Development Review Board

Town of Stowe

February 7, 2006

The regular meeting of the Stowe Development Review Board was held Tuesday, February 7, 2006 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M.

Members present: Chris Walton, Acting Chairman in the absence of Allan Coppock, Ed Izzo, Susan Jary and Francis Aumand.  Also present: C. Bryant Brink, Zoning Administrator and Scott Monroe, Stowe Reporter.

 Absent: Larry Jones and Allan Coppock.

Mr. Walton told each applicant prior to their hearing that only four Board members were present and four are needed for a quorum of a vote.  

Application #:        BA 11-060.02

 Property Owner:    Barnes, Alesia & Robert

Overview:              Requesting to administratively amend DRB decision BA 11-060.02 to allow for a one-time 350bperson wedding.

Tax Parcel #:          11-060.02

Physical Location: Peterson Brook Farm located on Edson Hill

Zoning District:     RR-2

Present for the hearing representing the Barnes was Kirsten Bowen. Mr. Brink stated there was miscommunication between parties in the booking of the wedding as weddings is are limited at to 100 people  at on  that property. Ms. Bowen indicated they would like to allow for 300 guests (she later changed to 350 as the notice stated). Only the wedding ceremony and cocktail reception will take place, no band will be playing at the wedding but they will have a string quartet (with no amplification) Ms. Bowen stated 90% of the guests will be bussed from Stoweflake, GMI and other locations and there will be no more than 30 cars on site (parking plan submitted). The event will go from 5-7:00 P.M. at which timer guests will be bussed to the Rusty Nail for the reception. Ms. Bowen stated, when asked, there will be no parking along the road at any time. There will be a tent on the property in the case of inclement weather. Mr. Brink stated the Selectbaord requires a Special Event Permit for 350 persons but Susan Moeck, Secretary to the Selectbaord suggested waiting until the DRB made their decision at which time Mr. Brink will respond. Members felt comfortable approving based on the fact is it a one-time event and will last two hours. Mr. Aumand moved to AMEND DRB Decision BA 11-06-.02 to allow for a ONE time approval, seconded by  Ms. Jary with Mr. Aumand, Ms. Jary, Mr. Izzo and Walton voting to amend. Mr. Coppock and Jones were not present at the hearing.

Application #:        BA 13-002.06

Property Owners:   Mt. Mansfield Co & University of Vermont

Overview:   Requesting an administrative amendment to the DRB Decision BA 13-002.06 to raise a section of the Co-location building atop Mt. Mansfield by 3’.

Tax Parcel #:          13-002.000

 Physical Location: Atop Mt. Mansfield

 Zoning District:      RR-5; RHOD

 In the absence of Mr. Teffner, Mr. Brink explained the memo dated 1/26/06 from Mr. Teffner, which states that because of a new filter system due to WCAX & WPTZ-DT sharing an antennae, a new sizeable piece of equipment must be located inside the building, which will require raising the roof line in a portion of the building. Total height will be 24’ to the ridge. There are no other changes being proposed. Ms. Jary asked where it could be seen from. Mr. Teffner’s memo states it will only be seen from a few places in the Champlain Valley area. Mr. Aumand stated he would have to abstain from voting as he did at the original hearing since he works for State Department of Public Safety (one of the members of the Colocation Association). With Mr. Aumand’s abstention, there was not a quorum so Mr. Izzo moved to POSTPONE to February 14, 2006 and ask Mr. Teffner to be present. Ms. Jary seconded the motion with all in favor.

 Application #:         6-101.01

 Property Owner:     DePiano, James G.

 Overview:               Seeking to amend DRB Decision Z-05-85 to allow for change in roofing from asphalt shingles to a metal roof.

 Tax Parcel #:           6-101.010

 Physical Location:  Lot 1 East Ridge Road

 Zone:                       RR-3 & RHOD 

 Mr. De Piano was present seeking to change the roof material from asphalt shingles to metal roofing based upon the recommendation of his contractor because of the valleys in the roofline. The color will be a non-reflective bronze being provided by Everlast Roofing, Inc and using Ultimate G100 Process Color Guide-EverSeam 19.5. Mr. DePiano stated no other changes are proposed. He said he was trying to stay within budget and was told the metal is cheaper. Mr. Izzo stated that he continued to remain concerned with the possible reflectiveness and preferred the asphalt. Mr. DePiano stated at least 30-40% of the homes located in the neighbor hood in High Ridge have metal roofs. Mr. Walton felt the property is hidden other than from Cottage Club Road area. Mr. Aumand moved to AMEND DECSION BA Z-05-85 RHOD to allow for the change in roofing material from asphalt shingles to metal based on  -----------------------. The proposal that the applicant submitted. Ms. Jary seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Izzo, Walton and Aumand voting in favor. Mr. Jones and Coppock were not present.

 5:35

 Application #:        S-05-47

 Property Owners:  Baraw Enterprises, Inc.

 Overview:              A 1 lot subdivision to create a 0.46 acre lot (Lot K) and an 11.9+/- lot subject to development restrictions.

 Tax Parcel #:          6-085.000

 Physical Location: 1746 Mountain Road (Stoweflake Resort)

 Zoning District:      RR-2 and MRV (Mountain Road Village)

Application #:        BA 6-085-13

Property Owner:    Baraw Enterprises, Inc

Overview:              Seeking approval to construct a 4-bedroom house to be used as a re sidence. POSTPONED from January 10, 2006.

Physical Location: 1756 Mountain Road

Tax Parcel #:          6-085.000L

Zoning District:      RR-2 & MRV

Charles Baraw and Greg Paus (architect) present. Mr. Brink gave an overview and stated that instead of being a PUD, the property is subject to a Development Agreement with the Town of Stowe dated 2-8-00 (copy on file), therefore the proposal is subject to both conditional use and subdivision review. Mr. Baraw explained the proposed subdivision and location of the house as the back corner of the Stoweflake property, being visible mostly from the interior of Stoweflake Resort. The current driveway will be extended to this parcel, which can be accessed from Cape Cod Road or from Cottage Club Road or through the Stoweflake property. Sewage will be pumped and permit has been obtained. The town waterline will be extended and a r.o.w. deeded to the Town. The landscaping plan was described. There is a wetland, but not impinging on the area of construction with the exception of a small area in the 50’ r.o.w. buffer area, which the State allows. The State Wetlands people have been to the site stated Mr. Baraw. Plans are to have a 3-5’ berm in front of the proposed house (mostly for screening from the interior and there is a large wooded area behind the house which will remain. The house will be stained natural wood with forest green asphalt shingled roof and windows a dark green. Mr. Paus stated the only exterior lighting would be two (2) wall sconces near the entry (which is on the north elevation, and three (3) on the garage. A note for the record is that the land to be subdivided is 0.46 acres. Sec. 5.1 Sub review. Mr. Walton felt members had gone through he regs i.e. wetlands, setbacks are adequate; no reserved strips; building area shown on the plat; affidavit provided; traffic not an issue for an additional dwelling; applicant was encourage by Mr. Brink to contact Stowe Electric Department and Mr. Baraw stated Ed Pearson is working on the lighting and will contact them. It was noted that the lot cannot be further subdivided but Mr.Baraw stated they are pursuing further development of Stoweflake. A proposed pond is shown on the plat but was not discussed. Sec. 5.3 property is subject to the Development Agreement, which allows for clustering. 0.46 acres required. Ms. Jary moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: S-05-47 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) CUD Permit is required for the wetlands area

(3) The applicant shall change the acreage required on the application and the plat.

(4) A Letter to Serve from the Stowe Electric Department shall be required.

    Mr. Izzo seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Walton, Izzo and Aumand voting in favor. Mr. Jones and Coppock were not present.

Mr. Brink stated the affidavit is required to be amended subtracting the acreage to be used in the Development Agreement and he will review that.

tape 1 side 2

6:15

BA 6-085-13 Baraw Enterprises, Inc:  Mr. Baraw and Paus testified. Members felt they have adequately reviewed the criteria pertaining to the Conditional Use review and the proposed dwelling. Ms. Jary moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: BA 6-085-13 with the following CONDITSIONS:

(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 b re required.

(2) An amended Affidavit shall be presented subtracting the 0.45 acres to be subdivided.                        

Mr. Izzo seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Izzo, Aumand and Walton voting in favor. Mr. Jones and Coppock were not present.

6:30

Application #:       BA 7-263.000- former property known Russell or Teague property

Property Owner:  Mill Pond LLC

Overview:            Convert residential building to commercial space. Renovate and raise the original 30’ x 30’ portion of structure. Demolish and reconstruct south dormer section. Demolish garage in rear and replace with a new 28’ 52’ “barn like” structure.

Tax Parcel #:          7-263.010

Physical Location: 645 South Main Street

Zone:                      RR-1

Application #:        BA 7-263.000  property known as Brackenbury

Property Owner:   Mill Pond LLC

Overview:               Seeking approval to convert motel /B& B building to commercial space. Renovate the original house. Demolish and replace existing rear portion of structure. 

Tax Parcel #:          7-263.010

Physical Location:  673 South Main Street

Zone:                       RR-1

Present were Dean Economou and Harry Hunt, Architect. Mr.Economou gave an overview of the projects stating they were purchased in April, 2005 with the intent of developing the property, which will be a phased project. The Brackenbury house has previously been subdivided off. Both houses are on conforming lots, stated Mrt. Economou and said he is looking at these houses as the gateway to the 5’ acres in the rear for which there are no definite plans except that there will be some housing in the area.  Brackenbury Property: Mr. Hunt stated he is trying to create a pedestrian friendly access with a green strip on either side of the r.o.w for the entrance drive. 15 parking spaces have been allocated (17 required for the square footage) in the rear of the property and the two (2) additional will be on the Teague property. Plans for the house are: main house ground level 1182 s.f office/retail

                         Ell ground level:                468 s.f. entry/circulation

                         Barn ground level:           1456 s.f. office/retail

The road is 25’ wide  stated Mr. Hunt. They propose to keep the green strips along the new 25’ driveway and to eliminate the existing drives, which are within the 50’ r.o.w. and driveways to each building will be removed eliminated form accessing Rt 100 and be incorporated into the main driveway thus reducing the number of entries onto Rt. 100 by one. Mr. Economou stated the uses at the present time are not known for either building but they are requesting office or retail uses as part of this permit. There will be no restaurant, stated Mr. Economou. The parking spaces are based on the assumption of office or retail uses, stated Mr. Hunt. The landscaping plan was described and does not include any additional planting. Materials to be used for the parking lot have not been determined but at this point will be asphalt or???  (Did not know). Mr. Hunt explained the storm water drainage plan prepared by Leach Engineering from St. Johnsbury, which includes a shallow swale on the each property. An open culvert exists which is being grassed over and they will construct a drain inlet. On the Russell side there is a culvert under the road, which will remain. When describing the construction, Mr. Economou said the old portion of the main house stays the same (except for the dormers). When asked if any portion will be smaller other than the connector and Mr. Economou said there may be a small amount of increased square footage in the rear from the new larger barn. If any use is proposed other than office or retail, Mr. Economou said he would come back to the Board. Main house: adding dormers; rear house: reconstructed with same footprint and a porch; barn to be larger by 10’ in two different ways using small type barn windows; current windows will remain throughout when can be and new ones will b e 2 over 2 divided lights. Clapboard siding to remain with corner boards. The rear house will have public entry. The body of the house will be light slate gray and trim light gray. SHPC letter dated 2-2-06 was read by Mr. Walton approving the demolition and replacing the rear portion of the house with the following conditions: (1) Rooflines and Materials: the original form of roofline will be preserved and improved upon with the addition of new dormers. The dormers will be modest in size and set back from the roof eave. (2) Windows: All new windows will either be true divided lights or simulated divided lights (SDL’S) and will utilize existing windows patterns. Snap –in muntins shall not be used. (3) Exterior Materials: All new or reconstructed chimneys will be brick or brick-like in appearance.

Teague/Russell House:  Both floor elevations are being raised by 3’. The main portion of the house to remain as is with the exception of a dormer on the east side. There is a jog in the front entry which will be filled in and straightened across the front. Plans are to construct a porch on the rear of the house. Same materials to be used as on the Brackenbury house. Mr.Economou stated the barn like structure in the rear is figured in to the square footage but there is no design for the building as yet and so is not a part of the application.  Sec. 4.7 reviewed: Mr. Brink stated there is a Municipal Impact review for each property. A traffic study was done by Resource Systems Group dated 1/31/06 and submitted stating that by redeveloping the access to just one, the safety will be improved by reducing the number of conflict points and the analysis assumed the proposed development as being any combination of retail and office uses. Mr. Aumand said it did not appear the project will impact traffic flow according to the study. Ms. Jary said she found it hard to believe that the change in use will not have a higher impact on traffic, as opposed to its former use as a single family dwelling and lodge. Mr. Aumand stated the study recognizes the proposed uses and the conclusion was straight forward and by reducing the number of accesses it improved the situation. Ms. Jary said she agreed if it were to stay the same level of use as has been. Mr. Economou stated he would be willing to install a “Stop Sign” at the end of the driveway at Mr. Izzo’s suggestion. He said he had asked the traffic study people to address the rear portion of land (possibly 20-24 houses) as well as the two units in the front so that the Board is aware of the possible future development’s impact on trafficin the event when he return to the Board to develop the back parcel the Board is not broad sided even with the study addressing the two properties.  Storm water Management plan discussed and SHPC letter dated 2—2-06 with the same conditions as placed on the Brackenbury house. A note was made that the SHPC did not review plans for the new “barn like” building behind the existing that is included in the original application. Removing one curb cut, 2 of the required parking spaces for the Brackebury house will be on the Teague property, landscaping plan felt to be adequate for the project. tape 2 side 1 Ms. Jary moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to prepare Findings of fact and Conclusion of Law re:  BA 7-263.000 Brackenbury House) 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) A Stormwater Runoff Management Plan shall be subkmittedsubmitted to the Zoning Administrator.

(3) The applicant shall install a “stop” sign at the intersection (driveway) of the property and Route 100.

(4) The Board’s approval will expire one year from the letter date of the Stowe Electric Department’s capacity to serve letter.  A Letter to serve from the Stowe Electric Department will expire within one (1) year from the date of the DRB approval.

Mr. Izzo seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Izzo, Walton and Aumand voting in favor. Mr. Jones and Coppock were not present.

Teague/ Russell House:  Since there were no further questions regarding this house, Mr. Brink stated the Findings would reflect the one driveway for the two (2) properties. Mr. Izzo concerned with parking along the driveway, particularly when the back portion is developed. Mr. Brink said he did not feel it will be a problem, but if so, will address it. Ms. Jary said she could approve based on the fact there will not be parking on the driveway and the installation of the stop sign. Mr. Economou said he did not want a problem but if it is retail and parking becomes an issue, he will install signage. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re:  with the following CONDITIONS:

(1) Any change in the plans or the 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 Storm water Management Plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator.

(3) The applicant shall install a “stop” sign at the entrance of the property

(4) The Board’s approval will expire one year from the letter date of the Stowe Electric Department’s capacity to serve letter.  A Letter to Serve from the Electric Department shall be valid only a year after approval of the DRB.

Ms. Jarty seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Walton, Aumand and Izzo voting in favor. Mr. Jones and Coppock were not present.

6:50 BREAK

7:00 P.M.

Application #:         BA 7A-051

Property Owners:   Beres, Joseph and Nancy

Overview:    Seeking approval for an as built deck on rear of building

Tax Parcel #:           7-051.000

Physical Location: 

Zoning District:       RR-1 & SHOD

Present was Mr. Beres stating he built the deck 18’ x 13’ in an existing alcove in the rear which was bermed with dirt. He removed the dirt. Deck was built of pressure treated wood. He installed a hot tub on the deck to be used by his guests only. A letter was submitted from the SHPC dated ????  giving their approval and stating the project does not adversely affect the historic nature of the building. There will be no lighting on the deck, no music and no outside speakers. Mr. Beres stated they do have a liquor license but do not serve liquor. Mr. Aumand moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law in re: BA 7-051 noting approval from the SHPC and 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) The applicant shall complete and submit a back page of the application with the appropriate signature. Mr. Beres apologized to the Board. Ms. Jary seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Izzo, Aumand and Walton voting in favor. Mr. Jones and Coppock were not present.

7:15

Application #:         S-05-46

Property Owners:  Page, Russell and Cameron

Overview:               Application to subdivide 43 +/- acres parcel into two lots, Lot 1 being 37 +/- acres and Lot 2 being 6 acres for a proposed single family dwelling.

Tax Parcel #:           6-022.000

Physical Location: 

Zoning District:      RR-5

Present were Mr. & Mrs. Page. Mr. Page explained the project while waiting for Charles Grenier (Engineer) to arrive. The access to the property is

(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) (2) A copy of the covenants is to be filed with the Zoning Administrator as part of the hearing.

(3) Ms. Jary seconded with Ms. Jary, Mr. Walton, Izzo and Aumand voting in favor. Mr. Coppock and Jones were not present.

Scotsford,

Mr. Brink explained that the proposed house is off

S-05-09 Syn-Cronamics of Canada Ltd. Winterbird Phase III.  Ms. Jary moved to accept approve the Declaration of Covenants & Restrictions and Conservation Lot as submitted accepting them as satisfying condition #5 of the approval??, seconded by Mr. Aumand with Ms. Jary, Mr. Walton, Izzo and Aumand voting in favor. Mr. Coppock and Jones were not present.

There being no further business to come before the members, the meeting adjourned at 7:50 P.M.

 Respectfully submitted,

 Barbara S. Allaire

Stowe Development Review Board

                                               February 14, 2005

A special meeting was held Tuesday, February 14, 2006 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M.

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

Also present: C. Bryant Brink, Zoning Administrator and Scott Monroe from the Stowe Reporter as well as those listed in the minute’s book.

5:00 P.M.

BA 13-002.06                   

Property Owner: Mt. Mansfield Co. & University of Vermont

Requesting to administratively amend a previous DRB Decision to increase the height of a section of the Collocation building atop Mt. Mansfield by 3’. POSTPONED from 2/7/06 in order that Mr. Teffner could be present. Mr. Teffner explained that the additional roof height would not be seen from the Champlain Valley as it is hidden from view by the already approved roofline. There will be a small section that might be seen from Essex. Mr. Teffner stated the modification will be breaking up the 96’ long ridgeline originally approved as seen from the Forehead of Mt Mansfield. The gable ends will be of concrete split face blocks with hardy plank on the top painted gray and the roofing a standing seam metal painted forest green. Windows have been added and changed per drawing labeled A3 and dated 1/24/06. Mr. Teffner stated the building is approximately 26’ to the ridgeline. Mr. Teffner explained the purpose of raising the roof was to allow for additional equipment caused by the sharing of an antenna by WCAX-DT  & WPTZ-DT. Mr. Jones moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: BA 13-002.06 to administratively amend previous decision to raise the roof of the structure by 3’ and allow for the other minor changes shown on the plan. Mr. Izzo seconded the motion with Mr. Izzo, Coppock, Aumand, Walton and Ms. Jary voting in favor. No one voted against.

5:15

Application #:        BA 6-088-5

Property Owner: Ampersand Properties, LTD 

Overview:              Planned residential and planned unit developments to include commercial buildings, single family homes, duplexes and multi-family units. RECESSED from 12/13/05, 1/17/06.

Tax Parcel #:          6-088.000

Physical Location: 1652 Mountain Road

Application #:        S-05-31P

Property Owner:  Ampersand Properties, LTD.

Overview:              Preliminary layout for 10.02 acres 21-lot residential and commercial subdivision. RECESSED from 12/13/05 & 1/17/06

Present were Kenneth Biedermann for Ampersand Properties and Joe Segale traffic engineer from Resources Group. Mr. Segale discussed and gave an overview and opinion of traffic estimates for the project and determined there to be 54 vehicles cars per hour from this development. (refer to EXHIBIT 12). He stated the study area was Whiskers exit, Cape Cod Rd and the driveways to the project. The study goes out to the year 2010. Mr. Segale stated there is a traffic counter on Rte 108 and the critical time is in February, secondary peaks in March and August. He said they used September and adjusted to reflect February conditions and increased volumes by 70%, using the year 2010. With no build, the counts grew 1% per year with traffic from Stowe Mountain Resort, Stoweflake and various other projects adding quite a bit, stated Mr. Segale. He stated one scenario is to allow two-way traffic into Whiskers, another is to have one-way. He saw the most critical level of service on the southbound approach on Cape Cod Road (projecting level F). With the same scenario for both driveways were at levels D or E. Mr. Segale recommended a left and right turn lane onto Cape Cod Road and Gracie’s (whether project built or not) and he found a traffic signal is warranted at the Cape Cod intersection (which the Board was quick to note that the Town would probably not be allowed). He said the Agency of Transportation does not recommend a traffic signal. Crash information has been done and in the Cape Cod area of Rte 108, the number of crashes is not high as there are good sight distances. Mr. Segale said he felt the challenge is the Rec Path crossing at Cape Cod Rd with the diagonal alignment across the road. Recommending left turn lanes at Cape Cod Road and traffic signals should be considered. Mr. Coppock asked the pros and cons of a one-way driveway into Whiskers. Mr. Segale stated the con of the one way is with a traffic signal would make it mandatory to come out onto Cape Cod Road-without a signal eliminates a conflict point at the entrance of the development. Mr. Coppock stated if the driveway were two-way, there would be two intersections to the road in a short distance putting a significant amount of traffic onto Rte 108. Mr. Regale stated there would still be conflict point there. Mr. Coppock asked what Mr. Segale would see for change that would increase the safety of the Rec Path crossing Rte 108 and Mr. Segale suggested putting the crossing straight across Rte 108 or across Cape Cod and then straight across Rte 108. Mr. Coppock stated there is confusion, both by cars and pedestrians, when the crossing is striped as to whether it is a cross walk or not. Mr. Coppock said it creates mixed messages at that crossing and more traffic will only make it worse. He asked if this development could do something to help alleviate the situation. Mr. Aumand felt there couldn’t be a legal crosswalk other than perpendicular to the street. Mr. Coppock commented that to go across Cape Cod and then Rte 108 would be crossing two streets. Mr. Segeale suggested stop signs. Mr. Aumand asked if the first step would be to add a turn lane, which would limit traffic congestion? Mr. Segale responded saying one would have to decide how it would affect all other traffic. Ms. Jary asked about the delays projected in the one and two driveway entrances and if one would be willing to accept longer delays on busy weekends? Mr. Coppock stated the project will be adding traffic but if we are going to impose additional delays on motorists, all things being equal, we should impose the delays on the project, rather than the passing traffic. tape 1 side 2 Mr. Aumand said the studies suggest there are cumulative problems , but wherever the problem lays, it needs to be addressed whether it be by the DRB or Selectboard and felt we need to start with this project to come up with some kind of mitigation. Mr. Coppock said he agreed. Mr. Aumand said steps have to start with this project with the 54 cars per hour. Mr. Coppock said there are things that can happen in the immediate vicinity or that the applicant can do. Mr. Aumand said he liked the idea of a right turn lane and by backing up traffic into the development forces the developer to take measures. I.e. police, right turn lane etc. Mr. Biedermann stated he knew where the conversation was going and did not disagree but felt it has to be led by the community as all other developments add to it. He said the Planning Commission or some body has to address it, whether it be by imposing impact fees or something else. He said he did not know what he could do. Mr. Aumand: “I recognize we cannot satisfy the deficiencies in the area solely on the back of this project, but the DRB can recognize traffic as a problem and go on record that mitigation steps have to be taken, and this project may be required to take one of those steps.” Mr. Coppock referred to Sec. 4.7 (2) (a) (2) in the bylaws and read aloud and he felt the DRB has from the Town the authority to require turn lanes. He said he would like to see the town tackle the issue and determine the impact as the town starts to build out, not just for traffic but other issues. Mr. Biedermann: “I do not disagree and I don’t think the town has ever done that, it has never happened. I feel this could be a dangerous precedent without studying the impacts all over town.  Mr. Aumand stated the Board did retain jurisdiction over traffic flow with the Mt. Company. Mr. Coppock said the difference between this project and Trapps corner (Mr. Biedermann had asked why the Board did not do something there) is that this project is right on the corner and the traffic goes through an intersection. He stated the bylaws require the Board consider the issue. Mr. Biedermann stated he did no disagree but did disagree with the process. Mr. Segale felt there is a solution with a right turn, which will allow for two-way traffic from the project. Mr. Coppock asked Mr. Biedermann to look into a turn lane with an analysis of the one-way/two way scenario plus other solutions prior to the next meeting. MEADOWLAND OVERLAY DISTRICT: Mr. Beidermann stated this is a dedicated growth area and they are keeping 1.77 acres as open green space, which meets the spirit of the zone. He said they previously offered the land to the Land Trust but received no support from the Selectboard. Plans are for a fence along Rte 108 with a sidewalk into the project, which will keep people on the Rec Path. He said it is possible to use the land across the river in the future for a park. The meadow is 5 acres, 1,5 acres of open space (need the calculation to satisfy Sec. 15.4(2)) Mr. Coppock: “ It is beyond my comprehension that the town couldn’t be persuaded to turn this meadow into some sort of green space and this Board will get a tremendous amount of criticism when the townspeople find this meadow full of houses. The Planning Commission and Selectboard chose to not to deal with this issue and in fact encouraged development like this.  Mr. Biedermann stated the existing vegetation along the river has to remain and they cannot build within 50’ from the top of the bank (closest building will be 80’). Sec. 4.4 OUTDOOR LIGHTING: Mr. Biedermann referred to sheet E-1 dated 7/10/05. Poles will be 6-8’ throughout the project. Using fixtures similar to JCOGS and Stoweflake with 26-watt fluorescent bulbs. Plans are to have minimal lighting in the residential area (6’ poles with lights on photo cells). When asked if the lights will stay on all night, Mr. Biedermann stated that in the village that is what happens, but will look into it. Members commented that proposed project has a lot of light. There will be no lighting on Cape Cod Road. Sec. 4.7: letter received from Stowe Fire Department dated 10-1-05 (John Schnee) stating they have reviewed the plan and approved after receiving information required. There are 3 existing hydrants and installing 2 additional ones. All commercial buildings will have a sprinkler system. A letter (9/23/05) from Cliff Johnson, Director of Public Works that states the town can provide water and sewer. There is a letter from the Stowe Electric Department dated 8-25-04 giving approval for power. Mr. Coppock stated the Board, in cases like this which predate the current Stowe Electric policy, will require the applicant to obtain an updated ability to serve letter which the Board will address at a future meeting. CHARACTER of the AREA: Mr. Beidermann stated at one time this was whole area was farmland, now a portion is developed with an intensive condo project, Stoweflake Resort, shopping mall, golf course etc. (MRV). STORWATER DISCHARGE: the Board will accept the issuance of the state permit as evidence of compliance. Mr. Biedermann said the state monitors construction projects like this for erosion control and storm water discharge. Mr. Coppock stated the Board might require some monitoring by the engineer. Hours of construction will be Monday through Friday from 7 A.M. –5:00 P.M. Plans are for propane fireplaces. No flood plain issues. All units will have central air with exterior compressors units the size of a suitcase. Commercial buildings have not been located on the plan as yet so will need size and location of the exterior cooling units on the plan. Mr. Izzo asked about stacks on the roof and Mr. Biedermann stated the middle units might have some (will be returning for those buildings). Mr. Izzo stated the Board needs to know what will be on the roofs, especially the 5 buildings along the road. Mr. Jones asked about the building footprints and Mr. Biedermann said there will be a building envelope for each lot. There are double setbacks but buildings have not been designed as yet. This will be taken up later. Buildings will be no closer than 20’ between each with 10’ setbacks.  PARKING: two spaces for each building, one in the garage and one in the front of the building. There will be 18 spaces along the interior 20’ wide road with room for parking. Curbing is planned next to the buildings as well as the main part of the commercial area. Intend to use paver stones for the walkways. 

The meeting adjourned at 7:00 P.M. with Mr. Aumand moving to RECESS to MARCH 7, 2006, seconded by Mr. Jones with all in favor. The applicant and Board will start with landscaping as the next issue.

HAPPY VALENTINES DAY

Respectfully submitted,

Barbara S. Allaire

Development Review Board

                                               February 21, 2006

The regular meeting of the Stowe Development Review Board was held Tuesday, February 21, 2006 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M.

Members present: Allan Coppock, Chris Walton, Larry Jones, Susan Jary and Ed Izzo.

Absent: Francis Aumand. Also present: C. Bryant Brink, Zoning Administrator.

5:00 P.M.

Application #:       BA 7-251-1

Property Owner:  Lamoille Housing Partnership

Overview:              Planned Residential Development to increase project density pursuant to Section 17.6(1) of the zoning regulations. There will be 36 units in 18 buildings; at least 50% of the project will remain perpetually affordable. RECESSED from January 10, 2006.

Tax Parcel #:            7-251.000

Physical Location:    Sylvan Park Road

Zoning District:         RR- 1 & RR- 2 

 Present for the hearings were: Darrow Mansfield, Mansfield Ventures, Michael Wisniewski, Architect; Nancy Owens, Housing Vermont, Robin Pierce, Lamoille Housing Partnership Jeremy Owens. Mr. Coppock stated an overview was given at the previous meeting and resulted in the requirement of additional information. Mr. Mansfield stated the standard (at this time) “ability to serve” letter received from the Stowe Electric Department; Stowe Fire Department approval received with the requirement that the proposed pressurized fire hydrant be relocated south of building #17 with final location being approved by the F.D.; it was noted the Police Chief said no to the municipal review form. Mr. Brink stated he had spoken to him and he had concerns with housing of this nature but in another location. Mr. Brink said Mr. Kaplan said he gave approval. Landscaping Plan of Duncan Wisniewski, sheet dated 2-10-06. Plan specifically states the numbers (135 trees, 136 shrubs and 270 perennials), size and location of the proposed plantings. Mr. Mansfield stated the plan follows the Town Plan and because there is another neighborhood in the area, screening hedge goes along adjoining property (Thomas Lane); ordinance calls for street tree plantings. Mr. Mansfield said they are proposing a black 6’ high vinyl chain link fence with vine growing through it (as opposed to a stockade fence). Mr. Izzo asked how the landscaping will be maintained, who will cut the grass, take care of the shrubs etc. Mr. Mansfield said there would be a management company and this portion will be sub-contracted. Mr. Izzo asked that be in writing or in the covenants. Mr. Izzo said it is fine to spend the money initially on landscaping, but it needs to be maintained and felt the Board should know who would do it. Ms. Owens stated they will be maintaining the property with the help of a professional management company. Mr. Coppock said the street trees (red maples and ash)  shown are 2- 2.5” in caliper and will be so small as to have a minimal impact for quite sometime and felt that will not be adequate along the road. The Board’s concern is related more to the view from outside the project. Mr. Coppock suggested it appropriate to increase the size of the plantings in that area. He suggested a hedge barrier along Thomas Lane as opposed to the plantings proposed on the plan. Mr. Jones asked if the plan delineates limits of clearing and Mr. Wisniewski described on the plan the elimination (reserving the majority of trees) but losing some (possibly 30-40) because of the regrading and described the mowing limits. Mr. Mansfield’s information dated 2/15/06 included a copy of the Easement Deed documenting legal access to underground utilities from Thomas Lane and is filed in the Land Records. Mr. Mansfield noted Mr. Biedermann’s letter dated 1/10/06 re: the hedge/fence along the property line. There are provisions in the plan for a fence. Information submitted from Engineering Ventures dated 12/16/05 re: storm water management and wetlands. Plan shows an existing fallen over stonewall with a field road over towards the ice rink. Memo dated 1/30/06 from Nancy Owns speaks to ownership issues and was reviewed. Ms.Owens stated each unit will have an envelope which defines not only the building but also the driveway and some land outside. There will be 36 defined condo units with a plan to sell up to 8 of those units with the owners owning the land area around their units and the drive. Mr. Wisniewski stated there would be limited common area.  The applicant discussed the wetland issue at the last meeting as well as most of the subdivision regulations. Previously the applicant spoke of constructing a sidewalk running along Sylvan Park road as a possible condition. Mr. Mansfield stated a truck could pull up past a unit and back in to the parking area. Mr. Coppock said an issue is how the project interfaces with Thomas Lane. There are two significant developments side by side with no interconnecting road. He said he is concerned about the trespassing issue. A letter from a group of concerned property owners at Thomas Lane was received expressing their fear of trespassing. Mr. Coppock said that, unfortunately, foot traffic will want to go towards the village and to do so lawfully would require going down to Rte 100.   The length of that walk creates an incentive to take a short cut through to Thomas Lane. He felt a fence would be appropriate, saying he was concerned about the possible impact on municipal services if the neighbors were frequently having to call the police. tape 1 side 2  It was agreed a fence would be appropriate. Mr. Coppock asked what members felt about a black chain link fence, which the applicant believe would be easier to maintain. Length to be 350’. Mr. Jones suggested it would come to the rock wall and then there is the footpath. Mr. Walton stated he would imagine there will be substantial number of children but was concerned putting up a fence: it could look like we would be segregating neighborhoods. Ms. Jary stated she would be more interested in having the neighbors install a fence. After discussion re: the fence, Ms. Jary and Mr. Walton agreed to approve a fence but have it stop at the stone wall. Mr. Izzo suggested Thomas Lane folks next to the project could contribute. Mr.Coppock suggested the Board could retain jurisdiction over landscaping. Ms. Jary stated a letter from the State will be required satisfying the distance between the buildings and suggested that the open space be documented in the covenants. Bodo Liewehr asked the percentage of the units, which will meet the definition of affordable?  Mr. Mansfield stated 28 will be owned by the Partnership and the other 8 will be sold as Limited Equity. Mr. Jones stated a letter dated 12/6/05 states 50% will be affordable-required in order to gain the density bonus. All units will meet the definition. Jeanne Penoyar-Thomas Lane:

Asked if the Board had studied the impact, if any, on the schools? Mr. Coppock stated not specifically, and the bylaws probably do not provide the Board the authority to do that, but does provide the opportunity to review municipal services.  She asked how it is determined who is able to own and who can rent? Ms. Owens said they are working on the agreement, but it is a financial decision, credit history, references for the rental. The unit for sale has not been determined but some will be affordable. Mr. Wisniewski stated do not have specific colors for each building but will be using a range of historic colors ( 5-6 different colors)  Roofs will be charcoal gray asphalt shingle. Exterior materials are wood clapboard. BA 7-251-1 PRD. Granting a 50% bonus density that is provided for affordable.  

 CONDITIONS:

(1) Any change in the plans or the proposed use of the property shall be brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator

(2) The Board will receive an affidavit attesting to the affordability of the proposed housing  before granting the requested density bonus.  Sec. 18.6 (2)

 Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: BA 7-251-1 with the aforementioned conditions, seconded by Ms. Jary with Mr. Walton, Jones, Izzo, Coppock and Ms. Jary voting in favor. No one voted no. Mr. Aumand not present. The Board still has one vacancy.

Application #:        S-05-35

Property Owner(s) Lamoille Housing Partnership, Inc.

Overview:              36 units of multiple family housing in 18 buildings on 10 acres. RECESSED from January 10, 2006.

Tax Parcel #:          7-251-000

Physical Location:  Sylvan Park Road

Zoning District:      RR-1 and RR-2

It was agreed that the criteria for the subdivision had been reviewed in detail.

CONDITIONS:

(1) Any change to the plans or the proposed use of 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 sidewalk shall be constructed and maintained by the applicant running from the project driveway along the town r.o.w to Route 100.

(3) A 6’ black vinyl fence shall be installed along Thomas Lane portion of the property as shown on the landscaping plan as presented.

(4) The Board shall retain jurisdiction over landscaping to an undefined period

of time.

(5) Copies of Labor and Industry approvals shall be received for the file with a plan, which shows the buildings less than 50’ apart.

(6) The Board, prior to the final plat filing, shall receive a copy of the Declaration and Covenants for review.

(7) The landscaping plan shall be modified to have larger street trees on the                    

entrance portion of the driveway and reviewed by the Board

    (8) A new municipal impact form shall be received from the Police Department.         indicating approval

  (9) The applicant shall submit a copy of the Storm water Discharge Plan and                 

  Wetlands and will treat the issuance of such as satisfying the town’s bylaws.

    (10) A plan shall be submitted for the file, which details the erosion control measures 

  during construction.

Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: S-05-35 with the above noted conditions.

Ms. Jary seconded the motion with Mr. Izzo, Walton, Jones, Coppock and Ms. Jary voting in favor. Mr. Aumand not present. No one voted against.

* Mr. Jones concerned with the condition of the sidewalk and asked if there has been discussion with the Selctboard. Mr. Mansfield stated they have been to them and were told they would consider it when approval is give. Mr. Coppock said if the sidewalk issue cannot be resolved with the Selectboard, the applicant will have to return to the Board for discussion as to what to do. Board agreed to put it in as a condition.  

Mr. Liewehr asked the Board if they were aware that the sewer and water lines run along Sylvan Park Road. Mr. Mansfield stated that would be a part of the discussion with the Selectboard. Mr. Coppock reiterated that the applicant shall construct and maintain the sidewalk at no cost to the town. Mr. Mansfield said it is intended that the town will take over at some point and time.

6:40 P.M.

Application #:           S-05-28

Property Owner:      Lipsky, Jed and Annika

Overview:                  Reopened hearing on January 17, 2006. RECESSED that date to FEBRUARY 21, 2006.

Tax Parcel #:             7A-132.000

Physical Location:    123 Mountain Road

Zoning District:         VC-30