Development Review Board

 Town of Stowe

 January 10, 2006

 The regular meeting of the Development Review Board was held Tuesday, January 10th (postponed from 1/3/06) in the Banquet Room of the Akeley Memorial starting at 5:00 P.M.

 Members present: Allan Coppock, Chair; Chris Walton, Ed Izzo, Susan Jary and Francis Aumand. Absent: Larry Jones.

 Also present: C. Bryant Brink, Zoning Administrator plus those listed in the minute book.

 5:00 P.M.    

 BA 6-085-13 Stoweflake Resort: Mr. Izzo moved to POSTPONE the hearing for a subdivision and single family residence to 2-7-06 at the request of the applicant. Ms. Jary seconded the motion with all in favor.

 Mr. Aumand arrived

 BA 7A-132-4 Lipsky, Jed and Annika dba Stowe Inn:  A letter from Harold Stevens, Attorney and abutting property owner, dated 12/30/05, was submitted seeking to have the hearings reopened. Mr. Coppock said that there were other unresolved issues regarding this matter and suggested that the Board reopen the hearing on 1/17/06 to stop the 45 day clock and then recess to a later date for a continuation of the hearing.

 5:10

 Covered Bridge Phase III, Building 13:  Present were C.Paul Reed and Ken Biedermann. Mr. Reed stated that in the summer of 2004 approval was given for buildings 13 & 14. On 9/20/04 changes were presented for building #13 which moved the building slightly. Now they have discovered ledge on the site and with the very steep they now propose to lower the building 3’ in the ground. They have raised the ceiling height of the main floor from 8’ to 9’. The dormers have gotten larger and they are using larger windows. They have changed the glass (windows) size to 8’ sliders in order to take advantage of more daylight and view with the velux on the view side taken out. Mr. Reed stated one cannot see the building below the upper level from off site, except that it is possibly slightly visible for a split second from Round Hearth corner. The ridgeline has been lowered 2’ from the original approval. Mr. Reed stated he would be back to the Board in 2-3 months to seek further modifications to the site plan and will ask the Board to do a site visit at that time. Mr. Reed apologized to the Board for not coming in sooner. Mr. Reed stated one cannot see building 14 from any vantage point. The Board agreed that prior to voting to treat as an Administrative Amendment, they would like to take a look at the visibility of building 13 and Mr. Izzo moved to RECESS to 1-17-06, seconded by Mr. Aumand with Ms. Jary, Mr. Izzo, Coppock, Aumand and Walton voting to recess. Mr. Jones not present.

 5:30

 Application #:   S-05-35

 Property Owner:    Lamoille Housing Partnership

Overview:               36 units of multiple family housing in 18 buildings on 10 acres. RECEESED from December 13,2005.

 Tax Parcel #:           7-251.000

Physical Location: 

Mr. Aumand asked Mr. Mansfield to review the Stowe Town Plan in this regard.

S-05-35 Sec. 5 Review:  5.1(2) Mr. Mansfield stated the majority of the units will be placed in an old pasture, then goes into a wooded area, and there are wetlands, view of Camel’s Hump. The wetlands rules allow for a mitigation plan for the ½ acre to be disturbed. 5.1(3) no historic structures; (4) no reserved strips; (5) landscaping plan will be submitted at a later time; (6) proposing sidewalks to the street (

Seconded by Ms. Jary with Mr. Coppock, Izzo, Walton and Aumand all in favor.

Mr. Mansfield will be prepared to address the character of the area issue, density bonus question, wetland issues, how to address the prohibition of access issue to Thomas Lane, in order to allow the Board to come to a determination regarding the PRD. If the PRD is approved, then the Board will proceed on with the subdivision, stated Mr. Coppock. . 

6:40 P.M. BREAK

6:50

BA 14-002-25 J1

Spruce Peak Realty re: Administrative Amendment for Spa Building

Rob Apple present and stated he was present seeking an Administrative Amendment for the spa building, which was approved 4-23-04 for a round building of 29,167 s.f. which included 3 residential units. The proposal now is to construct a rectangular building, which will have a more efficient design with a square footage of 29,578 s.f. And asking for 4 residential units on the top floor (instead of the 3 approved). Sheet A-207  perspective. Mr. Apple stated the height is not changing. West elevation looks towards the

(1) Any change in the plans or the proposed use of the property shall be brought to the Zoning Administrator’s attention, prior to their implementation, for a determination if an amendment shall be required. .

(2) All conditions in the original approval dated 4/23/05 shall remain in force. 

   (3) A letter shall be received for the file indicating the changes made, i.e. change ion square footage, footprint difference, and addition of one unit.

Those voting in favor: Ms, Jary, Mr. Izzo, Walton and Aumand. Mr. Coppock abstained, as he was not present for the original  

Application #:        BA 14-002-25 C1

Property Owner:   Spruce Peak Realty

Overview:               Seeking approval for increase in square footage of previously approved Spruce Base Lodge (Spruce Camp)

Tax Parcel #:          14-202.25

Physical Location:  Spruce Peak Base Area

Zoning District:   Ski-PUD & RR-5

Mr. Apple stated the building has become smaller and referred to sheet PM 1.1.which shows the comparison of what was approved and the current proposal. Exterior treatments are identical to what was approved, stated Mr. Apple, only the square footage is changed with the building being narrower in some areas, because of the centralized mechanical systems, reduced excess circulation and enhanced skier services, stated Mr. Apple. The west side is unchanged. The height has gone from 61’ to 64’ 4”—with the highest point 75’ 8” (previously 73’ 5”). The ceiling height in the residential units have been raised, therefore the increase in height of the building. Mr. Apple explained there is a level 7 on the building, which is mechanical space. It was agreed the Board’s concern is the view from Route 108. Mr. Coppock asked if there will be a porte-cochere area?  Mr. David Norden, representing the applicant, stated yes, it remains in the plan at level 2. (not on the plans/elevations).  Mr. Coppock stated it has to be counted as square footage as part of the building as it is a covered area. Mr. Stokes explained that level 1 is below grade and entrance to the building will be level 2 with a driveway at that level. Mr. Norden stated the porte-cochere is being designed and under review. Mr. Apple again showed members a sample of the materials/colors to be used. The interior parking has changed from the original approved 75 spaces, now have a total of 68. tape 2 side 2 When asked if any of the outdoor spaces are designated as handicap, it was stated there are 2 in the garage and could not answer if there will be one on the outside. Mr. Apple submitted an updated parking plan, particularly at Spruce (for the two projects in front of the Board) and stated they are doing a parking management plan during the busy week ends for the employees of Spruce Peak as well as Mt. Mansfield employees, stating they are required to car pool or use the shuttle or park off site (at Harlow Hill). Two bus shelters have been installed at Spruce provided by the Transportation Authority. Mr. Izzo moved to approve as an ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENT BA 14-002-25 C1 with the following CONDITIONS:        

    (1) Any change in the plans or the proposed use of the property shall be brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, prior to its implementation, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.

    (2) A modified set of drawings shall be submitted showing what is proposed including those areas on Sheet PM 1.1

(3) The applicant shall submit updated square footage calculations as part of the pre-filed testimony dated ?

(4) Plans shall be submitted with updated elevations showing what is being built.

(5) All previous conditions, which were a part of the original approval, shall remain in force.  

(6) Mr. Walton seconded with Ms. Jary, Mr. Izzo, Walton, Aumand and Coppock.

Application #:         BA 14-002-25 J1

Property Owner: Spruce Peak Realty

Overview:                Seeking approval for an increase in square footage of previously approved building D (Stowe Mountain Lodge II)

Tax Parcel #:           14-202.25

Physical Location:  Spruce peak Base Area

Zoning District:       Ski-PUD & RR-5

Rob Apple  and Ken   ????       present re: Stowe Mountain Lodge II.

Mr. Apple stated the changes are the building has gotten 25,000 square feet larger, 10’ closer to the road but remains outside the buffer area. Mr. Apple said he was presenting the final design of building D, phase II with the connection onto the spa with the additional rooms a part of the hotel. The original building was for 144,872 s.f. and proposed is 170, 451 s.f. Building has 5 levels with a total of 66 dwelling units. (decreased from 82). Originally 82 underground parking spaces, now 86. The 2 tower type structures have been shortened in length but larger in all directions. Original height was 62’ and now 68’ 10”.(6’10” taller). LA-03 Landscaping plan. Mr. Apple stated the materials and colors will remain as approved for all the buildings, consistent with Phase I. Mr. Coppock stated he regretted he was not present for the original hearing, and his concern being the public view of this building from Route 108, particularly in the summer. He said he did not know if he would have approved the original building so said it is difficult to know what to do, could he accept changes for something that he would not have voted for in the first place. He felt major changes were being proposed, with a larger and taller building, closer to the road and closer to the buffer area. Mr. Apple argued that there has been no major change to the building. Mr. Aumand asked if the applicant returns to the state with changes for Fire Prevention approval. Mr. Apple stated this building application has not been submitted, but changes after the fact would go back to the state. Mr. Apple stated the intention is to break ground in the summer of ‘06 for this building with completion in 12-07. Mr. Aumand commented that a document distributed dated 2-1-05  for the winter of 2005-06 called for 1610 spaces which is what exists now, but the project is going to lose even more spaces by the time it is completed yet through the winter of 2006-07 were going to have 1671. Mr. Apple stated the project numbers will be adjusted as they come before the Board with changes. Mr. Coppock stated there needs to be enough spaces to accommodate the need as the numbers change and construction comes on line. The bottom line, stated Mr. Coppock, is that cars cannot park on the main highway. Ms. Jary stated normally the Board does not approve anything until there are letters of approval and she was concerned that the Board does not have letters of approval. Mr. Apple argued that they did go through the local approval process and they meet with the Fire Department on each of the buildings etc. in a cooperative effort. tape 3 side 1 Mr. Aumand  moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: BA 14-002-25 J1  with the following CONDITIONS

   (1) Any change to the plans or the proposed use of the property shall be brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, prior to its implementation, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.            

(2) Any and all previous conditions shall remain in force.

Mr. Walton seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Aumand,  Izzo and Aumand voting in favor. Mr. Coppock voted NO and Mr. Jones was not present for the hearing. 

BA Z-05-85 DiPiano re: Construction of a single family dwelling with garage. Location: Lot 1 Cabral/Kreizel subdivision-West Ridge Road. Zone: RR 5 & RHOD. Mr. Brink stated Mr. DiPiano’s house was originally approved with IKO architectural asphalt shingles and would now like to change to a ribbed roofing with a bronze color.

Mr. Coppock felt it would be more visible with a metal roof and Mr. Izzo felt it would be shiny and reflective. Mr. Walton said he would not object, but based on the location felt it would be more reflective, especially for the first year. Mr. Izzo asked about the house location having being moved and asked if that has been addressed. The Board was unable to conclude the change was something they could approve as an  Administrative Amendment and suggested a warned amendment would be required to make the change.

The meeting adjourned at 8:45 P.M. 

Respectfully submitted,

Barbara S. Allaire

***

Development Review Board

Town of Stowe 

January  17, 2006 

The regular meeting of the Development Review Board was held Tuesday, January 17, 2006 starting at 5:00 P.M. in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building.

Members present: Allan Coppock, Chair; Ed Izzo, Chris Walton, Francis Aumand , Susan Jary and Larry Jones. (one vacancy remains on the Board)

Others present: C. Bryant Brink, Zoning Administrator and those listed in the minute book.

5:00 P.M.

Application #:          S-05—28

Property Owner (s): Lipsky, Jed and Annika

Overview:                Reopen hearing

Tax Parcel #:            7A-132-000

Physical Location:   123 Mountain Road

Zoning District:        VC-30

Application #:           BA 7A-132-4

Property Owner (s)   Lipsky, Jed and Annika

Overview:                 Reopen hearing

Tax Parcel #:             7A-132-000

Physical Location:    123 Mountain Road

Zoning District:         VC-30

Mr. Coppock stated that a formal request from Attorney Harold Stevens to reopen the above two (2) hearings is rendered mute because of the Board’s desire to reopen the hearings on their own after having a conversation with the Zoning Administrator. In the course of Mr. Brink’s drafting the decision, it became apparent that the project acreage as represented disagrees substantially with the project acreage that Mr. Brink could determine. Mr. Coppock suggested the Board reopen the hearing on its own accord because of the ramifications the acreage figure could have. Mr. Izzo moved to REOPEN the above two hearings, S-05-28 & BA 7A-132-4, in order that the Board can re-examine the acreage and other issues which may arise. Mr. Jones seconded with Ms. Jary, Mr. Izzo, Walton, Aumand, Jones and Coppock voting in favor. Mr. Walton moved to RECESS S-05-28 & BA 7A-132-4 to FEBRUARY 21, 2006, seconded by Ms. Jary with All members in favor of the motion. 

5:10

AMPERSAND PROPERTIES re: Building #13 at Covered Bridge Development:

Mr. Biedermann was in front of the Board  (RECESSED from 1-10-06) with a request for an administrative amendment to the original approval, re: changes which consist of altering the roofline, second story gotten taller and building gotten shorter. The Board had requested for time to do a drive-by from Route 108 to see what is visible. Mr. Walton moved to approve the changes as outlined on Plan DEMTEC dated 9/05, seconded by Ms. Jary with Mr. Izzo, Coppock, Walton, and Aumand voting in favor. Mr. Jones abstained, as he was not present at the 1/10/06 meeting. No one voted no

Application #:            BA 6-088-5

Property Owner: Ampersand Properties, LLC

Overview:                   Planned residential and planned unit development to include commercial buildings, single family homes, duplexes and multi-family units. RECESSED from DECEMBER 13, 2005              

 Physical Location: 1652 Mountain Road     

 Zoning District: HT, MRV, MOD

 Application #:             S-05-31 P

 Property Owner: Ampersand Properties, LLC

 Overview:                    Preliminary layout for 10.02 acres 21-lot residential and commercial subdivision. RECESSED from DECEMBER 13, 2006

 Physical Location: 1652 Mountain Road

 Zoning District: HT, MRV, and MOD

 Kenneth Biedermann present. (started the hearing, after giving an overview)  with using the narrative dated 9/14/05) and refer to prior minutes.  Mr. Biedermann described the location of the project and stated the total acreage for the property is 14.26 acres. Mr. Biedermann stated the land near the river (4.24 acres) is part of the application as density, but there will be no development on that portion of land. PUD having a 21-lot subdivision, 19 lots with single-family dwellings and duplexes. Lot 20 has 10 multi-family units and Lot 21 is the commercial lot being the rest of the property with Whiskers restaurant on it. Sec. 18- 8-year build-out. 18.2 permitted uses with single-family dwellings. Mr. Biedermann stated the MRV is looking for mixed-use development. PRD Sec. 17. Mr. Biedermann stated he used .33 acres for each multi-family dwelling (18 x .33= 5.94 acres or 6). (18 units includes the apartments). There are 10 other principle buildings so 12+/- acres required. Exhibit # 2 shows 54,282 s.f. total footprint, including Whiskers building. He said that Sec. 18.3 requires double setbacks which they do not have and are not being proposed and the reason being when the MRV was created it was to increase the density of development and he did not believe they would have intended to impose double setbacks. Yet the section was not amended so that in HT the Board could waive the double setbacks and they left out the MRV from the list of zones where they can be waived.  Mr. Coppock noted that the bylaw says for “multiple housing” the double setbacks can be waived by the Board but it does not appear there is any provision to waive the setbacks for other than residential structures. The Board discussed this and questioned what the intent was, can it be waived if they are “multi family” units as opposed to multiple “family units”. The residential buildings are to be inside the project so would not need double setbacks. It was felt there would not have to be a double setback from the PRD piece against the PUD piece. Rear yard setback doubled will be close to 40’, stated Mr. Biedermann. (they are short less than 5’). Mr. Coppock stated the only way the Board gets to waive any setback is to agree these are multiple housing units? The members agreed to view as multiple housing units. Mr. Biedermann stated the buildings are approximately 20’ apart and he will provide a letter from Labor & Industry with approval. Sec. 18.3 (3). An updated letter will be submitted from Cliff Johnson, Director of Public Works giving water and sewer approval.  18.5 Open Public Space. 1.5 acres of open space for the public has been provided with the units being built around the space. tape 1 side 2 Sec. 15.4(2) MOD  50’ strip of vegetation from the edge of the riverbank has to be maintained. Ms. Jary stated she would like to see what the opening with the fence would look like between the Rec Path, which remains for public use. MRV Sec. 9 There will be three (3) Homeowners Associations; one for the PRD; one for the individual lots and one for the commercial properties. Members felt there were no issues relevant to the PRD section. Signs will be only on the commercial buildings.  Mr. Brink will review the sign application. Mr. Biedermann stated the intent is to develop this project as a village. Parking: Mr. Biedermann stated they are required to have 175 spaces and provide 179, with each house having 2 spaces. Plans are to minimize the interior parking around (will return to the discussion of open space). Street 2-way and 20’ width. The only parking along the street will be along the green side. Mr. Coppock said need to be cautious in order that there will be access for public safety vehicles vs. on street parking. Mr. Izzo asked about snow removal. There is a sidewalk network with no curbing.  Residential buildings designed to be two stories with no building taller than 25’ as measured in the bylaws. Mr. Biedermann stated the intent is to have all buildings architecturally different.   

Mr. Walton moved to RECESS BA 6-088-5 & S-05-31P to FEBRUARY 14, 2006 from 5-7 P.M.  to continue the discussion re: Sec. 15 MOD and traffic, Ms. Jary seconded the motion with Ms.Jary, Mr. Izzo, Walton, Aumand, Coppock and Jones voting in favor. Mr. Biedermann will have his traffic consultant attend the meeting. 

6:40

Application #:         BA 11-202.02

Property Owners:  Meadow View LLC

Overview:                Seeking approval to build five (5) energy efficient multi-family dwellings (three triplex and two quads)                 

Tax Parcel #:          7-202.02

Physical Location:  Corner of Route 108 and Houston Farm Road

 Zoning District:      UMR (Upper Mountain Road) & MOD (Mountain Overlay District)

 Regina Farrell, Project Manager, Jonathan Farrell, Bruce McCarthy, Jodi Carriere, Traffic Engineer and Terry Boyle. Ms. Farrell described the project as 3 triplex and 2 quad units for a total of 17 units. Applying for multi family housing. She stated they had met with the Homeowners of Sugar House Hill to see if it would be possible to use Houston Farm Road as access but an agreement could not be reached. Have applied for State Highway Permit and Storm Water Permit but Act 250 has not been applied for. Mr. Farrell stated each building will have a foundation; the design has not changed, per sheet A2-1 and 10, an elevation for each building with first and second story. Building height on sheet A3.1 sheet 15 and under the 25’ regulation. The so-called Colonial Building to be the tallest. Sheet 21- GA 2.1 shows elevations of the garages AC & E; GA 22-2 shows garages B & D. tape 2 side 1. Lighting Plan on sheet L-2 showing the location of the fixtures and plans are on sheet A2-3. Ms. Carriere re: traffic study.  Ms. Carriere stated the reports show the site distances access and accident history. Letter dated 1-6-06 letter re: high crash location, which was analyzed with the high crash location being .1 mi from the access to the project. North of Houston Farm Road there is a .1 mile segment of road, which has had 6 accidents, 4 vehicles slid off the road and the other 2 vehicles, traveling in opposite directions. Ms. Carriere stated the high traffic is north of the project and she felt the majority of the people in the project will be traveling south (she said it will not be marketed as a ski condo project but some will go skiing on the week end. Mr. Coppock argued this is a Resort community with an access road that is heavily traveled to and from the resort, particularly in the winter. To ignore the resort component of what is going on up and down the Mountain Road is to miss what is really happening. He said the Mt. Road is the busiest on week ends in the wintertime and he felt there would be traffic from this project going north as well as south. Mr. Izzo asked what time the traffic count was taken and the answer was week day 4-6 P.M. and 9:00 A.M. Mr. Coppock stated the usual traffic design hour count has less meaning when looking at a resort community instead of a suburban residential area. He said the Board’s concerns are: (1) they are being asked to create a new entrance, in the same location as the one on the Mt. Road with substantially higher density and (2) the total volume of traffic being added to the road from this project. Ms. Carriere stated the new access will be shared with Mrs. Haggerty (the commercial property located on the corner). They will be adding 100 vehicles per day. Ms. Carriere suggested doing a town traffic study, see how many lots there are in town to be developed etc and ask the developers to contribute. Ms. Carriere stated this project access will be 300’ away from Houston Farm Road and she had no problem with them being that close. Lighting: Mr. Boyle present and described in detail the proposed lighting referring to sheets L6, F5 and 6, which are the roadway lights, metal halide fixtures with a low cutoff candle. Walkway lights will be on photo cells (F 5 & 6). Clear glass but will not see the light source. There will be lighting in the canopies. Wall fixtures fluorescent. Streetlights will have 70-watt bulbs. Light poles are 12’ tall with a fixture of 32”. Mr. Boyle stated those lights on F5 & 6 are identical in all ways, i.e. same wattage, etc and will be on photocells and on all night. Mr. Coppock stated the community at large could have a concern with the pole next to the road and the visibility of the light. Mr. Coppock asked if there is one of the proposed fixtures in use in Stowe and the applicant felt that Stoweflake uses the same. This will be confirmed for the members, and the applicant was asked to identify a light in town, which is using the same intensity of light, F 1, 2 & 3. F4 shows the ceiling mounted light in the canopy in the garages. F7 are 13-watt fluorescent gooseneck lamps, which are located in the central location of the garages. Mr. Coppock said there might be some concern in how much lighting the entire project will have. Parking: plans are to accommodate 2 cars per unit in each garage; 2 spaces in front of each garage and one space ------??? Making a total of 6 spaces per unit (1 extra for visitors parking). Will have stakes in the corners for the plow operator and snow storage is shown on the site plan. The interior road will be 16’ including 2’ of shoulder on each side. Parking on the driveway will not be allowed (this will be a condition) and if it becomes an issue, the area for guest parking will have to be increased. tape 2 side 2 Mr. Aumand asked how “no parking on the road” would be enforced and asked what recourse the other owners would have? He felt there should not be added responsibility on municipal services. It is anticipated there will be signs stating no parking. Mr. Farrell stated they could put language in the association documents. Mr. Farrell stated to widen the road would take land out of the common area. (parking on the street will be addressed at a later time)  Mr. McCarthy stated there has been added additional screening from Mrs. Haggerty’s property. Character of the Area: Project is in the MOD zoning area (Mountain Overlay District). Mr. Coppock said the MOD review is key to the approval of this project. He felt the view south is fairly minor, as one driving south will not see the meadow first. Going north up the road, one is looking across the meadow with the mountain in the background and looking essentially right in the main portion of the project and Mr. Coppock felt that is the view the Board needs to be concerned with. Mr. Boyle stated the proposal now is to do the natural siding on the view side of the meadow (instead of the yellow color) and also the garages. Plans are to supplement the pine hedgerow and screen with evergreens the end of the barn and shade trees. Mr. Coppock commented the issue is Mt. Mansfield is right there and your eye goes down the length of the meadow and to the mountain and you would see the project meadow with only minimal screening. Mr. Farrell stated they would be willing to put screening along the access road to screen, where there would be mature trees and shrubs so much of the building as would not be seen. He said they felt the purpose of the bylaws (5.4(1) was to preserve the feeling of the meadow.  To leave it open would be an advantage and one can easily screen the road, but the open space would be interrupted by the screening. Mr. Izzo disagreed and said he felt it would definitely stand out and he is concerned with the screening.  Mr. Farrell stated they are totally flexible.       

Mr. Coppock said that in plan view one can see how it could be read as a continuation of the meadow but if you pull yourself back and look across the meadow, he felt you would just have a portion of the meadow in the foreground and a wall of buildings at the rear. Mr. Jones, Ms Jary and Mr Aumand said they had exactly the same concerns.

Mr. Walton moved to RECESS BA 11-202.02 to FEBRUARY 21, 2006, with the major issue at this time being the character of the area,  seconded by Ms. Jary with Ms. Jary, Mr. Walton, Aumand, Jones, Coppock and Izzo voting in favor of the recess. 

8:00

Application #:         S-05-43

Property Owners:  Syn-Cronomics of Canada, Ltd.

Overview:  Final Plat application for the five-lot Winter Bird Phase III subdivision     

 Tax Parcel #:          7-115.000

 Physical Location:  Route 108 and Winterbird Road

 Zoning District:      HT, RR-3 and RHOD

 Present was John Stuart, Engineer who explained there is 26.9 acres in the project with 5 residential lots ranging in size from 2.02 to 3.29 acres. The lot along the Mountain Road is not a part of the application. Project has an extension of Winterbird Road with a cul-de-sac in the middle of the 5 lots. Balance of the land is 10.65 acres, made up of the road right-of-way which is 1.76 acres and yellow areas (on plat) which total 7.42 acres.  The 7.42 acres and a triangular piece of .65 acres which comes out of Winterbird Phase II constitute the conserved open space for this project. (this satisfies condition # 5 of the approval). There are two (2) sets of covenants. One protective set of covenants sets out the Conservation Lot  of  8.89 being created (condition #2) and incorporated into that is the language of John Buck’s (State Wildlife Biologist) letter, dated 1-2004, article 5 # 5,  pertaining to what can be done with the conservation land from Dec 1 thru April, 15th.  The pedestrian access was condition # 5 and that has been satisfied, stated Mr. Brink.. The project is connected to municipal sewer and there will be drilled wells for the lots. Storm water detention basin incorporated in the plan. Mr. Izzo asked about the building zones and Mr. Stuart said they would show the building zones and lot numbers on the plat. Ms. Jary asked about John Buck’s letter (article 5 # 5) and article #6  pertaining to the logging road (adjacent to the Town Forest) and both indicate a review in 10 years is required. Mr. Stevens, Attorney, said the Forest Management Plan is on a 10 year cycle  and does not have anything to do with the covenants. Mr. Coppock said there needs to be something in writing stating the plan will not expire in 2015. Ms. Jary asked that such language be presented for the Board’s review.

 Mr. Walton moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law in re: S-05-43  with the following CONDITIONS:

 (1) Any change in the plans or the proposed use of the property shall be brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, prior to its implementation, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.

 (2) The Board shall receive an amended copy of the Conservation lot covenants for members approval.

 (3) Any relevant conditions of the original approval shall remain in force.

 (4) The project engineer shall submit a revised plat showing the changes discussed at the hearing.

 Mr. Aumand seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Izzo, Aumand, Walton, Jones and Coppock voting in favor. No one voted no and  no abstentions.   

8:20

Application #:       S-05-44

Property Owner:  Story, Genevieve H Trust

Overview:              Application to subdivide 741 acre parcel into two lots, 13.7 acres and 727 acres (remaining acreage)

 Tax Parcel #:           8-026.000

 Physical Location:  Intersection of Brownville Road and McCall Pasture Road

 Present was Charles Grenier, Engineer and stated the location  of the project is on the east side of Brownsville Road and McCall Pasture Road. Total a single lot of 746 acres of land. After discussion Mr. Grenier was advised that the total acreage is involved, not just what was being requested on the application (the 67 acres on the same side of the road). The confusion being that the State of Vermont considers it is two lots because of the road splitting the parcel and under the Stowe Subdivision this is one lot. Therefore, in the Board’s view, it was being asked to subdivide one lot (Lot #1 of 14 acres ) from the 746 acres (on the east side of the road) leaving 732 acres  tape 3 side 1  Mr. Grenier stated for the 14 acre parcel, he has received the State Subdivision Permit, plans are to construct one house and he has received a letter from the Morrisville Water and Light Department dated 1/12/06 stating they can provide electric service. Mr. Grenier stated the lot is not in the RHOD. Sec. 5.1 reviewed. Parcel in the RR 5 zone. Mr. Grenier stated the land is level with the road and plans are to keep the tree buffer along the road. He felt there might be some clearing in the meadow where the house will be built as well as down over the slope. Mr. Grenier stated Mrs. Story’s land and the land of the State of Vermont surround the rest of the parcel. There are some wetlands on the easterly portion of land. He stated there will be no development in the wetlands. Mr. Coppock suggested that Mr. Grenier draft proposed language, for the Board’s review, protecting the wet area and propose similar language for any clearing of that area.  Mr. Grenier stated the buffer will remain along the road and there will be a no cut zone on the plat. Mr. Grenier stated there is an old foundation on the property and would be happy to preserve it as being historic. Liz Kellogg (Lackey) in the audience, asked if the road will need to be widened and if so, would the trees along the road have to be removed. Mr. Grenier stated he did not see why the (driveway) road would need to be widened. Chryly Kaufman asked if the only access would be from Morrisville and Mr. Grenier stated the access will be from the Moss Glen Falls side for this one lot. Marion Kellogg said the meadow is wide-open space and the rural character of the land will be change with this house. Pedestrian access n/a. Traffic: the Board found that one house in this location will not significantly effect the traffic. Only municipal facility is power and project will have on site sewer and water. Ms. Kaufman commented that she felt this will start to piece meal the total acreage. Mr. Coppock stated there is nothing in the regulations that precludes that happening but any incremental subdivision will trigger review by the Board. Mr. Grenier stated that Mrs. Story has no plans for future development plans. Mr. Grenier will confirm for the Board if there are to be covenants on the lot. Sec. 5.4 (7). Scenic corridor and scenic roads: Mr. Grenier could not answer the question if the road is classified as being a scenic road. Mr. Brink will discuss with Tom Jackman, Director of Planning. (Ms. Jary read the definition of a scenic corridor).

Ms. Jary moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: S-05-44 with the following CONDITIONS:.

 (1) Any change to the plans shall be brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, prior to its implementation, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.  

 (2) A municipal impact form shall be submitted.

 (3) The Board will reserve the right to review Sec. 5.4(7) and may determine that additional information is required re: the scenic corridor or road.

 (4) The application shall be revised indicating the correct acreage and what was being applied for, i.e. one lot subdivision of 14 acres.

 (5) The clearing area, wetlands area and building zone shall be shown on the plat.

 (6)  The buffer zone along the road will be designated on the plat as a no cut zone.

 (7) Language shall be drafted for the Board’s review and approval protecting the wet areas and language for any clearing in the area.

Mr. Aumand seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Izzo, Coppock, Walton, Jones and Aumand voting in favor. No one voted no and no abstentions. 

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,’

Barbara S. Allaire