Town of Charlotte
Board of Selectmen
Minutes
Wednesday,
June 11, 2003
9:00
AM, Charlotte Town Hall
Debbie Ramsdell
Eleanor
Russell
Jennifer
Steele Cole
OTHERS: Dan
Senecal-Albrecht (selectboard assistant)
Clark
Hinsdale, Jr.
Clark
Hinsdale, III
Stephen
Brooks
John
Hammer
The
meeting was called to order at 9:10 am.
The items on
the agenda were as follows:
Adjustments
to Agenda / Memorandum of Understanding between Clark W. Hinsdale, Jr. and the
Town of Charlotte Selectboard regarding the Recreation Trail at Nordic Farm /
Deliberation and Decision: 527 Ferry Road (Charlotte Health Center) highway
access application / Approve final wording of Woody Anderson Pasturing Lease
for Town Poor Farm / Approve minutes of May 12th and May 20th
/ Adjournment
Adjustments to Agenda
Add Burns Property: lease land for haying instead of brushhogging
Burns Property: consider leasing land for haying instead of paying for brushhogging
Chairman Russell noted that
doing so would save the Town money rather than having it brushhogged. The
person would take the hay as payment. It was agreed that the Selectboard would
wait to see what the bids were for the town land brushhogging work before
deciding whether to have the Burns Property land leased for hay.
Memorandum
of Understanding between Clark W. Hinsdale, Jr. and the Town of Charlotte
Selectboard regarding the Recreation Trail at Nordic Farm
Clark
Hinsdale, III laid out the rationale for the MOU. In Part 1 of the MOU
describes 3 segments: the west side of Mount Philo Road, the segment between
Mt. Philo Rd. and Lime Kiln Rd, and the segment between Lime Kiln Rd and the
Shelburne Town Line. In all cases the trail follows the eastern edge of the
property line except for where it crosses McCabe Brook just south of the Binter
property. This deviation is described in an attachment. Part 2 of the MOU sets
out some understandings regarding public access, namely that no such access is
permitted on any of the segments until the following conditions are met: a) a
segment is constructed and ready and marked, b) a set of rules and regulations
acceptable to the Town and the owner is established, c) reasonable provisions
exist within the Town budget and personnel for trail maintenance and
enforcement of rules and regulations, and d) the Town accepts full liability
for the trail and the trail is included under the Town’s municipal liability
insurance coverage. Part 3 lays out a right of access for the Town for the
purposes of engineering, designing and constructing the trail. Part 4 consists of some general statements
concerning the goals of the trail and the goals of the working farm on which it
is located.
Clark,
III noted that this MOU specifically notes this MOU only references a
non-motorized recreational trail because in his mind he has been concerned that
some easement documents that have been popular in recent years have restricted
such uses but he wants to retain the right to allow such uses on the Hinsdale
properties including crossings of snowmobile trails across the main trail. At
the same time he also has concerns that
snowmobiles not cross the trail. He also wants it clear that before
people start using the trail easement area in total or in segment that the Town
of Charlotte has constructed and marked the trail and that trail maintenance
and enforcement are part of the town budget and operations.
Dan
Senecal-Albrecht pointed out some inconsistencies between the MOU and the Grant
of Access Easement that runs with the property. First, the deed refers to a
recreational trail that allows all pedestrian uses, biking and horseback riding
and specifically also includes snowmobiling. Second, the MOU section for North
of Lime Kiln Road notes that construction and utilization of this section may
only go forward if the trail connects to a trail on adjacent property to the
north or west. Dan noted that the Easement refers to a “connecting trail on
adjoining property.” This is more accurate language because the trail could go
from the northeast corner of the Nordic Farm
and
run to the east across the Jesset and Lewis properties before it crosses into
Shelburne.
After
considerable discussion, the words non-motorized were struck from the draft
MOU. The rationales agreed upon were that one, it was inconsistent with the
Easement. Second, the rules and regulations for use of the trail would be
assumed to cover all uses covered by the deed. Third, Clark’s concerns that the
proposed trail should not block snowmobiles crossings were addressed by also
agreeing on the addition of the following sentences under section 2.b) “These
rules shall not prohibit crossing or overlaps with snowmobile trails where
appropriate.”
The
wording of section 1.c) regarding the segment North of Lime Kiln Road was also
changed to refer to “other constructed trails on adjoining property” to make it
consistent with the Easement.
Dan
also noted that the trail referred to in the Easement is to be within a 1 (rod)
Easement width and the improved portion of the trail is to be only six feet
wide. Most critically the surface of the trail shall be maintained in a natural
condition and may not “be graveled, paved or otherwise improved beyond its
natural condition….”
Charles
Russell and both Hinsdale gentlemen noted that it would be unlikely that
snowmobilers would wish to use the trail location because of its narrow width
and because it would be hard to get up to speed on any segment. Snow depth
would also be limited as much of the route is forested.
Finally,
Dan noted that the Easement specifically allows the Town the right to permit
access within the easement area for pedestrian uses only such as walking and
skiing even before the Town has invoked its right to construct a trail. Dan thought it a bit premature for the Town
to give up that right via Section 2. of the MOU prior to further discussions
and drafting of rules and regulations for the trail. Perhaps VHCB would have
problems with this section as well.
Clark
III raised liability concerns for the town of having people out hiking in an
unmarked area with no cleared trail. Also, he noted that Billy Coster of VHCB
has said numerous times via email and by phone feels that any issues regarding
trail uses are between the Hinsdales and the Town.
Charles
Russell and Eleanor Russell noted Dan’s comments but felt that this trail has
been much discussed already this past fall. Also, it is unlikely that people
would want to walk or ski in this area in its current condition because there
is thick brush.
Motion
made by Eleanor Russell that the Selectboard approve the MOU as drafted with
the changes made here this morning, subject to review by the Town attorney and
that Chairman Charles Russell be authorized to sign the document on behalf of
the Town, seconded by Jennifer Cole.
It
was agree that the handwritten map regarding the May 9th site visit
to the trail to locate the trail deviation near the Binter property be labeled
Exhibit A and that the trail description in the Easement be noted as Schedule
B.
Vote: all in favor.
John Hammer thanked the Hinsdales for working with the Town
to make this trail work.
Deliberation
and Decision: 527 Ferry Road (Charlotte Health Center) highway access
application
Chairman
Russell began by noting that the hearing was held on June 9th. Dr.
Bernstein sent him an e-mail last night stating that “after last night’s
hearing the four of us talked and came up with a different way of looking at
the problem that might make it easier for the Selectboard to decide. If you are
out and about tomorrow could you stop by the Health Center. I’m usually free
between 12:30 and 1:30 to talk or if not I’ll try to call you during that time
to talk with you about it. Thanks, Bunky.”
Charles felt that we had the hearing and we closed the hearing and if we
wanted to hear more from them we could re-open the hearing. Eleanor noted that
if they don’t like our decision I suppose they could reapply. Jenny asked what
they wanted to say, perhaps they had a different solution. Perhaps we should
talk to them. Charles and Eleanor noted that their e-mail did not say that, the
e-mail only said that they were proposing a different way for the Selectboard
to look at the issue. Eleanor noted that we have a process in place and that it
is appropriate now to go ahead and make our decision. Debbie noted that the
e-mail stated that they only wanted to talk to Charles. Charles noted that
would be another reason not to incorporate their comments outside of the
hearing process.
Eleanor
Russell said that for her the deciding factor is what is in the best interest
of the town. She noted that the Town Plan, in good sense, dictates that
additional curb cuts on busy roads are not in the best interest of the town
because of safety issues. These town safety issues outweigh the applicant’s
perceived safety issues regarding shared use of a driveway by occupants (and
their children) of the second lot and by customers and staff of the Health
Center. The school bus issue the applicant raised is not an issue because the
school bus would come at 7:30 in the morning before the clinic opens at 8 a.m.
and at 3:30 in the afternoon for drop-offs the bus would have its flashers and
stop sign on and all traffic would cease in both directions and it would be
safe for children to get to the driveway as well as cross the street. Charles
Russell interjected that cars in driveways must also stop when a bus is stopped
near the driveway. Eleanor Russell said that there should be one cut but that
the location they proposed is better than the old one in terms of sight
distances. Having one curb cut also would be better aesthetically because right
now the driveway is in the front lawn area of the Health Center, which Charles
noted would enhance the value of the Health Center if it were used as home in
the future.
Jennifer
Cole agreed with the comments by Dean Bloch which noted that the Planning
Commission had previously agreed that two curb cuts were okay. As far as safety
goes mixing commercial and residential uses does raise concerns. Kids could
certainly be riding their bikes in the driveway. If a potential buyer were
going to develop that second lot for residential purposes I could see where
they might have some concerns and thus the property might be lowered in value.
A
discussion ensued about specifying which type of use, residential or
commercial, is best suited for which driveway. It was noted that the properties
are in the village district and therefore in theory it can be either and the
uses could switch back and forth over time. Jennifer noted that the property is
for sale. Is there a need for them to apply for a permit before the property is
sold? Charles responded that the applicants have applied for a permit and we
need to vote it up or down.
Eleanor
Russell noted that the previous decision by the Planning Commission was not an
appropriate one because the proposed second location did not have the necessary
sight distances. Charles noted that the applicants did not do what Dean told
them to do which was to consult with the Road Commissioner or in fact, they did
consult with the Road Commissioner and he said no and they instead wrote a
letter saying the sight distances were fine. Debbie Ramsdell said, so they did
not go along with what Junior recommended. Eleanor Russell said they did not
acknowledge that they even talked to Junior at the time.
Debbie
Ramsdell said that she had initially supported their application but they are
now too many things going against it and it would be setting a precedent if we
approved it.
Charles,
Debbie and Eleanor noted that the applicants are nice people, they have some
legitimate concerns and it is hard to say no to somebody. Eleanor noted that in
the long run having only one curb cut may be better for them. Debbie noted that
either way they are going to have to put some money into it. There would only
be a short section that would be shared with the second lot.
Someone
in the audience began to say something. Chairman Russell noted the Selectboard
is now deliberating and it would be inappropriate to take public comment
outside the hearing previously held.
Chairman
Russell outlined the possibility, which Joe McLean said they could do, of
approving this second curb cut but requiring that the existing curb cut be
widened to accommodate two cars. Dan Senecal-Albrecht noted that that would
make the existing driveway safer but does nothing to all the concerns you just
raised.
Eleanor
noted that the Town Plan and the Selectboard’s policy support one curb cut and
she does not see any of the exceptions mentioned in the policy being operative.
She and Charles noted that the Selectboard does not have a problem with the
location of the second cut but does with having two cuts.
Motion
made by Eleanor Russell, second by Debbie Ramsdell to approve the application
for the new highway access but with the conditions that the existing access be
dismantled within 30 days of the completed construction of the new access being
approved by the Road Commissioner and that the new access be of sufficient
width to accommodate two vehicles and meet the A-76 standards of the VAOT.
Dan
asked for clarification if the location of the new cut is safer than the old
one. Charles and Debbie said yes
because the new cut is farther away from the crest of the hill.
The
question was called and the motion was approved 4-0.
Jennifer
Cole noted that two committees (the Ad Hoc Tree Warden Advisory Committee in
2000 and the Thompson’s Pt. Agricultural Lease Committee in 2003) have stated
that the fence should be moved to keep cattle out of the woods and also for
concerns over public access. The changes to the document are:
Description:
#2, “Also excluded is the hayfield used by Aurora Farms.”
Cancellation:
language was adapted from Pony Club lease
Term:
changed term to start on June 1, 2003
It
was agreed to add language that the Lessee would be notified “in person by
Selectboard or its agent” as well as changing Woody to Woodward Z. Anderson.”
It was also agreed to add a map as an attachment to clarify the bounds of the
leased property.
Stephen
Brooks stated that there might be disagreement with the Lessee over what kinds
of materials would be allowed on the property. The Selectboard felt that the
phrase “Vehicles and materials may be stored in the area designated by the
Selectboard (see attached map)” would address Stephen’s concerns.
Motion
made by Debbie Ramsdell, second by Eleanor Russell to approve the Agricultural
Lease Agreement between the Town of Charlotte and Woodward Z. Anderson subject
to review by the Town Attorney and authorizing Charles Russell to sign the
lease.
Vote:
All in favor.
Approve
minutes of May 12th and May 20th
Stephen Brooks said he had 3
adjustments to suggest for the minutes and asked if he could make them at the
next meeting because he does not have his notes.
Approval of the minutes was postponed
due to the unanticipated length of this meeting.
Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 11:00 AM.