

The following areas are of known archaeological sensitivity, according to the State Archaeologist:

The lands on either side of the following water bodies:

· Mud Hollow Brook

· Bingham Brook

· LaPlatte River

· Lewis Creek east of Scott Pond

· the Tavern at Wings Point

The following areas are of expected archaeological sensitivity, according to the State Archeologist:

The lands on either side of the following water bodies:

· Thorp Brook

· Kimball Brook

· Holmes Creek

· Pringle Brook

· McCabes Brook

· Lewis Creek, Scotts Pond and to the west

Historic Resources

Charlotte has significant historic resources, including the villages, the summer camp communities, unique structures such as the covered bridges, sites such as the ferry landing, buildings which currently or formerly served for public uses, and homes, barns, and farmsteads. These resources represent the Town's heritage and contribute to the character and culture of the community.

An inventory of the Town's historic resources has been conducted by the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation. As a result of this inventory, sixty-four sites and/or districts have been placed on the State Historic Register. These sites have been mapped on the Cultural and Recreational Features Map. With the exception of the Thompson’s Point Historic District, the historic districts identified on the Cultural and Recreational Features Map do not have any local regulatory purpose, but are identified as “districts” because the buildings are usually found in clusters. The Thompson’s Point Historic District has a design review process which is implemented through the Charlotte Zoning Regulations.

The Town's historic districts include: (Map key indicated in parentheses)

· Baptist's Corners (H1): a historic business and social center of the Town around the intersection of Hinesburg Road and Spear Street which contains a unique concentration of Greek Revival style residences and public buildings, including two churches (one now a residence) and the Grange Hall.

· Old Route 7 Historic District (H2): former transportation center on the main stage road between Burlington and Vergennes providing services to travelers and now a residential district with two key buildings providing fine examples of Federal style architecture-the Rayta House and the Swenor House.

· Charlotte Center Historic District (H3): the geographic center of the Town and a focal point for early settlement where public buildings, such as the Congregational Church and the Meeting House, and businesses were established for the convenience of residents. The district contains buildings of distinctive architecture, dating from the 1780s to the 1900s, including examples of Federal, Greek Revival, and Queen Anne styles. This district is on the National Register of Historic Places.

· Four Corners Historic District (H4): the largest of the Town centers, its position between the ferry landing and the main stage road and its physical setting on a ridge with magnificent views of the lake and the Adirondack Mountains contributed to its settlement and early growth. Development was further stimulated by a railroad station half a mile west. By the 1880s the district contained a church, school, two stores, a shoe shop, blacksmith shop, and about 20 dwellings. The architecture consists of buildings constructed between 1811 and 1900 in Federal, Greek Revival, and Queen Anne styles.

· Cedar Beach Historic District (H5): the earliest resort area in Charlotte, started in the 1870s and 1880s and containing numerous examples of resort architecture of the period.

· Thompson's Point Historic District (H6): a significant concentration of 1880s and 1890s resort architecture located on the old Town poor farm. The architecture harmonizes with the setting, incorporating irregular plans and projecting gables or turrets. The district includes 33 cottages and their related outbuildings, garages, ice houses, boat houses and club house. Until 1924 the side wheel steamships, the Chateaugay and the Ticonderoga made scheduled stops at Thompson's Point and Cedar Beach.

Other significant historic resources in the Town include the residential properties listed on the State Historic Register; the public buildings, some of which today are used for private purposes; the covered bridges; and the farmhouses, barns and farm buildings that dot the landscape and contribute to the agricultural character of the Town. As part of the Town's heritage, it is important that these resources be protected and retained in their current locations.

There are several strategies for protecting these historic resources. The Town has specific provisions for the re-use of historic structures in the Zoning Bylaws. Local historic districts and landmarks may also be designated under the Vermont Townscape Preservation Act [24 V.S.A. §4407(15)]. Through this designation, the Planning Commission can adopt either mandatory or voluntary criteria for reviewing projects involving historic structures or landscapes. Act 250 contains criteria for the protection of historic resources should a major development or subdivision be proposed which affects them.

The placement of sites and districts on the Vermont or National Historic Register may assist in protecting the sites if state or federal funding is involved in a development project, but otherwise the placement has no regulatory impact on the protection of the structures. However, the registers do contain valuable information on the sites and can be very helpful for educational purposes. Public understanding and appreciation of the significance of these resources can help in their protection.

The use of investment tax credits for income-producing historic properties that are on the National Register provide an incentive for protecting and using historic properties. The Vermont Division for Historic Preservation has information on this program.

The Charlotte Historical Society is partnering with Charlotte Community School during 1999-2000 to conduct an inventory of homes in Town; this may be able to be expanded to include historic barns and farm outbuildings. The Historical Society has brought Town attention to the importance of Charlotte's historic resources. It maintains a museum at the former Town Meeting House and sponsors townwide events at the museum. It has also helped to relocate and restore the old Quinlan School to the Town Green, and has published a report on the history of the Town's roads. It also assisted with the nomination of the Charlotte Center Historic District to the National Register. Some significant individual historic sites and the remaining historic districts have yet to be nominated to the National Register.

4.5 THE LAKE AND ITS SHORELINE

The Town of Charlotte has approximately fourteen miles of shoreline and seven islands in Lake Champlain. The shoreline varies from marshy wildlife areas to rocky cliffs and promontories, to stony and, more rarely, sandy beaches. It is cut by three drainage systems comprised of numerous brooks which drain the interior lands. Charlotte's shoreline on Lake Champlain is very beautiful, a source of pleasure to its residents, seasonal homeowners, and visitors and a priceless asset to the Town.

4.5.1 SCENIC BEAUTY AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

The scenic beauty of the shoreline area is enhanced by the undisturbed natural shoreline and evolving pattern of working farm lands and shoreline communities. Changes in this landscape and ecology are occurring every year. This section will briefly discuss how the shore lands have evolved, describe some of the changes, and highlight some of the values Charlotte is working to preserve.

The present shape of the shoreline reflects the local geologic setting. Beginning with the deepest part of Lake Champlain, about 400 feet off McNeil Cove, the lake bottom quickly rises in the near shore areas along the points of and at the mouth of the many bays. These bays have continued to erode into the shorelines, as they have over the last ten thousand years, at varying rates depending on the resistance of the shoreline materials. The most resistant points of land are made of bedrock and typically rise 10 to 30 feet above the lake. Lesser resistant glacial tills support banks up to 15 feet and where in their natural state are mapped as eroding at moderate rates. Least resistant clays, silts and sands are found in the ends of many of the deeper bays and may have the highest erosion rates. These shorelines, where unprotected, continue to have significant losses of shore banks and their vegetation. The many streams which reach the lake have developed deltas with well vegetated wetland areas and may have more stable shorelines.

Historically the lake line area is thought to have been completely forested until the late 1700s. Subsequent agricultural practices led to the development of fields and orchards on the more tillable shore lands. Around the turn of the 20^th century, summer homes became fashionable and many can still be seen along with at least two historic steamship docks at Cedar Beach and Thompson's Point. Today, continued development of the shoreline areas for year-round homes is occurring.

The environmental quality of the shoreline and lake are often adversely impacted by activities on the land, in streams and from other parts of the lake. A recent State report lists exotic species and nutrients as major problems facing Lake Champlain's waters.

Exotic species in Charlotte include zebra mussels, water chestnuts, Eurasian milfoil and purple loosestrife. While little can be done to control the spread of the non-native zebra mussels, actions can be taken to lessen the effects of the nuisance aquatic plants. Water chestnuts represent the greatest threat to the lakeshore environment and were mapped in McNeil Cove and Northern Converse Bay in the summer of 1998 as the northern most extent in Lake Champlain. Bays to the south of Charlotte are currently harvested mechanically in attempts to control the weeds which carpet the bays and reduce almost all uses of the lake. State contractors will likely be available to continue hand pulling water chestnut plants in Charlotte, either on annual visits to our shore line or as requested by individuals who have reported new areas of infestation. Eurasian milfoil and purple loosestrife can be hand pulled without a permit. Purple loosestrife should not be planted as an ornamental flower as it spreads and replaces valuable wetland species. Those interested in learning more about identification and removal of these species can contact the Charlotte Conservation Commission.

Nutrients can accelerate the growth of aquatic weeds and in some cases carry pathogens to the lake. Nutrients may reach the lake from use of fertilizers at home and farms, and from animal wastes and poorly operating household septic systems. Continued work is likely to be needed to control excessive use of fertilizers both for home-lawn care and for agricultural activities. Steps taken to control erosion also help in reducing nutrient loading as many nutrients are bound to topsoil particles.

The significant named tributaries that discharge to the lake along the shoreline are Pringle Brook, which combines with Holmes Creek and discharges south of the Town beach, and Thorp Brook in Town Farm Bay. Other brooks, the LaPlatte River, and Lewis Creek discharge directly or indirectly into the lake but in adjacent Towns. Due to water current systems in the lake, these discharges could still impact water quality on the shoreline in Charlotte. Therefore, nutrients and waste products that discharge to water bodies anywhere in the Town have the potential for impacting the lake water quality.

In 1989, a complete inventory of shoreline conditions was mapped from a visual inspection. An updated inventory of shoreline conditions should be conducted in the next three years to help identify problem areas and prioritize areas in need of further protection measures. The fourteen miles of shoreline vary from steep cliffs, rock ledges, natural stone, slope, artificially filled stone, some sand, man made walls, wetland strips, and emergent vegetation. This inventory identified several areas as wetland management zones, including the mouth of Holmes Creek, McNeil Cove, Converse Bay by the fishing access, Converse Bay along its southeast shoreline, and Town Farm Bay west of Point Bay Marina to the southern edge of the Thorp Brook wetland area. Along most of the shoreline the nuisance aquatic plant, Eurasian milfoil, was observed.

The following is a summary of the 1989 inventory by region.

Hill's Point Region: Much of the natural scenic beauty of Hill's Point has been altered. There is still an undisturbed region at the extreme northern section where cliffs and natural stone landscapes still exist.

Town Recreational Area to Wings Point: South of the Town recreational area to Wings Point the landscape and shoreland have retained much of their scenic beauty. This is due in part to many steep cliffs that extend directly into the water or end with narrow natural stone and small sections of filled stone. The area also contains some large tracts of land in single ownership, one of which is protected by a 1,683 foot shoreline conservation easement held by the Lake Champlain Land Trust.

Wings Point: The west shore of Wings Point has segments of rock interfaces, small bays with natural stone, and cliffs. Subdivision and residential development has resulted in the cutting of trees in the Shoreline District to increase views for the new landowners.

McNeil Cove: This cove, from the jetty at the northwest entrance to the south cove, has many areas of emergent vegetation and valuable wetland. The wetland provides habitat for waterfowl and other birds, as well as wildlife and fish, and also affects water quality, shoreline stabilization, and recreational opportunity. These wetlands are presently impacted by the Lake Champlain Ferry dock and Fishers Landing. In the southern section recent development has resulted in clear cutting of trees to the edge of the water.

Cedar Beach: The numerous trees surrounding and in front of the camps at Cedar Beach greatly reduces the adverse visual impact of development, and Cedar Beach retains much of its scenic beauty. Cedar Beach north cove areas has evidence of man-made modifications: cuts in natural stone cliffs, a small concrete pier, a concrete ramp, and stairways.

Converse Bay, North Cove: The northern portion of Converse Bay west of the fishing access to the rock ledge to the south forms a significant shallow cover wetland habitat with much emergent vegetation. Alterations along this shoreline and use of the fishing access has dramatically changed the appearance of this area.

Converse Bay, South Cove: This area has a significant shallow cove wetland habitat. The shoreline has been adversely altered in several locations by a concrete retaining wall and the destruction of cattails and bulrushes for boat docking facilities.

Thompson's Point: Although Thompson's Point is heavily developed, it has retained much of its scenic beauty. Camps for the most part are hidden by trees. The north-facing region and the point itself have very steep rock banks; access to the water is generally by stairways, some with high visual impact. On the south-facing side the banks are gradual.

Town Farm Bay: From the west emergent vegetation appears in Town Farm Bay, indicative of a wetland. This wetland has been altered and degraded by several clear cuts through the bulrush stands for individual docks. The south side of Williams Point forms a significant wetland habitat that extends to Thorp Brook.

The following values should be preserved through volunteer efforts, incentives and, where needed, regulatory actions to restore, maintain and enhance the scenic beauty and environmental quality of the shore lands.

1. Restore, maintain and enhance vegetated areas along the lake. It is noted that some limited development will continue to occur along the shore lands and continued efforts will be needed near existing homes and new development to minimize future impacts. In several areas of cleared shorelines, new plantings could add greatly to preserving the vegetated cover along the shore.

2. Encourage man-made structures to blend into the natural landscape. This applies to shoreline docks, stairs, and buildings in the shoreline area as well as new facilities beyond the 1000 foot zoning boundary placed on exposed ridgelines closest to the lake.

3. Maintain reasonable control of lakeshore wetlands. Current zoning bylaws prohibit any docks within wetlands, and about 75 percent of the shoreline is mapped as wetlands. The Town should study the existing bylaws and consider making them more consistent with existing state wetland rules which contain appropriate restrictions in wetland.( See below)

4. Continue existing controls on commercial development relating to near-shore facilities such as boat yards, boat maintenance and ferry service. Controls are needed to maintain environmental quality and scenic beauty.

5. Encourage shoreline stabilization methods which can be vegetated and/or blend in with the natural surroundings in areas of highly erodent soils.

There are existing water-related environmental and zoning statutes designed to protect the scenic beauty and environmental quality of the lake and its shoreline. The Charlotte Shoreline Committee reviewed these statutes and made the following assessment of their adequacy.

State Water Quality Standards: These standards regulate point discharges to the lake. Application of individual home septic tank effluent to farm fields is also regulated.

Agriculture Nonpoint Source Pollution Reduction Program: These standards apply to agricultural nonpoint sources of contamination.

State Environmental Protection Rules: Designed to protect public health from sewage disposal; direct and indirect sewage disposal systems may need permits; limited to lots less than 10 acres. Note that the Charlotte Sewage Ordinance, effective August 8, 1997, includes standards equal to the State's and applies to all sizes of building lots. This ordinance, intended to protect public health from sewage disposal, also closed the “10 acre loophole” in Town. It removed the incentive to subdivide large parcels of land into lots larger than 10 acres to avoid state sewage rules.

State Management of Lakes and Ponds: regulates land below 95.5 feet mean sea level (MSL) only.

State Wetlands Rules: regulates activities in wetlands.

Corps of Engineers: regulates activities in or affecting navigable waters and associated wetlands below 98 feet MSL.

Charlotte Zoning: Shoreland district covers 1000 feet inland from low water mark. It offers a good opportunity to protect scenic beauty, recreational opportunities and environment. Zoning Bylaw amendments to improve shoreline protection were added in the 1995 bylaw revisions and are adequate. The amendments removed deficiencies from the standards. Conditional uses were more clearly identified, setbacks from the shoreline for septic systems were established, height restrictions were added, special requirements for shoreline districts were added to protect shoreline vegetation, enhance erosion control and add more restrictions to shoreline wetlands. In addition, the bylaws improved language to preserve existing public access. In the past the Charlotte shoreline bylaws have not always been enforced, especially regarding cutting of vegetation, but resident awareness of the bylaws and enforcement is improving.

The State uses a special wetlands definition for lake settings. Charlotte bylaws uses a definition based on State Wetland Rules that the state does not apply to a lake setting. Under Charlotte's current definition, over 75% of the shoreline is wetland and Section 4.5, E, 5. of the bylaws prohibits docks, stairways, boat launches and other traditional shoreline uses in wetlands. It is probable that there are many non-conforming structures along the shoreline based on the existing wetland definition and bylaws. The Town should amend the wetlands definition in the zoning bylaws for wetlands along the shoreline to match the definition in the State Wetland Rules for Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs (Section 3.2, b, (1)).

“b. Wetlands/Deepwater Habitat Boundary Criteria....Wetlands shall be distinguished from deepwater habitat by the following criteria: (1) Lakes, Ponds and Reservoirs: When adjacent to any lake, pond or reservoir that is a public water, a wetland's boundary shall extend to the maximum extent of a prevalence of surface, emergent, or woody wetland vegetation at any time during the growing season. For all other lakes, ponds, or reservoirs, a wetland boundary shall extend to a depth of two meters.”

The Town should also amend the bylaws to allow for removal of purple loosestrife, water chestnuts and Eurasian Watermilfoil which are considered non-native nuisance plants along the shoreline and in shoreline wetland areas.

4.5.2 PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE LAKE

There are eleven existing points of public access to the lake on the shoreline in Charlotte. These points of access vary in their accessibility and use potential due to roads, parking, fees, and owner preferences. The following is an inventory of these areas:

· Town Beach: Available for swimming, picnicking, and sail boarding. Adjacent ball field and tennis court. Parking available. Open to public. Fee charged.

· McNeil Cove Marina: Boat launch and mooring facilities available for a fee. Also boat storage and parking.

· McNeil Cove-Town: Use is limited by parking and available mooring space. The Town should explore means to find parking and make the launch useable on a limited basis for Charlotte residents.

· Cedar Beach: Townspeople's suggested right to use private pier at Cedar Beach requires clarification. A legal opinion sought by Cedar Beach Association determined that Cedar Beach Dock is not required to be open to the public.

· State Fishing Access on Converse Bay: State-owned boat launching site limited by statute to use for fishing purposes, but the launching of pleasure boats is generally permitted. Parking is limited. Used in winter for ice fishing and skating.

· Converse Bay South (Deer Point): Town access point; no parking available. Lack of clarification of adjacent leaseholders lot lines. Appropriate for mooring access and canoe launching. A bicycle path point of interest.

· Whiskey Bay-Thompson's Point: Town access point; no parking available but could be developed on adjacent Town land. Used extensively for ice fishing. Appropriate for controlled, pocket-sized park for swimming, picnicking, and ice fishing access. Will require stabilization of bank and walkway leading to the beach, provision of picnic tables and trash receptacles as well as monitoring and servicing by Town employees.

· Old Dock-Thompson's Point: Town access point; no parking immediately available but within short walking distance from proposed Whiskey Bay parking area. Rock foundations of the Old Dock should be stabilized and the larger concrete surface blocks leveled to save the dock from further deterioration within the next year of two. Such improvements will benefit Thompson Point lease holders as well as other townspeople seeking to visit the area.

· Gibb's Lot-Thompson's Point: Town access point; no parking available. Expansion of use would have adverse impact on adjacent leaseholders.

· Caretaker's Lot-Thompson's Point: Town access point, no parking immediately available but could be developed nearby at Whiskey Bay site. Potential use as limited boat launch facility.

· Lane's Lane-Thompson's Point: Town access point; no parking available but could be easily developed on adjacent Town land. Potential use for small boat launch facility and/or picnic area.

· Point Bay Marina (private): Individuals are permitted use of the ramps to launch or retrieve boats wherever they are not in use by Marina staff.

The current access to Lake Champlain for townspeople needs improvement in the future to meet the needs of the Town's growing population.

4.5.3 MOORING MANAGEMENT

Parts of the shoreline have experienced explosive growth in moorings for boats owned by both townspeople and the public at large. This situation has created the following problems:

· Location of moorings in unsuitable areas because of navigational concerns, extreme exposure, protection of wildlife, maintenance of natural areas, and protection of public swimming areas.

· Lack of a procedure to deal with the demand for mooring to assure good and reasonable access to boating on the lake for residents and the public.

· Parking problems to serve the users of the boat moorings

· Lack of designated anchorage areas for overnight use

· Concern for unreasonable use of the lakeshore by transient boaters

The Shoreline Committee has identified five areas where moorings may be designated and managed by the Town should the situation warrant:

· McNeil Cove

· Converse Bay, North

· Converse Bay, South

· Caretaker Access, Thompson's Point

· Lane's Lane, Point Bay Marina area on Thompson's Point

4.5.4 THOMPSON'S POINT

Since 1839 the Town of Charlotte has owned 230 acres of lakeshore, woods and meadowland on Thompson's Point. In 1874 the Town began leasing camp lots to individuals and, as a result, 120 camps were built on lakeshore lots averaging a half acre. The camps occupy 50 acres; the remaining 180 acres has been maintained for farming and woodland. A Poor Farm was operated on the point until the 1930s.

The soils are heavy clay and poorly drained. The interior land is rolling to gently sloping in all directions. The woods are a mixture of hardwoods and conifers. The lakeshore varies from steep rock cliffs with limited water access to gently sloping ledges and shale beaches and marshy land in Town Farm Bay.

Even though the camps are relatively close together, one has the feeling of privacy and open space at Thompson's Point, due to the large amount of undeveloped land in the center of the Point, dense woods, and the lake.

The camps themselves vary in size and value. Their style is representative of 1880s and 1890s resort architecture. The camps are well-placed within this landscape. Their design harmonizes with the setting, incorporating irregular plans and projecting gables or turrets. The camps located in an area from the tennis courts west and south back to the western part of Town Farm Bay are within the Thompson's Point Historic District, which is on the State Register of Historic Places.

Originally most of the camp owners were local residents. As of March 1999, 14% of leaseholders were residents; 36% reside in other Vermont towns; and 50% live out-of-state. Further, 22% of the leaseholders reside in Chittenden County. Although most camp owners are from out-of-state, many of them can trace ownership of their camps back through several generations of family to the original owners.

The Town receives rent from leaseholders as well as property taxes on the property improvements. In fiscal year 1993-94 rental income was $239,913. Interestingly, in fiscal year 1997-1998, rental income was $213,036; however in 1999 it is budgeted at $280,000. With the scarcity of and high demand for lakefront property, the values will likely continue to grow. The meadowland is also rented for agricultural purposes. The lease requires adequate maintenance of the land resource.

Expanded use of Thompson's Point for residential purposes, whether seasonal or year-round, is severely limited. Roads in the area have charm and character. However, their narrow and tree-lined condition pose problems for motorists and emergency vehicles. Improvements to them would diminish the quality of the environment. The soils have severe limitations for on-site sewage disposal. A community wastewater treatment system was permitted and constructed in 1994 as a seasonal abatement system to serve only the existing camps on Thompson's Point. Water supply comes from the lake for most camps. Many of the pipes run overland and are not suitable for winter use. The terms of the leases permit only seasonal use of the camps. Given the limitations to expanded use due to the roads, soils, wastewater system permit conditions, and water supply, these terms are appropriate.

In 1984 a committee appointed by the Board of Selectmen to study the relationship between the Town and the camp owners issued the following findings and recommendations:

· There is no need in the foreseeable future for increased public access to Thompson's Point

· The open space should be maintained in perpetuity.

· No additional lots should be leased.

· The seasonal-use-only rule should be strictly enforced.

· In 1983 the Town derived an income of $111,184 from Thompson's Point.

· The Town should retain ownership of Thompson's Point in its entirety.

· The Town should continue leasing lots to the camp owners.

The 1999 Lake and Shoreline Committee reviewed the report and updated Thompson's Point information. It found that seasonal use only with no further camp development continues to be appropriate. However, the Committee found that there is a need for increased and enhanced public access for townspeople, as detailed in Section 4.5.2 above.

4.5.5 CEDAR BEACH

Cedar Beach is a summer colony founded as the Jolly Club by Burlington business men in 1873. Today there are 19 cottages in the Cedar Beach Association. Several cottages are owned by descendants of the original owners.

Originally the Cedar Beach Association had two boat houses, several ice houses, and its own electric company. The Association still operates a pump house for water distribution to members. It also operates a club house, tennis courts, dock, and trash pick-up service. The Association owns the land and approves all sales and rentals of cottages; it prohibits the use of camps for year-round occupancy.

The cottages were built in the 1870s and 1880s and are representative of resort architecture of the period. The cottages are in the Cedar Beach Historic District on the State Register of Historic Places.

Cedar Beach has some of the same limitations for expanded residential development as Thompson's Point. Roads are narrow and tree-lined; water supply is from the lake; and septic systems are on-site, in some cases on problem soils. Unlike Thompson's Point, however, portions of Cedar Beach have adequate soils for on-site sewage disposal. The Lake and Shoreline Committee has recommended that septic disposal regulation be routinely monitored in this area of the shoreline.

4.5.6 LAKE CHAMPLAIN ISLANDS

The Lake Champlain Islands are an important feature of Lake Champlain. They serve as significant wildlife habitat for nesting birds, recreation areas, and seasonal home sites, in addition to contributing to the scenic beauty of the lake. The Lake Champlain Islands in Charlotte include Sloop Island, Pickett Island, Garden Island, Cedar Island, and the Dean Islands. Sloop Island (less than 1 acre) is owned by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources; it is a popular picnic, swimming and fishing site. Pickett Island (less than 1 acre) is in private ownership; a proposal for building on it was defeated several years ago. It is also a popular picnic and swimming site. Garden Island (25 acres), is in private ownership and has several camp lots and one large land holding. It is used primarily for nine seasonal homes. Cedar Island (2 acres) is in private ownership and has three dwellings on it. The Dean Islands (1 acre in total) are in private ownership; one island has a seasonal home; another a boathouse; and the third is undeveloped.

The islands are very vulnerable to human abuse and environmental degradation due to shallow soils, nesting sites for birds, and the prominence of the islands on the lake.

4.6 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES

4.6.1 BURNS PROPERTY

The Town recently purchased 55 acres of the former Burns property at the south edge of the existing Charlotte village with the assistance of the Charlotte Land Trust, the Vermont Land Trust, and the Preservation Trust of Vermont. The Selectboard is committed to a public planning process for the future municipal use of this property which will begin as soon as this new Town Plan is adopted. This planning process will carefully examine how the Burns property can best be utilized to support the goals of this Plan including municipal infrastructure, recreation, trails, affordable and elderly housing, conservation, and other identified community goals.

4.6.2 SCHOOLS

Due to both its fiscal and social significance, education is perhaps the single most important community service provided by the Town of Charlotte. Socially, the education services have a critical impact on the lives of Charlotte's youth. In addition, the school provides a focus for community activities. School expenditures accounted for 79% of all municipal expenses budgeted in fiscal year 1995. In the 1998-1999 fiscal year budget, expenditures for schools ($5,764,861), increased to 81.8% of total municipal expenses, representing a 22.5% increase over 1994-1995 ($4,704,162).

Charlotte Central School

Charlotte has one public school, Charlotte Central School, which provides education for grades kindergarten through eighth. The school is centrally located on Hinesburg Road just west of the intersection with Mt. Philo Road. High school students attend Champlain Valley Union High School in Hinesburg along with students from Shelburne, Williston, St. George, and Hinesburg.

Charlotte Central School was constructed in 1949 and added to in 1969, 1987 and 1996. The 1987 improvement added a multi-purpose gym, five classrooms, a lab, and spaces for technical education, art, and living arts to the school. In 1996 a second story and a full size gym facility was added. There are 44 classrooms, a gym, cafeteria, and library within the building. Outside there is a playground and playing fields.

In previous years the Charlotte School Board projected that physical expansion and renovation projects would be necessary. Since then the Town has completed the most recent expansion the School Board does not project a need for expansion in the near future. There are plans, however, to improve the playing fields at the school.

The capacity of the school is 620 students; current enrollment is 535. There are 91 full and part time teachers and staff (67 Full Time Equivalent) employed at the school.

According to the Chittenden South Supervisory Union, student enrollment at Charlotte Central is projected to decrease over the next five years. In 1995, it was projected that an additional 66 students were projected for 1998-99 for a total enrollment of 565. The actual enrollment for the 1998-99 school year was 535, about half the 66 projected increase. It is projected that enrollment will decrease by 52 students or 9.7% by 2005.

Table 11

Charlotte Central School Enrollment and Teaching Staff Trends[25]
Year	Students	Teachers (FTE)	Year	Students	Teachers (FTE)
1980	435	25	1991	467	32.9
1981	425	25	1992	479	33.9
1982	392	24	1993	488	34.2
1983	374	26	1994	501	34
1984	350	26	1995	498	not available
1985	341	28.5	1996	514	not available
1986	369	27.9	1997	514	not available
1987	392	27.9	1998	525	not available
1988	425	30.7	1999	535	67
1989	450	31.5	2000	529	not available
1990	473	32	2005 est.	483	not available

Total expenditures for the Charlotte Central School grew 63% between 1988 and 1994, or 9% a year. Operating expenses were the largest source of the increase. They grew by 70%, or 10% annually during this period. The per pupil cost in 1988 was $4,895; by 1994 this figure had grown to $6,785 an increase of 38%.

Champlain Valley Union High School

Champlain Valley Union High School (CVU) was built in 1962 and added to in 1979 and 1983. Site improvements were made in 1987. The capacity of the school is 1150; enrollment in the 1998-99 school year was 1020, and increase from 1994 of 177 students, which is 20%. The number of Charlotte students attending CVU was 184 in 1980 and 156 in 1993. The Supervisory District did not have enrollment projections for CVU for 2005.

The Town will continue to work closely with the School Board to monitor the education needs of the Town's children and to plan future Town and school needs carefully to maximize the benefits of any taxpayer investment.

4.6.3 PUBLIC SAFETY: FIRE, RESCUE, AND POLICE

Fire and Rescue

Public safety in the Town of Charlotte is provided by a volunteer fire department and rescue squad and by the State Police. The Town is fortunate to have dedicated, well-trained, and hardworking volunteers providing its fire and rescue services. Charlotte retains paid Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) on duty six days per week, 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM. The Town may have to hire an additional paid fire fighter/EMT within five years. Charlotte and all Vermont towns are now connected by the State 911 emergency response system. This system, with new locational addresses, has the potential for improving response time dramatically.

The Fire Department responds to fires, hazard conditions, mutual aid calls to neighboring departments, and false alarms. Assistance is also provided to the rescue squad. In addition the department is responsible for training its members, maintaining the facilities and equipment, fire prevention, and participation in community events.

There are 24 volunteers in the fire department. They give over 1,400 hours to the community in responding to emergencies and in training. The number of calls to the department has been growing moderately since 1980. There were 73 calls in 1980, 82 calls in 1987, and 106 calls in 1998.

The Rescue Squad provides the Town and neighboring areas with emergency medical services. The squad is responsible for responding to calls, training its members, and maintaining its equipment and facilities. There are 40 volunteers on the squad who give over 1,000 hours annually. The number of emergency calls has increased dramatically in the past few years from 90 in 1982 to 141 in 1987 and 270 calls in 1998. In 2001, the number of emergency calls was 260. The response time of the squad is just under 10 minutes.

During 2000-2001, the Fire Department and the Rescue Squad rebuilt the fire station now consisting of a four-bay station and a second building consisting of meeting and training rooms and enhanced facilities located on F5 just west of the Route 7 intersection. Table 12 lists the equipment they maintain and replacement dates.

Between fiscal years 1989 and 1995 the operating budget for public health and safety grew by 35.2%, or 5.2% annually, from $49,996 to $67,595.[26] Between fiscal years 1994-95 and 1997-98, the public health and safety operating budget increased by 40% to $94,705. In November 1998, the Town voters approved a $450,000 bond to finance the reconstruction of the fire station and the purchase of a new ambulance. Charlotte Fire and Rescue has considered the need for a Fire-Rescue sub-station to be located on the east side of Town, preferably near the Spear Street-Hinesburg Road intersection to ensure adequate protection for this area.

The Town expects to continue to rely on the volunteer fire department and rescue squad. In addition to the one paid EMT, one to two paid fire fighters/EMTs may need to be hired within the next five years. There is concern that with most working people who live in Charlotte employed outside of Town, as the Town grows, there will be too few people available to volunteer to respond to an emergency in adequate time during working hours (generally 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM). Additional local employment should be encouraged to increase the number of Charlotte residents in the local Charlotte workforce. This would potentially increase the number of available volunteers to serve daytime Fire and Rescue call shifts and may reduce the need for paid staff.

Table 12

Fire and Rescue Capital Inventory[27]
Capital Item	Year	Replacement Date
Brush/Utility Truck	1973	2004-5
Class A Pumper	1980	2003-4
Pumper-Hose Reel	1988	2011
Rescue Boat & Motor	1989	2002-3
Heavy Rescue Truck	1990	2008-9
Tanker	1993	2010
Class A Pumper – Hose Reel	1988	2010-11
Ambulance	1999	2004-5, 2009-10

Police

The State Police provide police services to the Town. They handle any complaint except dog complaints which are handled by the Town's Animal Control Officer. The State Police currently has one officer assigned to the “South Patrol” which includes Charlotte, Huntington and St. George. This service is provided free of charge to the Town. The following chart shows the number of incidents responded to by the State Police as well as the number of traffic and boat citations.

Speeding vehicles on local roads is an important safety issue that will be addressed in the next three years. A traffic study will be done for the Town to determine appropriate speed limits. When this is complete a speed limit ordinance will be adopted, and the Town should arrange for State police to enforce the speed limits. Priority will be given to the following roads: F-5, Greenbush Road, Church Hill Road, and Hinesburg Road, especially near the school.

To obtain local police protection service the Town has three options in the near term: 1) employ our own police force; 2) establish a volunteer police department; or 3) contract for police services with an adjoining Town. Over the next five years it is not expected a full-time police department will be required.

Table 13

Incidents Responded to by State Police, 1995-1998[28]
	1995	1996	1997	1998
Incidents (Not including traffic and boat citations)	370	462	401	373
Traffic Citations	252	367	241	131
Boat Citations	2	5	0	0

4.6.4 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

In response to the 1987 Vermont Solid Waste Bill--Act 78, the Town closed and capped its sanitary landfill located on 80 acres off Carpenter Road. At present, Charlotte is a member of the Chittenden Solid Waste District (CSWD) and is disposing of its solid waste through the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) off Redmond Road in Williston. Recyclables are sold while the rest of the waste materials are transported to an approved landfill outside of Chittenden County. The CSWD is in the process of siting a long-term regional landfill within Chittenden County to accommodate its member communities. Biosolids are collected privately and transported to the MRF where they are transshipped to an approved composting facility outside of Vermont.

The Town anticipates continuing its membership with the CSWD to implement cost effective, regional solutions to the region's solid waste problems.

4.6.5 CULTURAL AND RECREATION SERVICES

Cultural and recreation services are becoming an increasingly important Town service. Currently, the following public recreation facilities exist in the Town:

· Town beach and recreation area: swimming, picnic area, three tennis courts, bath house, ball field, and horseshoes, on Lake Road.

· Town canoe access to Lewis Creek

· Town scenic overlook on Route 7

· Six undeveloped Town accesses on Thompson's Point

· School playground, ice rink and playing fields

· State Fishing Access on Converse Bay

· Mt. Philo State Park, 163.2 acres

· Pease Mountain, UVM

· Sloop Island, Vermont Fish and Game Department

· Charlotte Park and Wildlife Refuge

· VAST snowmobile trails (organization membership or permission may be required)

· Little League baseball fields

Private recreation facilities include boat docks and mooring space at Fishers Landing and Point Bay Marina and three horse farms. Recreation programs are offered through the Town Recreation Committee, the Charlotte Pony Club, Charlotte Central School (Little League, Farm League, Soccer, and Basketball), and the YMCA (after school program and summer camp).

A new public library was constructed and gifted to the Town in 1998 by the Friends of the Charlotte Library and is located on Ferry Road on the Town Green, adjacent to the Town Hall. The little Quinlan School, an historic Charlotte one-room school house, is also located on the Town Green. The Charlotte Historical Society maintains the Charlotte Museum on Old Route 7 and hosts several events during the year.

With the increase in leisure time and the growing population, the demand for cultural and recreational services is increasing. Both the type and amount of recreation facilities need to be expanded. As more land gets developed and posted against trespassing, lands traditionally accessible to Town residents for hunting, fishing, hiking, riding, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing and snowmobiling are closed. The high cost of land, particularly along the shoreline, natural resource protection areas, soils and drainage constraints, and steep topography are affecting the ability of the Town to obtain new property for recreation facilities. Residential development also creates the demand for geographic distribution of recreation facilities; currently, recreation services are concentrated in the western section of Town.

Given these conditions, the following recreation land needs have been identified:

· The development of an integrated trail system that links every sector of town for pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian traffic. The plan for this trail system was adopted by the Selectboard in 1998. Maps of the adopted plan which show the proposed alignments are included in this Town Plan. Implementation of this system needs to proceed as a multi-year effort.

· Playing fields to meet community demand for all ages of players. Current facilities at the Charlotte Central School and the Town Park at the beach are inadequate. Fields are especially needed for soccer and baseball. Once the new Little League fields at the Charlotte Berry Farm are operational, the need for additional baseball fields should be reevaluated.

In addition, there are specific needs at existing and proposed recreation sites, including:

· Tennis court resurfacing, rafts and docks at the Town beach

· Playground equipment

· Sump pump at bath house

· Stairs and fence at Town beach

· Recreation area shelter for summer camp programs

· Improvements to school recreation facilities, including skating rink

· Lewis Creek picnic area

State statute allows the Town to adopt an impact fee ordinance to fund capital expenses. If such an ordinance were adopted the Town could include consideration for recreation. The fees would be restricted in use to capital projects as defined in 24 VSA Chapter 131.

The Town operating expenditures for culture and recreation have grown from $15,383 in 1989 to $18,525 in 1995. In 1998, the Town's approved budget included operating expenses of $13,000 for recreation and $36,260 for the library. Annually, capital expenditures have ranged from about $10,000 to over $25,000 for recreation. With the use of the existing Town recreation fund, these figures are expected to remain stable.

4.6.6 GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Local government in Charlotte is primarily a volunteer form of government. Volunteers serve as elected board-members and on appointed commissions and committees. The Selectboard, Planning Commission, and Zoning Board of Adjustment, School Boards, Conservation Commission and Recreation Committee consist of volunteers.[29] The Town offices are in the Town Hall, relocated and newly constructed in 1994 in the West Charlotte Village on Ferry Road. The Town Hall, library, Post Office and Fire and Rescue Station make up the core of Charlotte's Town Center.

Town employees include the Clerk, who is also the Town Treasurer, Assistant Clerk, Clerk's Administrative Assistant, Assistant to the Selectboard, Planner, Zoning Administrator, who is also the Deputy Health Officer, and Administrative Assistant to the Planning/Zoning Department. The Town uses a consultant site technician to review wastewater plans submitted for Sewage and Subdivision permits. The Town contracts annually for the services of a professional assessor to assist the Town Listers. The three Town listers are paid on an hourly basis and reimbursed for mileage. The Town also contracts for legal services.

In 1998, the Town hired a part-time Assistant to the Selectboard. There have been discussion about the possible need to expand the hours of this position, or possibly to hire a Town Administrator or Town Manager. The need for this position is a direct result of the growth of the Town and the increased demand for services as well as more complex and extensive land development cases.

General Government operating expenditures grew from $306,693 in 1989 to $368,215 in 1995 an increase of 20.1% or 3.1% a year. Budgeted operating expenditures increased to $422,264 for the 1998-99 fiscal year, a 15% increase over 1995.

4.6.7 PRIVATE SERVICES: SEWAGE DISPOSAL, WATER SUPPLY, AND ROADS

Water supply and sewage disposal are private services in the Town of Charlotte. The Town also has a growing number of private roads due to the increase in subdivisions. The lack of both municipal sewage disposal and water supply systems has required property owners to meet their own needs for these services, primarily on site. There are also a few private community water supplies and sewage disposal systems serving developments. On-site sewage disposal systems are regulated in the Town under the Sewage Ordinance Town of Charlotte for Wastewater Disposal and On-Site Systems (adopted August 8, 1997).

Sewage Disposal

The severe limitations for on-site sewage disposal within the Town have resulted in some sharing of good sewage disposal sites among several dwelling units. These community systems may enable property that might otherwise be undevelopable due to steepness of grade, wetlands, poor soils, or other fragile environmental conditions to be developed. Therefore, they may encourage development in areas that the Town has stated are in need of protection. Alternatively, community systems may enable a parcel to be developed in a cluster pattern which would advance the protection of farmland or other critical resources.

Frequently these community septic systems involve pumps, gravity lines, force mains, and leaching fields or mound systems. Responsibility for the installation, operation, and maintenance of these facilities is shared by homeowners, according to homeowners association agreements approved by the Town. The systems must meet Town and state regulations.

Recently the Town has received proposals for locating these systems on parcels of land other than those proposed for subdivision. This situation has given rise to a new set of problems for the Town. It further promotes the development of otherwise undevelopable parcels, it raises the prospect of Town liability where lines cross Town roads, and it removes the facilities further from the site where the development is taking place thus scattering these facilities around the Town and expanding the area where failure can occur.

The continued proliferation of the systems around Town, particularly long force mains and off-site disposal facilities, represent a long-term liability to the Town. Through conditions of subdivision approvals the Town has stated that it will not be responsible for taking over these private systems in the event of their failure nor will the Town be responsible for the installation of such systems. However, the Town is ultimately responsible for meeting water quality standards within its borders. Should a system fail and environmental degradation occur, the Town may be forced to act. This could be costly to the Town if measures are not taken to limit these systems and, where they are allowed, to insure funds will be available to construct, maintain, and operate these systems.

Poor soils and the lack of a municipal sewer system have been the primary reasons why Charlotte has maintained its small Town, rural character and open spaces. In the future Charlotte will not be protected from growth and development by its poor soils and limited septic capacity. Modern wastewater disposal system technology is making it feasible to dispose of wastewater on steep slopes and in areas where soils were traditionally incapable of adequately processing wastewater (they did not “perc”). The Town must be proactive in its planning and zoning regulations to direct future growth and development to areas where it is appropriate to promote compact settlements and protect rural landscapes and undeveloped open space.

The Town buildings, consisting of the Town Hall, Library, Fire Station, and Senior Center are presently serviced by a town owned and operated septic system for exclusive use by the foregoing buildings.

Water Supply

Three community water supply systems serve communities in the Town; one serves residents in Lynrick Acres in West Charlotte Village, another serves Mutton Hill, and a third serves the Wildwood West development off Route 7. The map of these water sources and their protection areas is included at the end of this Plan. A fourth system that serves the Ten Stones community off of Greenbush Road is not on the State's list of community systems, however the common water system serves thirteen dwellings.

The Champlain Water District (CWD), a regional water supply district, serves an area in the Town of Shelburne contiguous to the Town of Charlotte. Property owners in Charlotte in this area have requested that the Town allow them to extend the CWD district water lines to their properties. The Town has not agreed to this action because the location of such infrastructure is not planned for this area and the Town is not prepared to undertake the management responsibilities for this water system within its boundaries.

The impact of such a system on the Town's administration and on the land use plan for the Town must be considered in weighing this decision. The Town has no administrative staff that could be assigned for this purpose. Major infrastructure, such as a water supply system, creates pressure for development where the water line is located. Its presence lowers the cost of land development by removing the uncertainty and cost involved in drilling a well. Typically such infrastructure serves areas of communities where growth is to be encouraged. State statute recommends that infrastructure investment be targeted to growth areas. The areas of the Town contiguous to Shelburne and Hinesburg have significant natural resources that the Town is trying to protect; these are not appropriate growth areas for the Town.

Sufficient water supply in Charlotte must be considered not only for drinking and personal and business use, but also for fire protection. The Town adopted a Fire Protection Water Supply Plan for the entire Town in April 1997. In summary, the plan was prepared to ensure that sufficient water supply is available for fire protection. A map of water supply sites is shown in a map at the end of this Plan.

Private Roads

Private roads are often developed to serve new subdivisions. There are several issues related to such roads. It is the Town's policy to keep the roads private to save the Town from maintenance costs. In such instances homeowner association agreements are required to ensure that the homeowners will provide for road maintenance. However, despite these agreements homeowners may eventually request the Town to take over the roads, and the Town may find that the roads have not been adequately maintained, and that it will be costly to bring them up to standard. Another concern is that unmaintained roads may become inaccessible to emergency vehicles and fire trucks.

Under the subdivision regulations these roads must be designed to meet Town specifications. In September 1997, the Town adopted Road Specifications in the Recommended Standards for Developments and Homes. The challenge for enforcing these Standards is that there may be some situations, such as smaller developments near resource areas, when smaller roads may be preferable.

Private roads often terminate in cul-de-sacs which do not connect through to adjacent properties. This situation can make it difficult for the Town to develop efficient street patterns serving several parcels and thus economizing on the length of roads. The need for connected roads is especially a concern in the village areas.

4.6.8 TOWERS AND TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES

Introduction / Issues

Since Charlotte's Town Plan was re-approved last in 1995, more populated states have seen, as has Vermont to a lesser degree, a proliferation of new telecommunications facilities providing broadcast and wireless communications services. While the existence of these services helps foster economic growth in our rural state, aesthetic issues and potential threats to human health and safety, such as radio frequency interference [RFI] and radio frequency radiation [RFR] - have appeared as concerns accompanying the new technologies. The Selectboard adopted an Interim Zoning Bylaw on March 22, 1999 to better utilize the Town's ability to protect the health and well-being of its residents.

Generally, technologies under consideration include: broadcast (AM to UHF) and public safety transmitters, two-way wireless (analog cellular and digital PCS systems) and satellite systems.

Types of Telecommunications Facilities in Charlotte

This section documents locations, uses, existing power (wattage or strength) and frequency for each facility.

1) A multi-use tower on Pease Mountain, owned by Charlotte Volunteer Fire & Rescue Services (CVFRS), houses the following:

o CVFRS's antennas and a facility licensed to Chittenden County Firefighters Association. These are classified as Fixed Base facilities. Fire and Rescue VHF-band signals are intermittent and of low wattage (between 50 and 100 watts output power using relatively low-gain antennas).

o a WIZN FM broadcast antenna (relatively high power, 50,000 watts horizontal and 50,000 watts vertical effective radiated power [ERP] continuously). WIZN FM has FCC licenses for low-power UHF auxiliary-use transmission and the tower has an auxiliary antenna for the main frequency; it is unknown whether, or how, WIZN FM utilizes these.

o Verizon cellular equipment with wattage much lower than the WIZN FM antenna (intermittent use of several channels of up to 2,000 watts ERP and at higher frequencies than FM, in the 800 MHz band).

2) A microwave relay tower located in East Charlotte, formerly owned by AT&T and now owned by the American Tower Company. A microwave relay station relays, often on the same frequency, a signal or signals from the previous tower or source of the signals to another tower. It is increasingly apparent that the town has no easy access to information about the actual uses of this tower, and 1998 research revealed a current application to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for a new use of this tower as a UHF television transmitting facility. There is also a paging facility licensed at this site.

3) The State tower facility on Mt. Philo which includes the Vermont Department of Public Safety UHF two-way facilities, 6 GHz microwave links and 900-MHz band transmitters for the Vermont Lottery Commission

4) Other equipment including:

o Privately-owned 2-way radio equipment, usually located in homes, industrial and public-sector 2-way radio equipment located at various licensee facilities, including businesses, government and agricultural locations

o TV antennas and satellite dishes, primarily having one-way (receiving) capacity only; greater use of satellite two-way (transmitting and receiving) facilities is likely in the future.

It should be noted that two-way wireless telecommunications companies consider placement of repeater systems to be proprietary, and the FCC is not required to notify towns of permits that are granted to companies to place equipment in those towns. There may be other, less visible transmitters in town.

Authority to Regulate

Federal

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 implicitly preserves the Town's authority to regulate the placement, construction and modification of two-way wireless (cellular or PCS) facilities when those facilities fail to comply with FCC guidelines on the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions. Towns are pre-empted from setting more stringent standards than the FCC's, however.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 specifically preserves the Town's authority to regulate the placement, construction and modification of broadcast facilities at any time. Towns are not pre-empted from setting more stringent standards than the FCC's regarding the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions from broadcast transmissions (radio and television).

Those FCC guidelines regulate the maximum permissible exposure (MPE) of the thermal/heating effects of RFR on human tissue. They do not regulate the athermal/non-heating effects occurring from long-term, low-level exposure, nor do they regulate the effects of radio frequency interference (RFI) to business, medical or institutional equipment. The primary effects of radio frequency emissions are the signals themselves; secondary environmental effects (thermal, athermal and interference to medical equipment) are health and safety concerns to the town and should be evaluated before facilities are sited or new uses are permitted.

The FCC claim of exclusive jurisdiction over RFI to business, medical and institutional equipment was challenged legally by a group of Charlotte residents, with support for clarification on this point of law from U.S. Senators Leahy and Jeffords and U.S. Representative Sanders (“Brief As Amicus Curae in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants”, January 13, 1999). Though the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear this case, the same citizen group is acting as lead petitioner in a second court challenge which seeks

1) to overturn Federal pre-emptions regarding the local consideration of possible health effects of radio frequency/microwave (RF/MW) emissions;

2) to allow State and local zoning laws to apply to the siting of towers instead of federal rules that today override them; and

3) to clear the way for the funding of scientific studies on the biological effects of RF/MW radiation.

The entire Vermont Congressional Delegation, eight State legislators, and sixty-eight Vermont communities have jointly filed a brief in support of this case.

State

Vermont's Act 250 provides for the review of proposed sitings and/or changes of use under the criteria for air (#1), municipal services (#6), aesthetics (#8) and town and regional plans (#10).

Town

A Health Ordinance was enacted 5/27/98 by the Charlotte Selectboard acting as the Health Board. Finding that the WIZN transmission facility on Pease Mountain, “while compliant with FCC RFR standards, may nonetheless result in a significant, continuing public health risk,” the ordinance requires: periodic measurement of RFR levels at the site within 2 km of the site at two specific points in time; restriction of public access to the facility; and the undertaking of a “commissioned study regarding the >non-heating biological effects of electromagnetic fields'” by a certain date.

In November of 1998, the Town commenced work on improved ordinances, and imposed a six-month moratorium on the review of any applications for the siting of new, or changes of use to existing, telecommunications facilities. Interim Zoning Bylaws were adopted 3/22/99. Broadly, they require: 1) a 1500 foot setback from residential and specified public land uses, 2) aesthetic considerations such as lighting, color, landscaping, and 3) approval of such facilities as conditional uses in all districts, making them subject to more detailed review.

The Future

Should a new legal precedent occur which allows for increased local jurisdiction over RFI and/or environmental/health effects of Personal Wireless Facilities, Charlotte's Zoning tools can and should be strengthened to provide residents full authority to guide the arrival of such technologies in the town.

To borrow from the Town Plan of Fairlee, VT, future policy should both “enable economic opportunities through the use of telecommunications technology” and “support the enhancement and expansion of the telecommunications network when such facilities do not have significant adverse environmental, health, or aesthetic impacts” on the town. Charlotte should work as well to minimize any adverse economic impact to existing businesses or homes.

4.6.9 CHARLOTTE SENIOR CENTER

In 1998 the Town learned of a bequest by Charlotte resident Walter Irish, of $500,000 for the purpose of constructing a senior center in Charlotte. Under the terms of the bequest, the Town had two years from notification of the gift (July 1998) to decide if it would accept the money. The Selectboard appointed a committee to coordinate a study to determine the feasibility of constructing the center using the bequest and to report on findings. The feasibility study was completed in January 1999 in preparation for Town Meeting 1999.

To prepare the feasibility study, focus group discussions were held to discuss location, management, type of building, programmatic structure and scope, and users of a senior center in Charlotte. There was consensus in these discussions that the Senior Center should be located in the West Village as close as possible to other facilities such as the library, Town hall, post office, and store. The group agreed that the management should be by a non-profit group or should be modeled on a system used for the library and that fund raising, including grants from the Town, will be a necessary part of the success of a center. There was consensus that a new building would be more feasible as opposed to renovating an existing structure.

Whether to accept the Irish bequest with the Town funding the operation of a senior center gained a unanimous “advisory only” vote of approval (Article 9) at the 1999 Annual Town Meeting. The Article read:

Will the Town vote, on a non-binding basis, to support the operation of a Senior Citizen Center at Town expense provided a building for a senior center is made available at no cost to the Town. (Note: The vote on this Article is advisory only)

The Town approved the Senior Center and to accept the Walter Irish bequest. During 2001, construction began of the Senior Center, after completion of investigations and town input as to the design and location of the facility. In the fall of 2001, the Town has taken over ownership of the property, and as of the time of the drafting of this Plan, the project is on the way to completion.

4.6.10 COST OF GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOLS

Between fiscal years 1994-95 and 1997-98, total expenditures by the Town have increased 21%. The largest absolute dollar increase was for schools ($376,466), with the exception of General Government expenditures for the ice storm clean up of 1997. Schools continue to represent the largest portion of Town expenditures, 74% in 1997-98, followed by Highways 12%, and General Government at 11%. It should be noted that the highway and general government spending in the 1997-98 fiscal year were exceptionally high due to the ice storm clean up requirements.

The Town is dependent on the property tax for 84% (1997-98) of its revenues; it has increased its dependence on the property tax since 1989 when 78.9% of its income came from this source. This change is the result primarily of decreasing intergovernmental aid. Total property tax revenues increased by 8% between fiscal years 1994-95 and 1997-98. During the same period the Grand List grew by .8%. The tax rate, on the other hand, decreased from $1.59/$1000 to $1.56/$1000.

With the adoption of the State's Education Equalization Act (Act 60) the Town education tax has increased significantly. In the fiscal year 1998-99, the school tax rate increased by 13.5%, with the total tax rate increasing 28%, to $1.99. It is important to note that Charlotte residents voted to spend more than the State minimum per-pupil-cost, and therefore, as required by the State funding formula, pay into the State education sharing pool. Furthermore, in 1999, Town residents received approximately $892,053 in pre-bate payments from the State, which averaged $1,443 each.

Year round residential properties represent the largest and growing share of the Grand List. Since 1993 these properties have grown from 76.6% to 80.4% of total grand list value in 1998. Vacation homes, commercial, utilities, and industrial properties represent 10.3% of the total grand list value. Farms are 4.2%. As a result of this analysis it is evident that year round residents are shouldering an increasing share of Charlotte's property tax burden. It should be noted, however, that year round residential properties require the greatest amount of Town services and cost the Town the most compared to seasonal, commercial, industrial, farm or open space properties.

Table 14 shows a draft Capital Budget and Program for fiscal years 2000-2006. The tax rate has been projected to grow based upon the estimated grand lists and the growth in expenditures for operating, capital, and debt service. The revenue projections assume that the property tax will continue to be the primary source of revenues in the future, that intergovernmental aid will moderately increase, and that the Town will continue to increase the amount of revenues from fees and charges.

As the capital budget and program is updated more accurate figures will be determined for capital expenditures and associated debt service. As this is accomplished, the tax rate projections will become more accurate. Until the capital budget and program is updated, however, the projections in Table 14 can be used for purposes of planning and the basis for the capital budget update.

Numerous studies have been conducted throughout the country and especially in New England showing that a Town's cost to serve a residential unit is far greater than the cost to serve a commercial property or conservation or farmland. Generally, school expenditures dominate Town budgets, and new homes often bring new school children. In most cases, these studies have been done to determine the difference in net cost between allowing a property to be developed for residential use and the cost of the Town purchasing the property for public open space or agricultural use.

American Farmland Trust reported that Cost of Community Service Studies conducted in more than 58 communities over the past decade show that residential land uses are a net drain on municipal coffers: it costs local governments more to provide services to homeowners than residential landowners pay in property taxes. For every dollar of tax revenue raised from residential landowners, the median cost to provide public services to residential uses was $1.12 among these communities, compared to $.27 for commercial and industrial uses and $.33 for farm, forest and protected open space uses.[30]

In 1995-1996, AdHoc Associates (Deb Brighton) conducted a similar study (report dated 2/18/96) for Charlotte, analyzing the tax implications of funding a conservation plan in Charlotte ($.02 per $100 of assessed value for the Conservation Fund for next ten years). In summary, the study reported similar results. It was estimated that the fund would enable the Town to purchase approximately 1,125 acres outright.

The conservation plan affects Charlotte taxpayers in two ways: 1) the direct appropriation and 2) the reduction in the Grand List due to the reduction in taxable value of the properties once the development rights have been removed. The first impact amounts to a tax increase during the ten years in which the tax is collected, with the effect on annual property tax bill on a $250,000 property being about $54 in each of the ten years. At the end of the ten year period, taxpayers continue to pay the taxes that the protected property no longer pays. The effect on the property tax bill on a $250,000 property would be about $8.

If the same 1,125 acres of land were developed, there could be as many as 225 houses, assuming five acres per house. Housing would add a considerable amount of value to the tax rolls, but would also entail substantial cost to the Town for municipal and education services. A typical $250,000 new house would cost the Town about $2,027 per year more than it would provide in revenues (including tax and non-tax revenues). A new house with the typical number of residents would need to be assessed at about $380,000 or more before it would pay for itself.[31]

In the long run, the cost of acquiring a property for conservation purposes is usually less expensive to taxpayers than residential development. When planning future budgets, the Town should consider these cost studies when contemplating choices between the costs of new residential development and the protection of land for conservation or farming purposes.

4.7 TRANSPORTATION

The transportation system in Charlotte today includes several classes of roads, both paved and dirt, a ferry route, a limited use railroad, bus route, some segments of bicycle lanes, some walking trails, seasonal snowmobile trails through private properties and over roads, and some equestrian use of dirt roads and private properties. The transportation section of this Town Plan is intended to encourage multi-modal transportation, while acknowledging that the most extensive portion of the Town's transportation system was designed for use by automobiles.

In 1998 the Town, along with the other rural communities of Chittenden County, became a member of the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO). The CCMPO is the federally mandated agency that plans and prioritizes the use of federal transportation funds. Highway projects using federal funds must generally be on the Federal Highway System, which in Charlotte includes U.S. Route 7, Hinesburg Road and Church Hill Road. Also eligible for federal funds are bridges with spans greater than twenty feet, and most bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

4.7.1 ROAD SYSTEM

An important element of the Town transportation system is the road system that provides for vehicular travel to all parts of Town and to the surrounding communities. The road system consists of a major regional arterial, Route 7, state-numbered route F5 (Ferry Road), and the Town highway network.

Route 7

Route 7 is the major north-south arterial highway serving the western side of the State of Vermont between Massachusetts to the south and Canada to the north. It is the major route connecting the Town of Charlotte to the urban center of Burlington ten miles to the north and to the urban areas of Vergennes, Middlebury, and Rutland to the south.

Route 7 is a two lane highway covering 6.6 miles within the Town; to the north within the City of South Burlington it widens to 4 and 5 lanes to accommodate the large traffic volume and multiple turning movements associated with development in that area. Within the Town, the surface width of the highway is 24 feet to 28 feet except at the intersection with F5 (Ferry Road) where it widens to 35 feet to accommodate turning lanes, and north of the intersection with F5 to accommodate a northbound climbing lane.

The average daily traffic (ADT) on Route 7, as measured just south of the intersection with Church Hill Road (Old Route 7), grew by 16%, or 3.8% a year, between 1980 and 1984. Between 1984 and 1988 the volume grew an additional 6.6%, however from 1988 to 1992 there was a decline in ADT of 8.8%; this may have been attributable to commuter traffic using Spear Street rather than Route 7. At a permanent traffic counter station located just north of the Church Hill Road/Route 7 intersection, the Vermont Agency of Transportation reported a 17.5% ADT volume increase from 1984 to 1988. From 1988 to 1993 the same station indicated a 4.7% decline in ADT counts. Between 1993 and 1998 the count at this station increased 9.6% with the 1998 ADT count at 11,000. The Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization projects the average daily traffic will grow about 1.95% annually (compounded) over the next 20 years.

The Vermont Agency of Transportation (VAOT) has rated segments of Route 7 within Charlotte based on the average surface width, average roadway width, road conditions, safety, and service. The ratings range from 59.3 to 74.3, based on 1996 data. These ratings compare favorably to the 1991 ratings which were 44.1 to 56.2.

The section from Ferrisburg to 2 mile south of Ferry Road has the lowest sufficiency rating, falling barely in the “poor” category (SR 60). This rating is influenced more by the condition and service components than the safety components.

Accidents on Route 7 within the Town are concentrated at the intersection with F5. The high number of accidents at that location has been of concern for many years. To date there has been no determination of the cause of so many accidents by the VAOT. They have made substantial improvements at the intersection in an effort to lower the accident rate. The former blinking yellow light was replaced by a full traffic light; turning lanes were added; and, through traffic was better directed. There are several wide curb cuts just to the south on Route 7 serving a gas station, dairy bar, and warehouse.

The VAOT proposed widening Route 7 to four lanes for a distance of 2.9 miles starting about a half mile south of the intersection with F5. Considerable concern was expressed by Charlotte residents about the need for this project, its environmental impact, and its relation to longer range plans for improvements to the highway to the north and south of the Town. Of particular concern was the proposal for a bypass around the Village of Shelburne and its effect on Charlotte. The Agency has dropped the widening proposal and proposed rehabilitation of this portion of the highway instead by widening of the shoulders to 8 feet, improving drainage, upgrading guard rails, and improving signage. The Agency has decided to prepare a long range plan for Route 7 and coordinate this plan with local and regional planning bodies.

It has been a policy of the Town of Charlotte for many years to maintain Route 7 as a major arterial through the Town. In part this policy reflects a concern that any major relocations, bypasses, or circumferential highways could have an adverse impact on the Town. To implement this policy the Town has strictly limited land uses along the highway. The Town has also instituted controls on curb cuts in both the zoning and subdivision regulations. To date these actions have been effective in maintaining the corridor as only a functioning major arterial and not as an access way to numerous business and residences as is the case to both the north and the south.

Town Highways

The Town maintains 74.17 miles of highways of which 26.08 miles are Class 2 and 48.09 miles are Class 3. In addition, the Town has .37 miles of Class 4 highways. Class 2 highways provide major routes of improved highways from Town to Town. Class 2 highways include Ferry Road, Church Hill Road, Hinesburg Road, Spear Street, and Mt. Philo Road. Class 3 highways are all other highways that are negotiable in all seasons. Class 4 highways are highways within the Town that are not maintained.

Hinesburg Road and Church Hill Road (from Hinesburg Road to Route 7) are Class 2 highways, also called “major collectors” on the Federal Highway System. The sufficiency rating for the these road segments is 57.0.

In 1998 the Vermont Legislature created the Class 2 Town Highway Rehabilitation Program. The purpose of the program is to fund reconstruction of Class 2 highways which are also part of the federal aid system and are classified as major collectors. In order to be eligible a road must have a sufficiency rating less than 50 and an AADT greater than 1,000. Should the sufficiency rating drop below 50 for this road the Hinesburg Road/Church Hill Road route, this program could be a source of funds for repair.

The Town contracts for its road maintenance and owns no equipment of its own except for one plow and a sluice tractor. Expenses for highway operations grew by 15% between fiscal years 1994-95 and 1996-97. A drastic increase in the highway expenditures occurred in 1997-98 due to a severe ice storm that required clean-up on all roadways. Highways are the largest item within the Town (non-school) budget. There is concern that should the Town be unable or unwilling to continue to contract for highway services, there will be a severe fiscal impact on the Town initially to pay for the necessary equipment for a Town road department.

A road inventory of Town road conditions has been completed. By using that evaluation the Town will be able to identify, in order of priority, the roads requiring rehabilitation.

The following planning issues related to town highways need to be addressed:

· whether to provide Town highway services by contract or by a Town Highway Department;

· how, when, or if at all, to expand the Town highway network to accommodate new development while protecting designated scenic roads;

· how to ensure that all roads and driveways will be maintained to remain in conformance with Town standards; and

· how to program necessary road and bridge improvements and how to make these improvements while protecting special features of the Town's environment.

4.7.2 RAILROAD

The Vermont Railway maintains a railroad line through Charlotte that runs in a north-south direction west of and roughly parallel to Route 7. At one time passenger service was available to Charlotte and a railroad station was located at the intersection of the tracks with F5. Until recently, the tracks were used for freight traffic only. One of Charlotte's industrial zones is located contiguous to the railroad on F5 which offers businesses the opportunity for rail siding.

A commuter rail service between Charlotte and Burlington was resurrected after several years of planning in December, 2000 to, among other things, mitigate traffic congestion . Because nearly 60% of Charlotte's work force commutes to communities along the rail line to the north, including Shelburne, South Burlington, and Burlington, there is an opportunity for this line to be successful for passenger service. Since inception, the rail service has seen higher ridership than was originally anticipated. The state is discussing expanding the rail service to Middlebury because many people that are using the rail service are driving to Charlotte and then taking the train to Burlington.

The introduction of Amtrak Passenger service into the Champlain Valley is also being evaluated. Increased use of the railroad corridor will need to be coupled with increased safety improvements for all railroad crossings and for the mitigation of any adverse impacts to the community. With an increased number of rail trips being planned, all railroad crossings must be gated crossings with bicycle safe surfaces over the tracks to ensure traffic, pedestrian and bicycle safety.

4.7.3 FERRY SERVICE

Ferry transportation between Vermont and New York has been operating in Charlotte since 1801. Today the Lake Champlain Transportation Company operates the ferry service between Charlotte and Essex, New York. During the summer months two ferries run providing service every half hour. The ferry serves tourists as well as commuters and people on business. It has historically operated from the spring through the late fall.

An extra ferry slip and an upgraded parking facility was added in 1998 which increased the ferry's capacity. More frequent ferry trips can run as a result of this expansion. Lake Champlain Transportation Corporation is running ferry service year-round, and is only forced to stop when the ice on the lake becomes impassible. Any future expansion of ferry service must address traffic safety, including pedestrian safety, and impacts on Charlotte's West Village.

The road serving the ferry, F5, is narrow, steep, and winding near the ferry dock. Ferry traffic on F-5 is heavy especially in summer months. Parking contiguous to the ferry is very limited given the topography of the area. Soils are poor for on site sewage disposal and sanitary facilities are currently provided by portable facilities. These conditions are a limiting factor for further expansion of the ferry operation.

4.7.4. MULTI-MODAL TRAILS

Currently Charlotte residents have limited opportunities to safely move from point to point on foot, horseback or bicycle. An integrated trail system that links every sector of Town for pedestrian bicycle and equestrian traffic is desired and has been supported by a variety of community interest and planning documents for over ten years. A plan for an integrated trail system was adopted by the Selectboard in 1998. Maps of the adopted trail system show the proposed alignments and are included in this Town Plan. Smaller neighborhood trail segments for pedestrian traffic are intended to cross over private lands. Some easements are in place while numerous others need to be secured. Implementation of this system needs to proceed as a multi-year effort and needs to be integrated with other planning activities in the Town.

4.8 REGIONAL ISSUES AND COORDINATION

4.8.1 LAND USE IN ADJACENT TOWNS

Charlotte is surrounded by towns which have larger or more active commercial areas than does Charlotte. This contrast provides both potential problems and opportunities.

Shelburne

The Town of Shelburne, particularly on Route 7, is much more commercial than Charlotte. Within Shelburne's Rural 2 District directly contiguous to Charlotte, commercial and industrial uses are allowed, but sizable setbacks, open space, and clustering are required in order to protect the views of the Shelburne Village from the south along Route 7. The Town of Shelburne is also working to limit Route 7 accesses and eliminate existing access points wherever possible. A large parcel on Route 7 near the town line has been permanently protected. Charlotte has consistently opposed the development or extension of public water and sewer lines into its boundaries and has opposed commercial zoning along Route 7 within the Town in order to maintain its function as a regional arterial. The goal and objectives of the Natural & Visual Resources and Land Conservation section of Shelburne's Town Plan (Vol. II, pp. 13‑14) are consistent with Charlotte's goals for its shoreline.

Ferrisburgh

Ferrisburgh has a highway commercial district on Route 7 at the Charlotte Town line, which contrasts with Charlotte's Rural District designation over the line and Route 7 protection strategies. It would be a concern if Ferrisburgh's commercial activity spreads north. It is a specific policy of this plan that the southern portion of Charlotte near the Ferrisburgh border should remain rural and low intensity residential. Ferrisburgh has a conservation district along the shoreline and Lewis Creek at the Charlotte Town line. These districts are compatible with Charlotte's goals of protecting the shorelines of the lake and Lewis Creek.

Monkton

The Monkton Town Plan shows a Rural District near the Charlotte town line. The purpose of this district appears to be consistent with Charlotte's Rural District. The Town Plan encourages cluster development and PRD techniques outside of the Village Center. Monkton seems to be looking closely at designating more specific land-use districts based on septic capacity. At present these districts are not designated on a map.

Hinesburg

The Hinesburg Plan shows an Agricultural-Rural District along the Charlotte town boundary. The purposes of this district are consistent with Charlotte's Rural District. Both Towns have land trusts which have met to discuss common concerns, such as the protection of Lewis Creek which runs through both communities.

4.8.2 REGIONAL ISSUES

Regional Planning

Regional planning in Chittenden County is split between the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, which undertakes land-use planning, and the Metropolitan Planning Organization, which undertakes transportation planning. Charlotte is a member of both organizations and has a representative on both boards.

The Chittenden County Regional Plan, adopted on October 9, 2001, sets the overall framework for land use planning in Chittenden County. The Regional Plan is created with citizen input by the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC), under authority of Vermont's Planning & Development Law (24 V.S.A Ch 117). The primary objective of the Regional Plan is to support growth center planning and natural resource conservation through the use of discrete “planning areas.” The Regional Plan designates the West Charlotte Village and the East Charlotte Villages as “Village Areas.”

The fact that commercial services are available in neighboring towns, and more extensive services are offered nearby in Burlington, South Burlington, Williston and Vergennes, may mean that the provision of such services in Charlotte is unnecessary and perhaps unlikely. Furthermore, Charlotte's recreational facilities such as Mount Philo State Park, the town beach, the marinas, the Lake Champlain ferry and the Route 7 corridor, together with the town's rural attributes, function as a regional resource. Recognizing that Charlotte's farm fields and woodland patches contribute to these resources may warrant their protection through regional mechanisms such as regional off-site mitigation or other programs that may become possible with the approval of the Town.

Chittenden South Supervisory School District

Charlotte, along with Williston, Shelburne, Hinesburg, and St. George are members of Chittenden South Supervisory School District, and together support the Champlain Valley Union High School (CVU). The Williston Comprehensive Plan discusses the significant recent growth in Williston and how that will effect enrollment in its schools. This higher enrollment may affect the CVU tax rate, which residents from all CSSD towns, including Charlotte, pay. Charlotte will need to work with Williston and the other members of CSSD to address CVU‑related issues as they arise.

A recently formed task force has begun looking into how the transportation needs and resources of CVU intersect with those of member towns. This discussion has the potential for improving public transportation between Charlotte and neighboring communities, and is endorsed.

Champlain Valley Conservation Alliance

The Champlain Valley Conservation Alliance is a coalition of conservation commissions, planning commissions, and local and regional conservation organizations which facilitates the exchange of information and cooperation on conservation projects in this region. The Charlotte Conservation Commission has played a leadership role in this organization.

5. CHARLOTTE TOMORROW

This section of the Plan lays out the policies and strategies which the Town hopes will accomplish the vision, goals and objectives described earlier. As was stated in the Introduction to the Plan, “policies” are meant to be used to review and guide development proposals, while “strategies” are meant to guide discussion, and will need further action to be enacted, for example by amending the Zoning Bylaws or through the work of a Town committee.

Given the above distinction between policies and strategies, the use of the “will” in the Charlotte Tomorrow section has specific meanings depending on whether it's within a policy or strategy. If it's within a policy, “will” is intended to mean the Town currently endorses the expressed policy, and will endeavor to implement it and/or enforce it. If “will” is within a strategy, it is intended to mean that the Town generally supports the concept and plans to explore its implementation, but until further action is taken, as noted above, the concept cannot be implemented or enforced.

5.1 FUTURE PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT

5.1.1 General Policies

1. Charlotte will mainly support a pattern of small, concentrated settlements in the village areas and foster the preservation of agriculture and open land outside of the village areas in its land use plan.

2. The Town will encourage a variety of living opportunities in different settings for its residents, including rural clusters, farms, and villages. The Town will continue to support the coexistence of both residential housing and farming. This is necessary for the future viability of farming in Charlotte.

3. The Town will encourage the distribution of residential growth to village areas and rural neighborhoods so that no one area of the Town gets overburdened with development to the detriment of groundwater supplies, town highways, significant natural features, town character, and quality of life.

4. Village areas will contain a mixture of uses and activities. The West Charlotte Village will continue be the Town center and will provide for public facilities such as the fire station, library, municipal buildings, post office, and recreational opportunities; commercial services for residents; and housing. The East Charlotte Village at Baptists Corners will provide housing, recreation services, and limited commercial uses for residents.

5. Non-agricultural commercial services will primarily be located within village areas. Locations for industrial development will primarily be provided adjacent to the West Charlotte Village area. Home occupations are enabled in the Town. Agriculturally related businesses may be allowed in conjunction with active farms.

6. Densities for development will depend on existing settlement patterns, distance to and availability of Town services, physical capability of the land for development, the presence of significant natural resources, the size of the parcel, and the need for affordable housing.

7. Outside the village areas, development will be subject to standards that will protect significant agricultural, natural and scenic resources, including locally-significant wildlife habitat and corridors, productive woodland, natural areas, aquifer protection areas and viewsheds. In order to meet Town standards for reduction of crowding, protection of large tracts of natural resources, such as agricultural land and wildlife habitat, and prevention of contamination of groundwater supplies, required open space in subdivisions may increase as the size of the parcel being subdivided increases.

8. All development will be required to meet local and State standards for water supply, sewage disposal, and drainage.

9. Areas that are suitable for public uses, including public buildings, recreation areas, green paths, and town roads will be identified and reserved through the use of the Official Map and through the subdivision regulations.

10. Lands utilized for recreation, scientific, education, or natural resource protection purposes will be placed in the Conservation District. Conservation district regulations should be amended to provide the opportunity to construct improvements for public benefit as a conditional use such as the parking lot at Mount Philo State Park. Conserved agricultural lands should remain in the Agricultural/Residential district.

11. Both named and unnamed streams, the lakeshore, and flood-prone areas are protected by mandatory stream bank setbacks for development, including the building of structures and on- site sewage disposal systems. Vegetation removal will be restricted in these setback areas.

12. The lands along Lake Champlain will be placed in a shoreland district which will have separate management areas for seasonal homes in Thompson's Point. In the seasonal home management areas, seasonal housing may be maintained, managed, and altered as appropriate given land capability and the scenic and historic character of the shoreline, but additional units will not be permitted in these areas due to fragile environmental conditions and lack of Town services.

13. Upon adoption of each capital budget and program, the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations will be amended as necessary to support this budget and program.

14. The Town supports improvements to the power grid to adequately support existing and planned future growth.

5.1.2 General Strategies

1. In addition to yearly taxes the Town faces major capital expenditures in the years ahead, especially if the schools require expansions. The importance of updating the capital budget and program will be critical to anticipating these costs. These capital costs could be burdensome for property owners to absorb in a short time span. Maintaining control of the Town's rate of growth is important. The number of units allowed annually should be dependent on the approved capital budget and program. Therefore, it is recommended that the Town establish an annual cap on building permits for residential units and mandatory phasing of subdivision lots based on the update of the capital budget and program and the yearly tax rate. The building cap should be implemented through regulatory procedures such as the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations within one year.

2. Zoning district boundaries will be defined in writing in the zoning regulations.

3. The Town will focus on making changes to its existing zoning ordinance with an effort to support a process for expeditious review of development plans that are consistent with the vision and goals of the Town Plan with the objective encouraging compact development.

4. The Town will explore including lands along Lake Champlain to be in a separate management area for seasonal homes in Cedar Beach, and the inhabited islands. The strategy in such a seasonal home management area, is to determine the needs of additional protections due to fragile environmental conditions and lack of Town services.

5.1.3 Land Use Policies and Strategies

The Town recognizes that there are areas of the Town with unique characteristics and opportunities and that each area requires special provisions for guiding development.

5.1.3.1 Village Areas Policies and Strategies

Village Areas - Policies

1. The Town will attempt to direct the majority of future growth into village areas and neighborhoods so as to reinforce the historic pattern of compact settlements surrounded by rural, open land. The West Charlotte and East Charlotte Villages will provide for housing, commercial services and public buildings and facilities. Policies directing additional growth into the existing village areas will not be implemented at the expense of the existing character, charm and livability in these areas.

2. The West Charlotte Village / Town Center area will be the primary growth center in Town, followed by East Charlotte Village.

3. All land development, including the conversion of existing structures to multiple units, will be required to meet applicable local and state standards for water supply, sewage disposal, parking, access, and landscaping applicable to the new use.

4. The preservation and reuse of existing buildings will be preferred and new buildings should fit in with the character of the existing villages, including scale and location of buildings.

5. Multiple units will be permitted in a structure, especially in existing structures or Planned Residential Developments, in village locations.

6. There should be no set minimum lot size within a PRD. The Planning Commission should consider the lot size to match the surrounding context and specific on-site conditions provided that open space is set aside to keep the overall density as determined by on-site septic capacity and the Master Plan.

7. Higher densities in village areas, village design guidelines, and expanded and effective techniques and regulations to preserve farms and open space will be established as a “package.” These three pieces of the package must function jointly to support the overall pattern and scale of development desired by residents and be reflective of the natural environmental conditions.

Village Areas - Strategies

1. Further increase in density in the village areas will only be permitted if effective ways for ensuring open land and farmland protection elsewhere in Town are instituted, such as Transfer of Development Rights or similar programs that would encourage development in village areas in lieu of rural areas should be explored. Within two years, The Town Planning Commission should actively research planning and zoning methods to accomplish these goals

2. The Town will sponsor a Town-wide groundwater and soils analysis, with a particular focus on the West Village Area, to identify significant natural resources for sewage disposal sites and water supply, and potential community sewage disposal and drinking water supply sites. The study will be conducted and completed as soon as possible. Several smaller neighborhoods could be identified where growth could be directed and clustered to help preserve open land. The Town should research and seek State Agency of Natural Resources, Municipal Planning Grant Program, and other grants to fund or offset funding of this study.

3. Any future land use regulations or other future plans applying to village areas will recognize the West Charlotte Village area and the East Charlotte Village area as distinct from each other.

4. The Planning Commission will prepare, with community and/or professional help as necessary, a Master Plan for the West Charlotte Village, including residential, commercial and industrial areas, to be completed by late in the year of 2003. The Master Plan will establish standards for development consistent with the historic development patterns and character of the area appropriate for a Town center that links commercial, public, and residential development. It will recognize the traditional settlement pattern of a single, main road developed with residences backing up to agricultural land. The Plan will help delineate the limits of the “West Village Area” and provide future design options to insure compatibility of new development with the existing character of the area. The development of the Master Plan will consider, among other things, the following important information provided by studies underway or recommended:

o Soils and groundwater study recommended to determine water sources and sewage capacity and locations of existing wells and septic systems with priority focus on the West Village, and study feasibility of community system(s);

o Map of Charlotte Wetlands Based on Interpretation of Aerial Photographs, and the associated data;

o Agricultural land use inventory;

o The critical wildlife habitat mapping project;

o Community facilities and services projected needs, including schools (capital planning program underway);

o Traffic counts and conditions on F-5, Greenbush Road, and Route 7, and parking constraints and opportunities for any expanded commercial development (recommended);

o Parts of research conducted for the proposal made in 1990 to implement Transfer of Development Rights program in Charlotte. (The program was not approved at the time, but important information about the Town was gathered and should be studied and considered again); and

o The West Village Master Plan will include study of and recommendations for changes, if appropriate, to lot sizes and dimensional requirements, transportation improvements, parking, land uses, the potential of a community center or gathering place, and design guidelines. The Town will research and seek grant funding from the Vermont Municipal Planning Grant Program and other sources to fund or offset funding of this study.

5. Dependent on the outcome of the West Charlotte Village Master Plan and additional studies of existing conditions and capacity of the East Charlotte Commercial district, the Town will amend the subdivision regulations to include the following standards for subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments:

o Promote a logical street network and connections between parcels; and

o Require the layout of streets within the village commercial mixed use districts to be in accordance with an Official Map or, until the map is adopted, to enable the continuation of streets and pedestrian ways.

6. If recommended in the Village Master Plan, minimum residential lot size and dimensional requirements will be reduced or eliminated in the West Charlotte Village Area to enable the type of development envisioned in this Town Plan. Variable lot sizes could be allowed depending on specific site conditions and context. The Master Plan for the West Charlotte Village area will be used as a guide for determining specific lot size and dimensional requirements.

7. The zoning district boundaries on the Zoning Map will be amended to implement the recommendations of this plan and those of the West Charlotte Village Master Plan.

8. The Town should consider establishing design guidelines, which will be advisory only, for the existing village areas in response to the Village Master Plan. The Design Guidelines will apply to site and building design and guide new development to protect the rural, historic character of the village areas. The Guidelines will allow for variability of designs and choices within the context of designs that are already there, and will be flexible but effective in preserving Charlotte's historic, rural character.

9. Special provisions in the zoning by-laws regulations regarding elderly housing will be expanded to enable the development of elderly low income and affordable housing at higher densities within the Village areas.

10. The locations for future public streets should be identified and located on an Official Map. The subdivision regulations should be modified as needed to adhere to the Official Map, to enable the continuation of streets and pedestrian ways within the villages, and to promote connections between parcels when appropriate.

5.1.3.2 Historic Districts and Historic Buildings - Strategies

Within two years, the Town will assemble an informational guideline for buildings and areas on the State of Vermont Division of Historic Preservation Historic Sites & Structures Survey, which will be advisory only, and will provide information to protect and enhance the historic character and resources of these buildings and areas (See Map 12).

5.1.3.3 Village Commercial / Mixed Use Areas – Policies and Strategies

Village Commercial / Mixed Use Areas - Policies

1. Policies for residential uses will also apply for such uses in the Commercial / Mixed Use portions of village areas.

2. Commercial uses will be located in designated commercial/mixed use areas within the villages; a mixture of residential and commercial uses will be allowed in these commercial areas.

3. Because the West Charlotte Village is the Town municipal center, it is important that new development located there provide for strong visual, vehicular, and pedestrian connections to the existing development.

4. Two limiting factors for new commercial development are sewage disposal and the traffic capacity of the existing roadways. In the West Charlotte Village area, the intersections of Route 7 and Ferry Road and Ferry Road and Greenbush Road are particularly important. Therefore, commercial development must not overburden either of these factors.

5. Under the Site Plan review process, the design of new commercial buildings shall be consistent with the shape, siting, and design of buildings of the existing village area within which they are to be located.

Village Commercial / Mixed Use Areas - Strategies

1. Commercial /mixed use areas will be located in the Villages of East and West Charlotte. It will be the purpose of these districts to offer residential uses and small scale retail, personal service and hospitality services. The West Charlotte commercial area will also provide office space, public buildings and public facilities.

2. The zoning bylaws will be amended as needed to foster the commercial/mixed use development envisioned in the West Charlotte Village Master Plan.

3. The Town will establish flexible yet effective design guidelines for the commercial /mixed use areas to protect the historic and rural character of these areas.

5.1.3.4 Industrial/Commercial – Policies and Strategies

Industrial/Commercial-Policies

1. The existing industrial district areas in the zoning bylaw are adequate to meet the Town's current needs. Furthermore, Charlotte’s commercial and industrial needs are primarily met by services provided in adjacent communities.

2. It is the purpose of these districts to offer sites for development of industries and commercial areas with small to medium sized workforces and low water use that are compatible and consistent with the Town Plan. The uses in these areas must fit within the limitations of the soils for on site sewage disposal, water availability, and the constraints on the highway network to accommodate increases in traffic. Non-polluting, low impact businesses are encouraged in these districts. Businesses should serve primarily local rather than regional needs.

3. The following criteria will be considered to determine the appropriateness of current or proposed industrial or commercial zoning districts: A. It meets need or desire by Town for industrial facilities or commercial services; B. It fits with the land use in the surrounding area; C. There is access to transportation; D. It avoids a congested area; E. It avoids a residential area; F. It avoids important scenic areas and viewsheds identified on maps in this plan; and G. It is contiguous with developed area.

Industrial/Commercial-Strategies

The Town will review current and proposed Commercial or Industrial Districts using the above criteria to consider the appropriateness of that zone. Existing or proposed districts which do not meet a majority of the criteria shall be rezoned or rejected.

5.1.3.5 Village Industrial / Mixed Use Areas – Policies and Strategies

Village Industrial / Mixed Use Areas - Policies

1. Under the Site Plan Review process, development in the Industrial / Mixed Use Districts created or located in the village areas will be subject to all design guidelines and other regulations applying to the village area.

2. The Town encourages development in the Industrial Mixed Use Areas in West Charlotte to provide for convenient pedestrian and bicycle access between the development site and the Commuter Rail Station, and between residential, industrial, and commercial uses and the Town Center.

Village Industrial / Mixed Use Areas - Strategies

1. The zoning bylaws will be amended as needed to foster the industrial/mixed use development envisioned in the West Charlotte Village Master Plan.

2. Land use around the new railroad station will be intensified to provide the opportunity for living and working within walking distance or close proximity to the commuter rail to minimize the overall level of vehicular traffic.

5.1.3.6 Rural Areas-Strategies

Research and explore the possibility of developing programs which would encourage conservation of rural areas.

5.2 HOUSING

5.2.1 General Housing - Policies

1. Residential densities will be determined on the basis of the needs of residents, physical site conditions, the existing pattern of development, the proximity of Town highways, the location of agricultural land and important environmental and natural resource areas, and the future pattern of development desired by Charlotte residents.

2. For elderly and affordable housing in the Village District and the Commercial District, a density bonus will be permitted in a PRD or PUD, provided the units are affordable and the number of bedrooms per unit is supported by the septic capabilities of the parcel or a village wastewater system.

3. Strict limitations on residential development outside the village areas will be placed on land containing prime or state wide agricultural soils or with significant environmental or natural resource value, severe physical limitations for development, or in flood hazard areas.

4. Subdivisions, which through cluster housing designs economize on roads, utilities, and services, and protect scenic beauty, agricultural lands, and natural resource areas, will be strongly encouraged during the development review process, and in most instances, required in a form and character suitable to the rural character of the Town.

5.2.2 General Housing - Strategies

1. The Zoning and Subdivision Bylaws should be amended to more clearly foster the creation of PRDs and cluster housing designs and explore a program to separate development rights or credits from density or other programs that meet the general housing policies.

2. The Town will promote the preservation and maintenance of its housing stock in a safe and sanitary condition.

5.2.3 Specific Housing Policies and Strategies

Elderly and Affordable Housing - Policies

1. The Town recognizes the need for safe, sanitary, and affordable family and elderly housing in locations convenient to services and will seek solutions to address this need. Opportunities for elderly and affordable family housing promote the Town's goal of maintaining economic and social diversity in Charlotte. These solutions should be designed to provide units that are perpetually affordable for occupants.

2. Sites for elderly and affordable family housing shall be consistent with the Town land use plan. Such sites should be primarily in village areas where moderate density housing is envisioned that is convenient to municipal, commercial, and transportation services. Affordable and elderly housing may also be enabled in rural settings in PRDs or PUDs; such designs will be required for major subdivisions.

Elderly and Affordable Housing - Strategies

1. The Selectboard will appoint a standing Affordable/Elderly Housing Committee to work on the issues of affordable family and elderly housing and to assist in carrying out these strategies. Specifically, this committee's responsibilities will include, (but not be limited to):

o Conducting a needs analysis on the type and amount of affordable elderly and family housing that is needed in Charlotte to meet the requirements of the Town, and to determine and provide its fair share of the regional housing need in conjunction with the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. The committee should utilize existing information, for example the study completed in 1991 entitled “Affordable Housing in Charlotte, Vermont” by the then Affordable Housing Committee and Michael Munson.

o Seeking planning and implementation grants from appropriate sources to assist with defining the Town's needs and refining the mechanisms for providing affordable family and elderly housing.

o Actively pursuing the creation of affordable house lots, and affordable family and elderly housing through cooperation with groups such as the Charlotte Land Trust and the Burlington Community Land Trust, and with financial, development, and managerial assistance from the Vermont Housing and Conservation Trust Fund, the Lake Champlain Housing Development Corporation, Housing Vermont and other sources. This strategy will be pursued within the next three years. The development of mixed income projects is encouraged.

o Assigning a committee member to be a liaison with a regional housing organization to assist in providing rural and village affordable house lots and units.

o Researching and pursuing grant and loan programs available for development of affordable housing such as Farmers Home Administration "515" rental or coop subsidy, or through the assistance of Housing Vermont, Inc., Neighborworks, the Vermont Housing and Conservation Trust Fund, and Habitat for Humanity and others.

2. The Town will amend the Zoning Regulations to enable the conversion of existing structures in the village areas to apartment units to help preserve some of the older, large homes and barns in our villages areas, contribute to a village environment, and meet a housing need. Such conversions, however, will not diminish the historical value of the building or surrounding property. The Zoning regulations will be amended to also allow the conversion of structures to include up to 6 units within an existing structure as a PRD.

3. The 1995 Town Plan stated that "Should the density bonus provision fail to produce adequate new affordable housing in the Town within three years, the Town should consider inclusionary zoning and/or subdivision provisions." The existing 25% density bonus has minimally produced affordable housing in Town in the last five years. Since it has had minimal success, the density bonus should be increased or the Town should consider inclusionary zoning, tax abatement programs for affordable housing development, or other tools recommended by the Housing Committee.

4. The Town will use the following technique(s) and amend the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations to make more affordable housing available:

Density bonus: A priority need is to find land at a price that is suitable for affordable housing in Charlotte. The Zoning Regulations will be amended to allow for an increased density bonus for affordable housing [***Section 5.14 of Zoning Regs.***]. In Planned Residential/Unit Developments, calculations of a 50% density increase for perpetually affordable housing will be allowed and shall be based on whole numbers only. For example:

o 4 to 7 affordable dwelling units = 2 additional market rate dwelling units and

o 8 to 11 affordable dwelling units = 4 additional market rate dwelling units

The bonus lots or units will have to meet all Town and State standards including the protection of significant natural resources and no adverse impact on the character of the area or community facilities and services. Developers will be asked to bargain sale or donate to the Town or a non-profit housing organization the affordable lots or units. Mechanisms will be put in place to retain long-term affordability.

5. The Town strongly encourages development of affordable lots to be included within the moderate density village areas; it is recommended that for market-rate subdivisions outside the village areas, the Planning Commission should be allowed to consider the provision of off-site affordable lots or units for density bonus calculations.

6. It is recommended that the Selectboard waive permit fees for affordable housing lots or units.

7. Based on the outcome of the West Village Master Plan, minimum lot sizes and dimensional requirements for standard subdivisions in the village areas may be decreased or eliminated in order to provide more opportunities for affordable residential lots in Charlotte.

5.3 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

5.3.1 General Policies

Home businesses are encouraged. Industrial development that offers quality employment, is non-polluting, small in scale, and has low demands for water and sewer usage will be encouraged to locate in existing industrial areas.

5.3.2 General Strategies

1. Essential commercial services which meet Charlotte's residents such as a small grocery store, hardware store, pharmacy, and/or cafe/restaurant will be encouraged to locate within the existing village areas with a particular emphasis on the West Village/ Town Center area. The commercial uses within these areas will be small in scale and designed in a way that is compatible with existing village historic and rural character.

2. The Town should investigate its current zoning to determine if changes need to be made to its structure of "home occupations" with the goal of promoting these types of businesses while at the same time preventing disruption to residential neighborhoods.

3. The production, processing, and marketing of food and fiber and other natural resources and agricultural products will be promoted as important industries in the Town. The local farmers' market should be expanded within the next two years to help create a market for these products.

4. Allowed uses in the Commercial and Industrial Districts will be reviewed.

5. Town regulations will ensure quality in site planning and design of commercial and industrial facilities through the establishment of Design Review standards for the Commercial and Village Districts.

6. Town regulations will be amended to include a written definition of Commercial and Village zoning districts.

7. A Charlotte Business or Economic Development Committee will be established within one year by the Selectboard. Their roles and responsibilities will include: 1) Identifying appropriate types of employers and businesses for the Town; 2) Working with existing businesses that may need to expand and/or diversify; 3) Helping retain and increase opportunities for local employment that maintain and enhance the historic, small scale, rural character of Charlotte; 4) Providing technical assistance and advocacy for businesses (meeting guidelines in #3) through the permit process; 5) Establishing an Economic Resource guide or Business Directory to support networking and marketing of local businesses including home occupations; and, 6) Research the appropriateness of the locations of the current commercial/industrial zoned districts.

8. The Town will study the area around the Commuter Rail station to identify economic opportunities for the existing commercial and industrial properties that could be enhanced by the existence of the station and potential increased ridership of the commuter rail. This strategy could reduce commuter automobile traffic overall and help to achieve the goal of focusing future growth in village centers.

9. Town regulations will be amended to allow farm related businesses to be located on farm properties as conditional uses.

10. Within the next two years, the Town will conduct a groundwater and wastewater capacity study for the Village Residential and Commercial Districts and analyze the need for and feasibility of a local community water and wastewater system to serve these areas. If feasible, a community system would allow for greater densities in the Village areas and help to achieve the Town's goal of focusing growth in existing compact settlements

11. The Town will research the State Economic Progress Council's Economic Incentives package for small businesses, which was a response to Act 60, in order to determine how businesses in the Town may benefit.

5.4 AGRICULTURE

5.4.1 General Policies

1. The Town will seek to conserve the Town's agricultural soils for agricultural use in the following priorities:

a. In high potential agricultural soil areas, priority will be given to conserving the land for agricultural use;

b. In medium potential agricultural soil areas, where land and is used primarily for grazing and extensive forage production, .this land will be conserved where possible;

c. In low potential agricultural soil areas, where land improvements have been made and/or support existing agricultural operations, this land will be conserved where possible.

2. Long term restrictions to conserve and manage designated agricultural lands will be used for farmers voluntarily seeking this option. Co-holding of restrictions with non-profit organizations whose purpose is to protect farmland will be implemented wherever possible to ensure the restrictions are enforced over time.

3. The community understands the importance of agriculture to the Town and recognizes that agricultural practices may create conditions, including noise and odors, that can impact their desired lifestyle. Neighbors will try to resolve any problems among themselves; however, it is understood that reasonable agricultural practices, which are defined by State policy, are necessary for viable farming operations and contribute to a working landscape and community pride.

4. Land development or subdivisions on farms shall use the minimum amount of land possible for development purposes. In major subdivisions, land set aside for agricultural use shall be subject to conservation restrictions held by the municipality, State of Vermont, and/or qualified, non-profit organization. Co-holding of restrictions will be pursued wherever possible. Such easements or agreements shall specify the allowable uses of the restricted property, control further land subdivision, control the type and placement of structures and the location of roads, and achieve the maintenance of the restricted property as a viable agricultural unit. The restricted farmland may be held in common or individually as long as the goal of farmland preservation is met.

5. Where residential subdivisions and PRD's are proposed adjacent to farm operations or farm districts, setbacks of up to 200 feet may be required from the lot lines next to cropland for wells and residences under the subdivision regulations. Buffers between residences and cropland, including roads and pasture land, may be required. This requirement is designed to minimize conflicts between farm operations and residential uses.

6. Diverse agricultural enterprises, including dairying, hay production, livestock production, produce stands, and specialty farms such as wildflowers, nurseries, berries, orchards, and produce, will be encouraged.

5.4.2 General Strategies

1. The Town will assist in making connections between outside resources such as the Extension Service and the State Department of Agriculture, Food and Markets to help provide maximum market information to farmers.

2. The continuation and use of existing programs that foster conservation and good management of agricultural lands will be encouraged.

3. The Charlotte Land Trust and other similar bodies will be supported in their efforts to provide technical assistance to develop land use plans for farm properties and to negotiate private, voluntary agreements for the protection and management of designated agricultural and natural resource lands.

4. The creation of a local fund or incentives will be explored to assist farmers or other large property owners prepare master plans or land use plans to provide an incentive for property owners to prepare thoughtful subdivision designs which maximize the protection of the natural resources and other special features of the property and advance other Town goals.

5. Seasonal farm stands selling produce grown on the owner's farm will be enabled as a Permitted Use in the Rural District, except on Route 7 which will be enabled as a Conditional Use. Conditional use standards for Route 7 shall include traffic safety considerations. The greater restriction on the farm stands on Route 7 is designed to control commercial-types of development in keeping with overall policies for land use in the Town. Farm stands and farm markets will be a permitted use in the commercial districts.

6. The Zoning Bylaws will be amended to include farm related owner-operated businesses on farm property including but not limited to direct-marketing, value added products such as cheese, farm equipment and supply operations, agricultural cooperatives, nurseries, and fence businesses, as conditional uses in the Rural District with consideration of the scale of the operation and the impact on the community.

7. The feasibility of the expansion of the local Farmers' Market within the next two years will be examined.

8. New residents and potential new residents should be alerted to the importance of agriculture to the Town and should also recognize that agricultural practices may create conditions, including noise and odors, that can impact their desired lifestyle.

5.4.3 Specific Agricultural Strategies

5.4.3.1 Agricultural Planning Areas-Strategies

Within the next two years the Town will pursue techniques that will implement the objectives of the Agricultural Planning Areas. Examples of techniques that may be appropriate are the purchase or donation of conservation easements, tax abatement, and through the subdivision or zoning regulations. Non-regulatory techniques should also be pursued in order to assist the landowners with implementing each area's objectives, which are listed below.

Area A-West Charlotte

The objective for this area is to retain the dairy operation base while encouraging diversification into orchards, berries, vegetables, and animals, and retaining open fields for agricultural use.

Area B-North Route 7 Corridor

The objective for this area is to maintain the scenic characteristic while promoting agricultural use. Possible techniques for this area include: establishing a setback where no further buildings except farm buildings are allowed; siting buildings below the ridgeline; retaining contiguous farm parcels along Route 7; and continuing the traffic management provisions in effect.

Area C-Central Charlotte

The objectives for this area are to retain this as a contiguous farm district to provide a “critical mass” of agricultural operations in the Town, and to protect the area's scenic beauty.

Area D-East Charlotte

The management objectives for this area are to protect the wildlife habitat and preserve the open fields for agricultural uses.

5.4.3.2 Tax Abatement Program - Strategies

1. The Town will work to reduce the property tax burdens for active farms.

2. Within two years, the Town Selectboard will undertake an examination of a new tax abatement program, establish a policy for tax abatement or tax exemption on farmland, farm buildings, conservation land, and other open land.

5.4.3.2 Land Trusts - Strategies

The Town will continue to support the land trusts in their efforts to protect farmland and to make affordable farmland available to farmers. In particular, the Town encourages the Charlotte Land Trust to:

o Provide technical assistance to farmers and other large property owners to maximize the preservation of farmland, natural resources and rural character;

o Promote coordination with the Town through public involvement in the Land Trust; and

o Assist farmers in planning for the disposition of their property in accordance with the Town Plan by helping farmers and other large property owners to prepare master plans for their properties to maximize farmland and natural resource protection.

5.4.3.4 Rural Areas - Strategies

1. Explore amending the zoning regulations to allow programs which conserve and/or preserve open lands, for example, TDR’s, purchase of development rights, non-contiguous PRD’s, and others.

2. Amend the subdivision regulations to establish standards for the location of lots or building areas; include requirement for use of building envelopes, and provisions for open space on the property outside the building envelope.

5.5 NATURAL RESOURCES

5.5.1 General Policies

1. Development shall be limited in those areas of Town in which there are areas of high natural resource value.

2. Buffer zones will be required around key natural resource areas to limit potentially damaging encroachment [Section 5.12 of Zoning By-Laws].

3. The Town highly values and strives to protect its natural resources.

4. The Town will protect surface and ground water quality through the enforcement of the Sewage Ordinance and other means available to the Town.

5. The Town will work with town, county, state and federal agencies and citizen organizations to monitor and restore water quality in the town.

5.5.2 General Strategies

1. Place wetlands and lands that are identified for natural resource protection in the Conservation District.

2. Retain the current flood hazard area designations and regulations protecting them.

3. Promote a variety of techniques, including conservation easements, purchase, lease, and tax incentives, to restore, protect and preserve natural resources. The Charlotte Conservation Commission, the other boards and commissions in the Town, the Charlotte Land Trust, The Lewis Creek Association, property owners and other similar groups will work together to find techniques that meet the goal of resource protection and conservation.

4 Continue $.02 of tax rate for the Conservation Fund which is used for purchasing land and/or development rights.

5. Support the Charlotte Conservation Commission to maintain an inventory of the Town's natural resources, help arrange donations of gifts of land to the Town or other appropriate not-for profit organizations for conservation purposes, assist the Planning Commission on natural resource issues and development reviews, encourage enrollment of important properties in the state's Use Value Taxation Program, and promote public understanding of local natural resources.

6. Coordinate with the Charlotte Land Trust, the Lake Champlain Land Trust, the Vermont Land Trust, the Nature Conservancy, and other similar groups seeking restoration and protection of significant natural resources through private, voluntary approaches.

7. Map seasonal streams in the Town to increase the overall understanding of the hydrological system in the Town.

8. Maintain, update, and refine the information on natural resources on the Geographic Information System maps and databases prepared for the Town at the University of Vermont, Chittenden County Regional Planning, and elsewhere.

9. Request that the Vermont Natural Heritage Program identify natural resources of statewide importance in accordance with the provisions of State statute.

10. Work to implement, in conjunction with the Conservation Commission and the Recreation Committee, the Trails Plan which connects cultural and recreational areas while protecting natural resources in the Town.

11. With input from the Recreation Committee, the Conservation Commission, Charlotte Land Trust, the public and entities capable of assisting in these goals, prepare within two years a Town-wide open space plan showing those areas of the Town which should remain open due to their high public value. The open space plan may include farmland, important natural areas and specific natural resources, waterways, water-bodies, shoreland, forests, meadows, recreation areas and other important features and will seek to prioritize these. The open space plan reflects the Town’s commitment to areas with high public value, and provides a guide for local and regional land use decisions as well as conservation planning and initiatives.

12. The Town will explore and seek to educate and assist residents about biodiversity and ways to conserve and enhance the diversification of plant and animal wildlife throughout the Town.

5.5.3 Specific Natural Resources Policies and Strategies

Conservation District - Policies

1. While the Conservation District is recognized as having important conservation values to be protected, certain existing or future public-recreation uses may be recognized as appropriate in the district. Therefore, public recreation uses may be allowed in the Conservation District as conditional uses, and the conditional use standards will enable such uses to occur only if compatible with the conservation values of the particular parcel.

2. Proposed uses in the Conservation District shall be referred to the Town Conservation Commission for review.

Conservation District - Strategies

A long range plan will be developed for the use of the Town-owned land on Thompson's Point that is in the Conservation District.

5.6 SPECIAL FEATURES

5.6.1 General Policies

1. The Town will promote opportunities for the public to enjoy views and vistas identified in the Town Plan through zoning and subdivision regulations.

2. The Town's covered bridges are a significant part of the character of the community and its heritage. The Town will maintain its covered bridges as transportation facilities and will seek to protect these bridges from destruction or excessive or incompatible use.

3. Geological sites, natural areas, meadows and pastures identified as special features shall be protected through PRD clustering or other appropriate measures.

4. The visual quality of the Charlotte night-sky shall be considered in reviewing development proposals.

5. The Town shall maintain the standards in the subdivision regulations that reference and provide protection of significant views and vistas, meadows and pastures outside the agricultural districts, geological sites, and natural areas.

5.6.2 General Strategies

1. Develop guidelines for maintaining the character of the historic districts and the protection of significant historic landmarks.

2. Explore the feasibility of establishing a scenic overlay district with criteria for protection of the viewsheds (as are shown on the map entitled “Roads with High Scenic and Conservation Values”).

3. Request State assistance with an inventory of historic barns and farm building clusters; promote voluntary nomination of these structures to the State Register of Historic Places as appropriate; promote nomination of the East and West Village State Historic Districts to the National Register of Historic Places. Request assistance from the Charlotte Historical Society on this project.

4. Work with the Agency of Transportation on its bridge repair program to seek the best measures to protect the covered bridges in the Town while maintaining their current use.

5. Include lighting standards in updated zoning and subdivision bylaws to ensure that outdoor lighting is designed and installed only as needed and in a manner that minimizes glare and light pollution and impacts on adjacent properties. The Chittenden County Outdoor Lighting Guide shall be used as a model.

5.7 THE LAKE AND ITS SHORELINE

5.7.1 General Policies

1. The diversity and unique characteristics of the Lake Champlain shoreline will be considered and protected through the proposed use and management of the land and waters of this area.

2. The direct discharge of materials and wastewater to the lake and its tributaries will not be allowed; indirect discharges will be minimized.

3. Public access to the shoreline and waters of Lake Champlain will be expanded in the Town.

4. The Town will insure that the camps on Thompson's Point that are not now connected to the sewage disposal system (camps on lots #201 through #208 on Lanes Lane and #24 and #27), will be connected within five years.

5. Continue existing controls on commercial development relating to near shore facilities such as boat yards, boat maintenance, and ferry service. Controls are needed to maintain environmental quality and scenic beauty.

6. Emergent vegetation in shoreline wetland areas, as delineated in the field, shall only be cut upon State conditional use approval, or in accordance with State regulations or policies.

5.7.2 General Strategies

1. Zoning regulations should emphasize native plantings to preserve vegetated cover along the shore to minimize visual impact and minimize erosion. Advisory design standards will be established to encourage human structures to blend into the natural landscape, including buildings and facilities within or adjacent to the Shoreland District and visible from the lake.

2. The Town will create a committee to monitor the use of the waters of Lake Champlain for boat docking and mooring facilities to minimize congestion and conflicts with commercial traffic, to protect scenic beauty and recreational enjoyment of these waters, and to provide for the needs of boaters. The Town may control docking and mooring facilities if determined necessary.

3. Encourage shoreline stabilization methods which can be vegetated and/or blend in with the natural surroundings in areas of highly erodent soils.

4. An updated inventory of shoreline conditions will be conducted in the next three years to help identify problem areas and prioritize areas in need of further protection measures.

5.7.3 Specific Lake and Shoreline Policies and Strategies

5.7.3.1 Shoreland District – Policies and Strategies

Shoreland District - Policies

1. The existing Shoreland District covers all land within 1,000 feet of the low water mark of Lake Champlain except the portion of the town-owned land on Thompson's Point that is not leased for seasonal camps and is within the Conservation District.

2. The Shoreland District protects the scenic beauty, environmental quality, and recreational opportunity of the lake and its shoreline.

Shoreland District - Strategies

Revisions to the Shoreland District are needed to improve existing standards, to protect wetland areas, and to cover the unique situations at Thompson's Point and Cedar Beach. Specifically, the following amendments should be made to the zoning bylaws:

o Change the definition of a marina to include more than three dock slips or moorings.

o Change the wetlands definition in the zoning bylaws for wetlands along the shoreline to match the definition in the State Wetland Rules for Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs (State Rules Section 3.2, b, (1)). "b. Wetlands/Deepwater Habitat Boundary Criteria....Wetlands shall be distinguished from deepwater habitat by the following criteria: (1) Lakes, Ponds and Reservoirs: When adjacent to any lake, pond or reservoir that is a public water, a wetland's boundary shall extend to the maximum extent of a prevalence of surface, emergent, or woody wetland vegetation at any time during the growing season. For all other lakes, ponds, or reservoirs, a wetland boundary shall extend to a depth of two meters.”

o Allow for removal of purple loosestrife, water chestnuts and Eurasian Watermilfoil which are considered non-native nuisance plants along the shoreline and in shoreline wetland areas [Current Zoning Bylaws, Section 4.5, E, #5 last sentence].

o Establish standards to protect emergent vegetation within 200 feet of the normal mean water mark in the Shoreland District.

5.7.3.2 Access - Strategies

1. The Cedar Beach Association should work with Charlotte Fire and Rescue to determine whether the Cedar Beach Dock is suitable for fire access to retrieve water from the lake for pumper trucks.

2. Within the next five years work on public access improvements to Whiskey Bay, Lane's Lane, and Thompson's Point Dock.

3. Zoning Regulations will be reviewed regarding dock construction in wetlands (Section 4.6, E) along the lakeshore. These regulations should reflect the State regulations for construction in wetlands.

4. Within the next five years, the Town will work to develop limited parking for Charlotte residents to access the public boat launch at McNeil Cove.

5. Shoreline erosion at the town beach will be monitored regularly and control measures will be implemented as needed.

5.7.3.3 Mooring Management - Strategies

1. Types of public boating interests and activities continue to change. The Board of Selectmen will monitor the possible future need to establish Mooring Management Areas for the Lake Champlain shoreline. If the Town determines that it is necessary to control these mooring areas, the Town will apply to the Water Resources Board to delegate authority to the Town to manage these areas through a mooring management ordinance in accordance with 24 V.S.A. Chapter 59.

2. Areas requiring special attention include:

o McNeil Cove

o Converse Bay, North and South coves

o Caretaker Access area, Thompson's Point

o Point Bay Marina area, Thompson's Point

5.7.3.4 Water Quality – Policies and Strategies

Water Quality - Policies

The Town will continue to sample shoreline sites for evidence of sewage contamination, identify pollutant sources, and require corrective action by owners. Runoff will be monitored and controlled in accordance with State policies and regulations. The Town will request assistance of the State of Vermont on this issue.

Water Quality – Strategies

The Town will work with The State of Vermont, Lewis Creek Association, other citizen organizations, and other entities capable of assisting to monitor and restore water quality throughout the Town.

5.8 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES

5.8.1 General Policies

1. The Town will provide adequate public facilities and services in accordance with the Town capital budget and program. In general, the growth of the Town should not be allowed to exceed the Town's fiscal capacity as defined by the capital budget and program.

2. Adequate facilities and services to accommodate new development must be in place in order for development to be approved or used.

3. The Town will permit the development and use of community water supply and sewage disposal systems in the villages and on parcels of land which are being developed in a manner that achieves specific goals of the Town, such as growth in village centers and farmland or wildlife habitat protection. All systems shall be developed in accordance with State and local regulations and with adequate surety for private systems to protect the Town from having to assume and maintain such systems.

4. The Town will not develop a Town-wide municipal water supply or sewage disposal system nor will it permit the extension of water lines from the Champlain Water District within its boundaries at this time. The Town will perform a village groundwater study analyzing existing water and wastewater conditions and future capacity.

5. All Town facilities and services will meet State and local environmental and land use policies and standards and will be sited and designed to harmonize with the historic quality and pattern of development in the Town.

6. As the capital budget and program is updated and reviewed, the Town will continue to determine whether an impact fee ordinance would benefit the Town.

5.8.2 General Strategies

1. Based on the outcome of the groundwater/soils analysis study, and in consideration of the Town's goal of compact settlement in the village areas, the Town will analyze the feasibility of a municipal water and wastewater system limited to serving designated growth areas, such as the West Charlotte Village/Town Center. If constructed, the systems will correct existing failed systems and provide capacity for higher density in new and existing village areas. The advantage of the Town's rather than a private developer's, constructing this type of system is that a local government entity has access to 0% or low interest loans from the State Agency of Natural Resources Safe Drinking Water Act Revolving Loan Fund to construct such a facility. In addition, the Town can maintain the system on a regular basis.

2. The Town must establish a strategy to be more proactive to avoid future liability for private community wastewater systems. If a community system is approved by the Town, private homeowner's association covenants or regulations must be in place to ensure water quality testing and septic tank pumping. Each homeowner's association must be required to annually provide the Town with a professional's report ensuring the system is functioning properly. The Town must support staff to perform regular enforcement of these regulations to ensure that systems are not failing and polluting groundwater sources.

5.8.3 Specific Community Facilities and Services Policies and Strategies

“Burns Property” Community Planning Process-Strategies

Begin planning process to examine how the Burns property can best be utilized to support the goals of this Plan including municipal infrastructure, recreation, trails, affordable and elderly housing, conservation, and other identified community goals.

Schools - Strategies

1. The potential increase in student enrollment above the school capacity will be monitored by the Supervisory District and the CCS and CVU Boards. The School Boards will participate in the capital budgeting of the Town to program any necessary capital expenditures in coordination with other Town needs.

2. The School Board and District will assist in the determination of any impact fees for schools that are determined to be needed as a result of the capital program.

3. The Town will assist the School Board to minimize adverse impacts to existing facilities and to plan to meet future needs. As part of the public planning process for the Burns property, future school needs should be considered.

5.8.4 Public Safety – Policy and Strategies

Public Safety - Policy

The Town will continue to support the Charlotte Volunteer Fire Department and Rescue Squad. Further major capital improvements for these departments will be programmed through the Town capital budget and program.

Public Safety - Strategies

1. The Town will sponsor a traffic study for the purpose of establishing a speed limit ordinance. If a speed limit ordinance is adopted, speed limits will be posted and the Town will arrange with the State police for their enforcement.

2. Over the next three years, the Town will study the need for a Fire-Rescue sub-station for the east side of Town, and shall investigate the acquisition of property for this purpose.

3. Over the next five years, the Town will revise roadway standards into a more uniform regulation ensuring public safety vehicle access, yet allowing for some flexibility and considering impacts on community character and environmental features.

4. Over the next five years, the Town, with the assistance of the Charlotte Fire & Rescue Services, will investigate, study and determine if the zoning and/or subdivision ordinance needs to be amended to provide for the adoption of the NFPA Fire Codes, in particular with a focus on sprinkler systems for new development in the town.

5. The Town will seek to have all railroad crossings throughout the town gated, and with bicycle safe surfaces over the tracks to ensure traffic, pedestrian and bicycle safety.

6. The Town will explore strategies for adding fire ponds strategically located to assist in fire protection.

5.8.5 Solid Waste Disposal – Policies and Strategies

Solid Waste Disposal - Policies

1. The Town will continue to participate in the Chittenden Solid Waste District (CSWD). Charlotte expects the CSWD will bring on-line a regional landfill to accommodate the solid waste disposal needs of the Town.

2. The Town will endeavor to continue implementing the Vermont Solid Waste Bill--Act 78, through recycling, re-using, reducing, and through other initiatives put forth by the Bill and its amendment.

Solid Waste Disposal - Strategies

The Selectboard will continue to review recommendations considering special features of the closed Town landfill off Carpenter Road prior to disposing of all or part of the site for any private purpose; key among these considerations will be: archaeological sites, rare plants, its location on the LaPlatte River, and its recreation value.

5.8.6 General Government – Policy and Strategies

General Government - Policy

The Town will remain primarily as a volunteer form of government.

General Government - Strategies

1. The Town will retain the position of the assistant to the Selectboard, and explore the need to expand the position to full-time.

2. The Town will explore creating a Town Highway Department within the next three years.

3. The Town will research the need for hiring a Town Administrator or Town manager in the next three years.

5.8.7 Culture and Recreation – Policies and Strategies

Culture and Recreation - Policies

1. Paths shall only be required to be donated to the Town by developers during the subdivision process if the need has been identified in the Trails Plan as ratified by the Selectboard. Sites for recreation and shoreline access shall be encouraged and explored.

2. Green path corridors approved by the Planning Commission and Selectboard shall be implemented through negotiation with landowners and through the donation of easements during the subdivision process.

3. Trails should, when possible, follow and incorporate natural features in their design.

Culture and Recreation - Strategies

1. The Town will continue to investigate and determine whether an impact fee ordinance should be adopted which would include a recreation fee. Upon adoption of an impact fee ordinance, all developers shall be required to contribute to a recreation fund.

2. The Town should continue to celebrate its diversity and volunteerism at events such as tours of historically or environmentally significant properties, farm tours, library events, the Town Party, the Chicken Pie Supper, and other activities of the Town's many committees.

5.8.8 Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Systems – Policies and Strategies

Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Systems - Policies

1. All subdivisions will be required to demonstrate there will be an adequate supply of potable water to serve their developments without adverse impact on existing water supplies or on a neighboring property’s land use. Provisions will be made by the subdividers to share identified water sources among lot owners, where applicable.

2. Outside the villages, private community water and sewage disposal systems will be permitted only on those parcels proposed for subdivision or development where a specific Town land conservation objective, such as protection of farmland or wildlife habitat, is served.

3. Long term provisions for maintenance of community systems by the homeowners, such as homeowners covenants, must be approved by the Town. Land permits for the parcels will set forth the terms of maintenance. The Town will require the filing of an annual service contract for community systems and an annual inspection report from a professional engineer ensuring that they are functioning properly. The Town will continue its policy of not taking over responsibility for community systems.

4. Crossing of town roads with private force mains or other water or sewer utility lines shall not be permitted except to provide sewage disposal for existing failed systems for which no other feasible alternatives are available. In general private utility lines shall not be permitted in town road rights-of-way. Appropriate bylaws and/or ordinances shall be amended as such.

5. The length and grade of force mains or other utility lines will be restricted according to the Town's septic consultant's recommendations.

6. To protect community water supplies, land development shall be restricted within the aquifer protection areas.

7. The Town supports water conservation.

8. The Town will explore strategies, including the use of reservoirs and water conservation techniques to maintain adequate supplies of water.

Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Systems - Strategies

1. A Town-wide study of groundwater and surface water will be undertaken to determine the availability of running water, potable water and wastewater capacity for existing and projected development in Town with a particular priority in the Villages. Should there be insufficient water and wastewater capacity for the projected development, the Town will consider alternatives to the groundwater sources, including limits on development and off-site community water and wastewater systems. It is recommended that the Town not consider off-site, municipally-owned community water and wastewater systems to serve any areas other than the two existing villages.

2. The Town will support sufficient staff to perform regular enforcement of Town regulations to ensure that community systems are not failing and polluting groundwater sources.

3. The Town will investigate the implementation of town enforcement standards for the creation, maintenance and repair of fire protection ponds and dry hydrants.

4. The Town will investigate issues pertaining to well head setback requirements.

5. The Town will research and analyze the proposed/revised/amended On-Site Wastewater and Water Supply Rules promulgated by the State of Vermont, Agency of Natural Resources, and determine if any changes are needed to the town's regulations.

5.8.9 Private Roads – Policy and Strategies

Private Roads -Policy

The Town will continue its policy to keep development roads private.

Private Roads -Strategies

1. The Town should collect annual reports from homeowner's association showing that adequate road maintenance has been completed.

2. The Town will establish within the next two years a long term policy to ensure that privately developed roads are properly maintained.

3. The adopted Road Specifications in the Recommended Standards for Developments and Homes should be used in the subdivision process, but should be adjusted into a more uniform regulation allowing some flexibility.

4. The current town policy of keeping development roads private needs to be reevaluated in the village areas, where an interconnected road network is especially desired. This policy evaluation should be included in the Village Master Plan.

5.8.10 Towers and Telecommunications Facilities – Policies and Strategies

Towers and Telecommunications Facilities - Policies

The Town will study the health effects of radio frequency radiation (RFR) and radio frequency interference (RFI) from existing and future telecommunications facilities and will consider the regulation and control of RFR and RFI if federal law clearly allows such regulations.

Towers and Telecommunications Facilities - Strategies

1. Before the interim bylaws on towers and telecommunications facilities expire, an expanded and permanent bylaw will be adopted that considers regulations regarding RFR & RFI, as allowed by federal law, to supercede the interim bylaws.

2. The Town will consider hiring staff to enforce this and all regulations in a consistent and studied manner.

3. Town will seek, as funds allow, the assistance of attorneys expert in researching these complex issues and writing any regulation that will apply to telecommunication facilities.

5.8.11 Cost of Government – Policies and Strategies

Cost of Government - Policies

The Town will seek to maintain an even and steady rate of growth of the effective tax rate (adjusted for reappraisal) which is consistent with the past and generally reflects the current rate of inflation over the next five years.

Cost of Government - Strategies

The Selectboard will update the capital budget and program on a yearly basis. The program sets forth the capital expenditures the Town intends to make to accommodate the projected population growth of the Town. Development may be “phased in” in accordance with the capital program except for units or lots providing perpetually affordable housing which will be exempt from this requirement.

5.8.12 Utility Distribution – Policies and Strategies

Utility Distribution - Policies

1. New or replacement electrical, telephone, cable and other utility lines, are encouraged to be located underground. In particular, the Town seeks to protect public roads with high scenic value by placing utility transmission lines underground. Placing transmission lines underground reduces their negative impacts to the landscape and potentially reduces long term maintenance costs.

2. The Town supports co-location of utility lines in existing rights of way in order to reduce impacts to scenery. New utility transmission line infrastructure should be located within existing rights of way unless the greater public good is better served by placing them elsewhere.

3. The Town will continue to require underground utility lines within subdivisions as a condition of approval.

Utility Distribution - Strategies

The Town will explore ways to encourage underground placement of utility transmission lines, including, installation of empty conduit during road construction and re-construction projects.

5.9 TRANSPORTATION

5.9.1 General Policies

1. The function of Route 7 as the main north-south corridor in the Town and a regional arterial highway should be protected through the limitation of access points and the control of land use along the highway. The Route 7 corridor shall be protected as a scenic travel corridor.

2. Improvements to Route 7 will occur within the existing right of way. Expansion of the highway to increase its capacity by the addition of new lanes shall only occur when the need has been clearly demonstrated, when all reasonable alternatives have been carefully examined, and when such improvements have been prepared within the context of the Chittenden County Long Range Transportation Plan for the Route 7 Corridor. Any improvements to the corridor shall make provisions to enable safe bicycle and pedestrian travel and crossings.

3. Improvements to Route 7 shall not adversely affect agricultural lands. Historic structures within or along the right of way shall be protected.

4. Alternative regional arterial highways will not be considered within Town boundaries due to the potential for adverse impacts on agricultural lands and important environmental and natural resources and Town character and the disruption to existing land use patterns.

5. Town highways will be upgraded according to the Town capital budget and program. Improvements to Town highways required by new development and not programmed by the Town will be the responsibility of developers.

6. Improvements to the intersection of Route 7 and F-5 are the responsibility of the State of Vermont. Though major improvements have been implemented, the Town with the State will monitor this intersection to insure that safety problems are rectified. In addition, the Town will control land development in the vicinity to minimize traffic congestion and safety problems at this location. Pedestrian and bicycle safety will be given special attention when improvements are considered for this intersection.

7. The ferry docking facilities at McNeils Cove will be maintained and protected from private boat traffic and facilities.

8. Wide shoulders will be incorporated in major improvements to Class 2 highways in the Town. Improvements to Class 3 highways shall accommodate shoulders wide enough to accommodate bicycles wherever possible.

9. The Town will continue to be a member of the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization and actively participate on the Transportation Advisory Committee.

10. Railroad crossings on public roads in Town will be gated crossings with bicycle safe surfaces and adequate mitigation of other adverse impacts from railroad activity.

11 The Town will promote the goals and policies of the Long Range Transportation Plan for Chittenden County.

12 The Town's covered bridges are a significant part of the character of the community and its heritage. The Town will maintain its covered bridges as transportation facilities and will seek to protect these bridges from destruction or excessive or incompatible use.

13 The Town will only consider adopting private roads for public ownership in village areas in order to create a more efficient highway network and to promote compact development in the village areas.

14. Designated scenic roads will be maintained and only altered by the Town in accordance with The Vermont Backroad, a 1974 manual prepared for the Scenery Preservation Council, the Agency of Transportation, and the Ottauquechee Regional Planning Commission. All improvements of other town highways will be made as nearly as possible in conformance with the guidelines of this manual.

15. The Town is encouraging moderate densities and mixed uses in the two villages. This pattern should promote the potential for pedestrian and bicycle access between homes and commercial services and jobs. It should also facilitate the provision of bus service should that alternative form of transportation become feasible within the Town. Finally, the Charlotte West Village is located near to the railroad line. The Town supports the commuter rail service recently implemented and promotes the expansion of service to points both North and South.

16. The Town's transportation policies promote bicycle lanes on Route 7 where improvements are made as well as bicycle facilities on Class 2 and 3 Town highways.

17. The Town believes that the storage of rail cars diminishes the scenic value of the rural character of the town.

5.9.2 General Strategies

1. The Selectboard will update road and driveway standards within the next five years; all development roads and driveways will be required to meet these standards. The standards will consider not only safety and winter maintenance, but also community character and impact to existing resources and visual quality. The subdivision regulations will be amended to reflect these standards. It is the policy of the Town to keep development roads private.

2. Private developments shall be required to establish adequate maintenance funds to ensure compliance with the Town road and driveway standards. The subdivision regulations will be amended to allow for the Town to ensure that private roads (as well as drainage structures, fire hydrants and fire ponds) are properly maintained. Where necessary, the Town will reserve the right to make improvements where needed and charge the development directly for the repairs.

3. The Selectboard will update the Capital Budget and Program every year, which will include transportation improvements.. The zoning and subdivision regulations will be amended to require that developments necessitating capital improvements not included in the capital budget shall be delayed, scaled down, or alternatively, the developer shall contribute towards their improvement.

4. The Town will work with the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO),Vermont Agency of Transportation, the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, and adjoining municipalities on studies of the Route 7 corridor to insure Town concerns are met and proposed improvements are consistent with the Town plan.

5. In coordination with the West Charlotte Village Master Plan (to be completed within two years), the Town will improve pedestrian, bicycle and auto traffic safety throughout the Town, with specific attention in the West Village on Greenbush Road and Ferry Rd. In the next five years, accommodations for pedestrians will be made along Ferry Road between the Library to the east and the Railroad tracks to the west.

6. The Town will explore designating F-5 as a State Highway.

5.10 ENERGY

Several policies and strategies proposed in other sections of this plan should lead to the protection and use of renewable energy resources and energy conservation.

5.10.1 General Policies

The Town encourages the use of alternate energy sources.

5.10.2 General Strategies

1. The Town has identified important productive woodlands. Most of these lands are being actively managed. The Town proposes to locate development off of these lands wherever possible. Woodlands offer a renewable energy resource if managed wisely.

2. The Town is encouraging cluster development through Planned Residential/Unit Developments. These developments can result in economies on the length of roads and discourage wasteful land development practices. They can result in siting of buildings to take advantage of southern exposure and protect from the prevailing wind although the Town's main purpose for PRDs in the Rural District is to protect significant natural resources.

3. Developments or subdivisions that occur in the Town and are subject to Act 250 review are required to "reflect the principles of energy conservation and incorporate the best available technology for efficient use or recovery of energy." The Town does not have a building code, nor does it propose to adopt one. Therefore, the Town will not regulate building construction for energy efficiency standards. However, Town zoning contains provisions to protect renewable energy structures and solar access under conditional use provisions and variance procedures.

4. In addition to the above policies/strategies in other sections of this plan, over the next five years the Town will:

o seek information on the type and quantity of energy use by Town residents, businesses, farms, and public buildings from area utilities and the regional planning commission.

o conduct or update energy audits on all existing Town buildings and implement energy conservation measures on all Town buildings.

o identify local and regional opportunities for waste-to-energy production that could utilize farm and domestic waste products.

5.11 REGIONAL ISSUES AND COORDINATION

General Policies

Regional offsite mitigation is an appropriate strategy to meet Charlotte's goals of protection of important farmland, unique natural areas, and critical wildlife areas, where it is in the interest of the Town to protect such areas.

6. TIMETABLE

Timetable for Completion of Action Steps Identified in Town Plan 2000 Strategies

Year 1

1. Adopt phasing mechanism for residential construction (Page 54 General Strategy #1)

2. Establish a Charlotte Business and Economics Committee (Page 59 General Strategy #7)

3. Update Capital Budget (Page 64 Cost of Government Strategy #1 and elsewhere)

4. Adopt permanent telecommunications bylaw (Page 67 Telecommunications Strategy #1)

5. Begins “Burns property” public planning process (Page 65 “Burns Property” Strategy #1)

Year 2

1. Adopt planning and zoning mechanisms to ensure farmland protection (Page 55 Village Area Strategy #1)

2. Complete a Town-wide groundwater/wastewater analysis, particularly in West Village (Page 55 Village Area Strategy #2)

3. Expand Farmer's Market (Page 59 General Strategy #7)

4. Implement techniques for attaining objectives of agricultural districts (Page 60 Agricultural Planning District Strategy #1)

5. Make decision concerning local tax abatement or exemption program (Page 61 Tax Abatement Program Strategy #2)

6. Develop an Open Space Plan (Page 62 General Strategy #4)

7. Establish policy concerning maintenance of private roads (Page 67 Private Road Strategy #2)

8. Complete West Charlotte Village Master Plan (Page 55 General Strategy #4)

Year 3

1. Inventory shoreline conditions (Page 63 General Strategy #4)

2. Report on need for fire substation in East Charlotte (Page 65 Public Safety Strategy #2))

3. Decide whether to create town highway department (Page 66 General Government Strategy #2)

4. Determine best town management option (Page 66 General Government Strategy #3)

Year 4

1. Complete Action Steps for Years 1-3 that are unfinished and evaluate efforts with respect to implementation of the 2001 Town Plan.

2. Amend bylaws improving standards for Shoreland District (Page 63 Shoreland District Strategy)

Year 5

1. Comprehensive assessment of the Town Plan before 2005 (Page 3)

2. Work on public access improvements to Whiskey Bay, Lane's Lane and Thompson's Point Dock (Page 64 Access Strategy #2)

3. Develop limited parking at McNeil's Cove (Page 64 Access Strategy #4)

4. Revise private road standards (Page 67 Public Safety Strategy #3)

5. Research energy use and needs (Page 69 General Strategy #6

6. Conduct energy audits. (Page 69 General Strategy #6)

7. Identify opportunities for waste to energy options (Page 69 General Strategy #6)

8. Pedestrian accommodations made on Ferry Road (Page 69 General Strategy #5)

9. Update road and driveway standards (Page 69 General Strategy #1)

10. Identified camps on Thompson’s Point will be connected to sewage disposal system (Page 63 General Policy #4)

7. GLOSSARY

Affordable Housing

Housing is affordable when households with incomes below county median pay no more than 30% of their income on housing costs. Housing costs for renters are: rent and utilities (including heat, hot water, trash, and electric). Housing costs for homeowners are principal, interest, property taxes, and property insurance. (This definition shall change as the state's definition changes.)

Aquifer

A geologic formation of structure capable of yielding water in considerable quantity to wells or springs.

Capital Budget

A list and description of the capital projects to be undertaken in the coming fiscal year, their estimated costs, and methods of financing.

Capital Program

A plan of capital projects proposed during the five years following the Capital Budget, including costs and methods of finance.

Capital Project

Construction resulting in physical betterment or improvement, or preliminary studies for such an improvement.

Cluster Development

A development design technique that concentrates buildings in specific areas on the site to allow the remaining land to be used for recreation, common open space, and preservation of environmentally sensitive features; sometimes referred to as planned residential development (PRD) or planned unit development (PUD).

Corridor

A narrow strip of land associated with the movement of people, wildlife, goods, services, and/or utilities in a right-of-way.

Fair Share

A proportionate amount. Used in the context of affordable housing in this document and the regional plan, indicating that each municipality within the region should provide the opportunity for accommodating a portion of the region's need for affordable housing.

Flood Hazard Area

An area that would be inundated in a flood of such severity that the flood would be statistically likely to occur once every 100 years.

Groundwater

Water found underground in porous rock strata and soils.

Historical Resources

Those districts, sites, buildings, structures, and artifacts which have a significant relationship to events or conditions of the human past and which are human‑made.

Historic Site

Any site, structure, district or archaeological landmark that has been included in, or is eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places and/or the Vermont Register of Historic Places, or which is established by testimony of the Vermont Advisory Council on Historic Preservation as being historically significant.

Level of Service

The operating conditions that a driver experiences while traveling on a particular street or highway, including frequency of stops, operating speed, travel time, and traffic density.

Natural Area

An area of land or water that has unusual or significant flora, fauna, geological, or similar features of scientific, ecological, or educational interest.

Official Town Map

A map adopted by a municipality showing the location and widths of the existing and proposed streets, trails, drainage ways, parks, schools, and other public facilities, as provided in Title 24 V.S.A. Chapter 117.

Open Space

Publicly and privately‑owned areas of land, including parks, natural areas and areas of very low density development. Open spaces are places in the outdoors which 1) provide people with a visual and/or other sensory connection to nature and the natural landscape; 2) support the function of healthy ecosystems; or 3) support recreation without conflicting with other designed uses.

Planned Residential Development (PRD)

A residential development technique which, for the purpose of protecting open land or specified natural resources, allows a higher density on a portion of a subdivision, as specified in the zoning regulations and as permitted by Title 24 V.S.A. Section 4407(3).

Planned Unit Development (PUD)

Similar to Planned Residential Development, but includes non-residential uses.

Primary Agricultural Soils

Soils that have a high potential for growing food and forage crops, are sufficiently well‑drained, are well supplied with plant nutrients or highly responsive to the use of fertilizer, and have few limitations for cultivation.

Scenic Corridor

The area adjacent to a road that traverses landscape of high quality or provides access to significant scenic views.

Scenic Resources

Those visually pleasing landscapes including mountains, farms, ridge lines and shorelines, and the locations providing scenic vistas of those landscapes.

Service Population

The number of people that are potential recipients or in need of town services, and is intended to included the census population, part time visitors, seasonal residents and people who pass through the town.

Sprawl

Development with some or all of the following characteristics: lower density than village but higher density than rural; located in previously rural areas; outside of defined growth center boundaries; and some distance from existing development and infrastructure.

Strip Development

A linear pattern of commercial, residential, or mixed‑use development along a roadway, often characterized by automobile oriented single-story structures with parking primarily in the front, and unshared curb-cuts.

Telecommunications Transmission and Receiving Equipment

Any piece of equipment or machinery intended or used to send and/or receive non‑visible electromagnetic radiation for the purpose of communication.

Tower

Any support structure that is intended for use as a wireless telecommunications facility, and that structure's related improvements. Said structure may include telecommunications transmission and receiving equipment as a component of its design, or may be designed to support modular units of telecommunications transmission and receiving equipment.

Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)

As used herein, is to describe a program the objective of which is to encourage development in village areas and/or village clusters in lieu of rural areas by means which would include the removal of the right to develop from one property or a part of a property and allocating that right to another property or part of a property for the purpose of preserving open land.

Wellhead Protection Area

Areas designated by the Vermont Department of Health to protect the quality of public water supplies.

Wetland

Areas inundated by surface or groundwater with a frequency sufficient to support vegetation or aquatic life that depends on saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction (e.g., marshes, swamps, sloughs, wet meadows, river and lake overflows, and bogs.

O:\Planning Commission\DEAN\TOWNPLAN\AdoptedMarch52002.doc

[1] NOTE: Recommendations have been made by all committees that a "Key" system should be developed and added to the Zoning Bylaws and Subdivision Regulations that ties specific regulations to their basis or foundation rationale in the Town Plan - This will help insure that all the documents are consistent and effectively advancing the goals of the Town Plan.

[2] Rann, W.S. The History of Chittenden County, Vermont, Syracuse, 1886, p. 535.

[4] Lapping, Mark B. Shelburne Farms: The History of an Agricultural Estate, p. 77.

[7] Source: U.S. Bureau of Census; Vermont Department of Health.

[8] Source: U.S. Census; Vermont Department of Health

[9] Source: Charlotte Town Records, Zoning Administrator, and CCRPC. Includes single-family, multi-family, and mobile homes.

[10] Source: U.S. Census, Vermont Department of Health

[11] Source: Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, 1995

[12] Source: Vermont Housing Finance Agency (VHFA)

[13] Assumptions: Household incomes are from a report of County Median Incomes published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for 2001. Incomes assume a household with a family of four. The maximum housing debt is calculated at 30% of the gross monthly household income to be consistent with mortgage industry norms. Housing cost include: the mortgage payment, property taxes, homeowners insurance and mortgage insurance if less than 20% down payment. We estimated property taxes and mortgage insurance relative to the approximate purchase price and mortgage amount that would be affordable at each income level. The Tax Rate used in Charlotte for these calculations was $2.15/100 of property value. Mortgage Insurance was estimated at .67% of the estimated mortgage amount. Homeowners insurance were assumed at $500/year. The interest rate used to calculate the maximum mortgage amount afforded was 6.75% and reflects current market rates available for a 30 year, fixed rate mortgage from conventional lending sources.

[14] VHFA Comments: The median income for a family of four in Chittenden County for 2001 is $57,500. At this income level, the maximum purchase price afforded to a family with 5% down payment and their own resources for closing costs is approximately $164,000. Cash required to close is estimated at $12,000 including a down payment of $8,200 and closing costs of $3,800. This will vary up or down if the family has greater cash to invest, particularly if they have more than 20% for a cash downpayment. The median purchase price for all houses sold in Chittenden county during calendar year 2000, was $141,350. According to the Planning Office for the Town of Charlotte, the average price of all homes sold in the town in 2000 was $258,000. Assuming a buyer put 5% down, the income required to support a mortgage on a home in this price range would be roughly $89,000 per year or 155% of the county median income.

[16] This figure represents employment covered by unemployment insurance only, and only those reporting figures.

[18]"Slight" limitations is a term used in soil type analysis for septic capacity.

[19] In the 1990 and 1995 Town Plans, a brief description of each mapped habitat was included in the text and keyed to the map. However, because the May 2000 Critical Wildlife Habitat map displays a network of habitats, it is not appropriate to describe the Forests, Wetlands, Associated Support Habitats or Linkages as discrete units. The map indicates the major components of the network of Critical Wildlife Habitat; the associated databases and information files contain detailed site-specific information, as well as descriptions of relationships within the network, and other relevant information. The wall map, at a scale of 1:18,000 and the databases may be consulted at the Town Hall.

[20] Based on 1990 information. (direction of view from location)

[21] As designated under Vermont Scenic Highway Law. Note: these are the first two roads in Charlotte to be designated under the Vermont Scenic Highway Law. While these two roads are significant to the Town, their presence on this list is not meant to imply that they are the only roads that are eligible for this status.

[22] Farms with noticeable activity that contribute to the agricultural character of the Town

[24] In addition to those listed under Natural Areas

[25] Source: Town Reports and Chittenden South Supervisory Union.

[26] Operating figures do not include expenditures for capital items or debt service.

[28] Source: Vermont State Police Incident Report

[29] The Selectboard's annual fee is excepted.

[30] American Farmland Trust Fact Sheet: Cost of Community Services Studies, June 1998.

[31] Analysis of the Cost of the Proposed Conservation Fund in Charlotte, AdHoc Associates, Salisbury VT, 2/18/99.

Appendix

Population

Views and Vistas[20]:

Views and Vistas [20]: