Development Review Board

Town of Stowe

March 7, 2006

The Development Review Board met Tuesday, March 7, 2006 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M.

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

Absent: Chris Walton. Others present: C. Bryant Brink, Zoning Administrator and other listed in the minutes book on file.

5:00 P.M.

BA 7-004-010 (3) RUSTY NAIL      

Present were Ken Walters and Kim Brown seeking an Administrative Amendment to the previously issued permit. Mr. Coppock suggested going over the exterior renovations first to determine if this can be dealt with as an Administrative amendment. Mr. Brown described the changes: (1) second floor wall of the office east wall being moved to the east 2’ (no change in footprint) to accommodate a small bathroom. This raises the lower roofline 1’; (2) adding a bulkhead on the east which adds 26 square feet to the footprint to accommodate compressor for walk-in cooler, expanded heating plant etc.; (3) the west wall of the women’s bathroom will be moved 6” to the west adding 6.25 square feet of coverage. (per ADA requirements) (4) Mr. Brown stated the wall needs to be raised 12” to accommodate the hood ventilation system. There will be no change in the configuration of the kitchen. (5) new ventilator, 6’tall (55”) which replaces the existing ventilator for the hood. The overall height remains approximately the same at 60” above plane of roof. Mr. Aumand felt the testimony at this point goes beyond the scope of an administrative amendment, saying he is very concerned with the aesthetics of the area and needed more information (and it should be presented in advance of the meeting). Mr. Izzo felt the same saying it is a very sensitive issue; Ms. Jary agreed with the comments and Mr. Jones also agreed it is a very sensitive issue in a sensitive area. Mr. Coppock stated the issue is the character of the area and aesthetics which is part of the Conditional Review.  The applicants requested that items 1-3 of their request be dealt with administratively, and that they would return for a warned hearing on the remainder. Mr. Izzo moved to APPROVE as an ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENT items # 1, 2 and 3 only  of the memo dated 2/14/06 from Ken Walters as shown on north elevation A 22. Those changes being:

(1):  2nd floor wall of office/mezzanine space moved 24” to the east to allow additional flexibility in floor plan. No expansion to building footprint.

(2) Add bulkhead to basement utility space to permit service ingress/egress (26 s.f.) to foot[print. Total height of bulkhead under 36”.

(3) Move west wall of women’s bathroom 6” to the west to allow an appliance layout to better accommodate ADA requirements. 6.25 s.f. added to footprint.

Ms. Jary seconded the motion with Mr. Izzo, Aumand, Jones and Ms. Jary voting in favor.

Mr. Brown asked for guidance on the hood. Mr. Coppock stated the only guidance the Board can offer is that the bylaw says that the change will not have an undue impact on the character of the area etc. Mr. Aumand stated he would be interested in factors such as size, color, location.  

5:30

BA 6-059 ST. JOHN’S in THE MOUNTAINS

Present was Ernie Ruskey from Ruskey Knauf Associates with a revised landscaping plan, lighting plan (L 1 & L 2) with cut sheets and a minor change in the footprint. Seeking to satisfy condition # 4. Mr. Ruskey stated they have kept the same number of trees but have moved them from the island to the perimeter of the property. 6 ash and 6 red oaks, 3.5”caliper. Mr. Aumand had a concern because the motion of the approval states there will be additional landscaping and there is no additional landscaping being proposed. Mr. Ruskey stated they were not certain they could keep the trees in the island because the storm water discharge plan was being revised. Below the catch basins, there is an extensive drainage field since there can be no off site drainage. The state has mandated an interior design for the storm water discharge so the island cannot have trees but will be grassed, stated Mr. Ruskey. Mr. Coppock referred to Sec. 22. 5 and 22.6 re: screening, parking lots. The trees will be in the green space between the parking area and the street and the island will be grassed. State Waste-Water approval has been submitted for the file. Bill Kules, the engineer who designed the system, was in the audience and stated the island is a French drain,  (4’ wide and 6’ deep, designed to accommodate 10,000 gals. The storm water run-off has to be handled totally on the site. To put trees on the island would reduce the volume of the area to handle the run-off and the root system of the trees could plug the stone in the area. One will not see the storm drain, will drain to the grass strip which will slope toward the center of the parking lot. tape 1 side 2 Mr. Coppock stated the bylaws refers to landscaped islands and asked that they return with something that could be done on a smaller scale to satisfy the bylaws or return with arguments to convince the Board members that nothing can be done. Mr. Kules stated they would investigate finding shrubs that could possibly exist on the island. Mr. Coppock asked members if they felt grassed island would satisfy the bylaws? Mr. Izzo said he felt the bylaws have to be satisfied. Others agreed. LIGHTING PLAN: Sheet L 1 there will be 2-8’ poles, 26 watt fluorescent light on the island (like Stoweflake lamps). L 2-pathway lighting: 7 on the inside of the sidewalk, each 13 watt on 4’ posts-frosted glass. Mr. Coppock stated the concern in the area, with both the Mt. Road and Barrows Road running by the project, is that any of the lighting installed is shielded in such a way it is not an issue for either of those roads. He suggested the Board retain jurisdiction over lighting in the project because of the roads in the area. Members agreed. L 3 sign light: one light, ground mounted fixture and light shining up. (Mr. Coppock commented that most of the annoying lights seen on the Mt. Road those that are shining up).  3 lamps on the building, 13 watt florescent fixtures, 1 at each door, one at each emergency egress and one at the front door. Mr. Izzo moved to accept the lighting plans as satisfying a portion of Condition # 4 of the approval as modified, with the Board retaining jurisdiction over the lighting. Further CONDITIONS: Applicant shall provide locations for the building mounted lights on the elevations and a legend which references the fixture types. Mr. Jones seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Coppock, Izzo, Aumand voting in favor.          

Labor and Industry has mandated a second egress out of the basement so plans now include a 5’ x 12’ stairwell.  This was treated as an ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENT. 

Mr. Ruskey stated the church asked to make the Board aware that originally the building was to be renovated, but due to cost considerations, the church has opted to demolish and replace. Mr. Coppock stated that the new state statutes in Chap. 117 has removed churches from most review and now they do not fall under Historic Preservation rules. Mr. Aumand asked Mr. Ruskey if the new church will be an exact replica of what is shown on the plans. Mr. Ruskey: “that’s right”. 

Stowe Electric Ability to serve letter for the Baraw subdivision dated 3/6/06:  Mr. Aumand stated he was confused with the sentence in the letter which states the time constraints expires on 17.75 W capacity. He felt the wording was very confusing. Mr. Coppock agreed and suggested it be revised in some way.   

6:20

Application #:         BA 6-088-5

Property Owner:    Ampersand Properties, LTD.

Overview:                Planned residential and planned unit development to include commercial buildings, single family homes, duplexes and multi-family units. RECESSED from February 14, 2006.

Tax Parcel #:           6-088.000

Physical Location:  1652 Mountain Road

Zoning District:       HT, MRV, MOD

Application #:          S-5-31P

Property Owner:     Ampersand Properties, Ltd.

Overview:                 Preliminary layout for 10.02 acre 21-lot residential subdivision and commercial subdivision. RECESSED from February 14, 2006.

Location, Map # and Zoning same as above. 

Ken Biedermann present and submitted a letter from the Stowe Electric Department stating the project is grandfathered as service was granted prior to the change in policy so the one year requirement does not apply. An updated letter from Cliff Johnson re: update of water and sewer calculations required by the WW permit. Sec. 9.6 MRV- Mr. Biedermann asked to clarify calculations of density. They need 20,000 s.f. for each principal building. There are 10 principal buildings, the rest of the buildings have had land debited. Mr. Coppock felt the standards operate concurrently and so there has to be 20,000 s.f. each and also have to allocate density for the units. (have to meet both standards). There will be a total of 18 buildings @ 20,000 s.f. each so 360,000 s.f. will be needed when the project is completed. 6 acres has been allocated for density based on 18 units/ 3 acres per unit. There are 11 other principal buildings requiring 20,000 feet each or 5.05 acres for a total of 11.05 acres. Mr. Biedermann stated all buildings will be within the double setbacks, however the Board can waive this because flexibility is needed to move the buildings along the perimeter. Mr. Coppock stated the Board had previously discussed this issue and its earlier conclusion still stands. TRAFFIC: Mr. Biedermann stated the Board had asked Mr. Segale to return after reviewing the turn lanes off Cape Cod Road. A memorandum from Joseph Segale dated 3/6/06 was submitted, recommending the left and right turn lanes. Mr. Coppock said that the members will need time to read the memorandum. Mr. Biedermann stated there is a question if the town will enter into the proposed solution. Exhibit # 13 Landscaping: a detailed plan showing the area within the public space. There is a buffer zone, 50’ from the top of the bank which currently has brush etc. which will remain. L 3- green open space is 220’ long x 78’ wide with street trees around the exterior. (legend on the plan). Minimum tree size to be 3.5 caliper. tape 2 side 1  Mr. Aumand was concerned that the gates being proposed near Rte 108 within the fence will encourage people to go directly onto the Rec Path –which would be acting as a sidewalk[AJC1]. Mr. Biederman stated they planned to use paver stone but he will discuss this with Mr. Godin as it may interfere with the maintenance of the path.  L2 typical landscaping plan for the residential units. Mr. Biedermann stated plans are to build the fence along Rte 108 prior to any construction which is planned to be phased 5-10 years in total. Plans are to start with the residential first. Mr. Coppock stated the Board will be concerned with the storm water run-off during construction and Mr. Biedermann stated the state is as well.  Gracie’s parking lot will remain as is during the construction of the residential units but Mr. Biedermann stated they may have to do the underground work (storm water, water and sewer) in the initial phase. Sec. 5: The Board reviewed briefly as it had been gone over previously. Character of the Land for subdivision adequate. Natural & Scenic features : two features are the river which has a buffer mandated from the top of the bank. 80’ from the top of the bank to the first building. Mr. Coppock stated that what is primarily at issue is the view across the meadow. Will return to the clustering of the buildings. Building envelopes will be required on the plat. Site plan shows the interior sidewalks as well as the Rec Path. Letter submitted from electric, water and sewer. There are 5 charged hydrants on the site. Mr. Biedermann stated Labor & Industry will allow 20’ between buildings.  There is an additional 4.25 acres, across the river but Mr. Biedermann stated he did not feel it could be developed and had thought about a park. There will be 3 associations, (1) residential; (2) commercial and (3) an overlying master association. Land on the other side of the river will remain in Ampersand’s ownership. Roads will remain private. The main entrance will be 24’ wide then the other streets will narrow to 20’. Mr. Coppock stated prior to the next meeting, members need to read the traffic information and look at the landscaping plan. He suggested all members review Ken’s narrative. ** (these are things that still need to be reviewed/done) according to the hearing. Ms. Jary moved to RECESS to MARCH 21, 2006, seconded by Mr. Jones with Ms. Jary, Mr. Izzo, Coppock, Jones and Aumand voting in favor.        

** Building envelopes need to be shown; review traffic; conversation with Bruce Godin;

plat needs to show the setbacks; require copies of covenants of the varying associations;

7:10 BREAK

Mr. Aumand was informed during the break that he was voted in as a new member of the Selectboard. CONGRATULATIONS PACO!!!

7:20

Application #:           BA 11-202-02

Property Owner:      Meadow View LLC

Overview:                  Seeking to build five (5) energy efficient, multi-family dwellings (three triplexes and two quads) on 7.32 acres. RECESSED from February 21, 2006.

Tax Parcel #:            11-202.02

Physical Location:   Corner of Route 108 and Houston Farm Road.

Zoning District:        UMR, MOD

Present  were Jonathan and Regina Farrell, Bruce McCarthy, Tom Walsh and Jeremy Owens, Landscape Architect. Recessed from 2/21/06. Mr. Owens from T.J. Boyle Associates. The Board was concerned at the previous meeting about the screening during the winter months. They now have added on Sheet L-1 revised dated 3/1/06 -40 evergreens (as opposed to 21 previously proposed) and varieties have been changed. Have added on both sides of the roads some white spruce, Norway spruce, firs tree now some range from 8-10’ tall and 8-10’ between each. Have added an additional berm 2’ above the road height to the south of the road and changed the berm to the north to be 2’ above the road. Also have sugar maples, red oak etc. Mr. Izzo stated in the winter the sugar maples will not provide screening. Mr. Coppock asked if the Board felt the trees would be of sufficient size in the beginning to accomplish the goal of screening? Frazier firs and Norway spruce will be 6-7 ‘ tall. Mr. Owens had simulations of 5 & 10 years to show the Board which were felt to be very helpful. tape 2 side 2 Mr. Aumand felt the screening still not adequate in the winter as did Mr. Izzo. Mr. Owens said they are trying to retain the open meadow within the project. Mr. Coppock stated he was troubled by the potential visibility of the project during the winter. After discussion, Mr. Farrell stated they will increase the number of evergreen with larger caliper, heights and increase the mix that will have an impact, especially in the wintertime. Mr. Jones and Ms Jary said they were leaning towards larger evergreens without creating a wall. Mr. Izzo stated, even though it is not in the ridgeline, the project is very visible and the view needs to be protected. Mr. Izzo moved to RECESS to MARCH 21, 2006, seconded by Mr. Jones with Ms. Jary, Mr. Izzo, Coppock, Jones and Aumand voting in favor. Mr. Walton not present for the meeting.  Mr. Coppock suggested the applicant bring an amended set of simulations to the meeting.  

8:00

Application #:           S-06-1

Property Owner(s)   Peer, Leslie and Marion

Overview:                  Two lot subdivision, Lot 1 being 12+ acres and Lot 2 being 4.3 acres

 Tax Parcel #:            7-055.000

Physical Location:    1017 Pucker Street

Zoning District:        RR-2 and RR-5

Present William Kules, Surveyor present and stated the property consists of 16.3 acres, 3 acres being across the river. Proposed access will be opposite the Brush Hill Road entrance on Route 100 north. Proposed house site will be set back from the bank on the upper plateau near Rte 100. Plans are to have on site water and septic with a replacement area partially on lot 2 and will have an easement. VTrans will be giving approval for a curb cut. Subdivision Criteria reviewed. Mr. Kules described the layout of the property for members. Proposed house site elevation at 730 and essentially in line with the existing house, stated Mr. Kules. Natural and scenic features are the river and the mountain view. Mr. Kules stated the house to be built will be of the same New England  character. House site building area approximately 50’ x 60’. Traffic: Mr. Coppock stated he felt that is a tricky spot and the letter of intent from VTrans does not remove the traffic issue from the Board’s responsibility. Mr. Kules argued there is a significant sightline going north. A letter from Stowe Electric Dept needed. Width of the lot is 225’ and depth 854’. RR-2 zone. Plan needs to show building envelope. The only thing the two properties will share is the sewer easement for Lot 1, lot 2 having its own system.    

Mr. Coppock stated he was troubled by the driveway location and suggested members go on their own and look at the proposed location of the driveway. Mr. Izzo moved to RECESS to APRIL 4, 2006, seconded by Ms. Jary with Mr. Izzo, Coppock, Aumand and Jones voting in favor. Mr. Walton not present.

8:20

Application #:           S-06-2

Property Owner(s)   Kuepper, Tom and Thompson, Marguerite

Overview: Proposing a three (3) lot subdivision, Lot 1 being 3.02 acres; Lot 2 3.18 acres and Lot 3 3.07 acres

Tax Parcel #:            2-122.000

Physical Location:   438 Dewey Hill Road

Zoning District:       RR-3

Present was David Persons  representing the property owners and Ed French, Attorney representing the abutting property owners, Andre and Catherine Lajeunesse. Location off Dewey Hill Road. The lot is 9.3 acres with one house in the middle of the lot. Proposing to divide into 3 lots, each over 3 acres. Lot # 1 a 6 bedroom single family house (not certain at this time); Lot 2 is the existing 4 bedroom house and Lot 3 is being proposed a 4 bedroom house. Septic areas will all be on lot #1 (primary replacement area ) and lots #2 and #3 will share septic on lot #1. There is an existing driveway which will be extended with a 50’ easement across Lot 1 to Lot 3. tape 3 side 1 Mr. French stated his clients are located above Lot 2 and stated where the tree-line is now gives them a buffer so asked that trees not be removed. Mr. Persons stated there will be no additional clearing on Lot 2 but a minimal amount on Lot 3 for the house site. Will not be cutting back beyond the existing tree-line, stated Mr. Persons. Mr. Persons stated there are 2 springs  in the Dewey Hill area belonging to the Pikes and goes to their farm plus 6 houses. The pipe goes under the Lajeunesse tennis court, with their water coming from there but during construction, Mr. Pike plans to replace the pipe stated Mr. Kuepper. Mr. Coppock asked if there is anything being done by way of this subdivision that alters the easement on the spring and the answer was no.  No septic disposal will take place uphill of the spring. Mr.Kuepper stated Mr. Pike is talking about drilling a well. Mr. French stated there are no covenants and suggested being a part of writing the covenants because of the fact the water does come from the spring and the proposed house will be in the site line of his client. There is a small area in the upper corner of Lot 2 which is wet but there are no designated wetlands. Fire Chief Wendall Mansfield respsonded by letter that there would not be a problem servicing the lots. Lots not in the RHOD.  Mr Kuepper will be resubmitting a letter to the Stowe Electric Dept.. If the letter states the 1 year limitation for power, a condition of any approval will state that no construction is approved outside of infrastructure, stated Mr. Coppock.  Mr. Kules stated the driveway to Lot 3 is being proposed 12’ wide and proposing a turn around.  Mr. Coppock stated the three (3) lots share the septic, road, and water so there will need to be a document that deals with those issues, and the Board will want to review that.  Mr. Izzo moved to RECESS to APRIL 4, 2006 in order that the applicant can put the building envelope on the plan and any clearing which may take place and an alternative house site (if there is to be one) and possible covenants. (?????) Mr. Coppock asked for each member to read the description of Lot 1 prior to the meeting. Mr. Jones seconded  with Ms. Jary, Mr. Coppock, Izzo , Jones and Aumand voting in favor of the motion. Mr. Walton not present. 

8:45

Application:            BA 6-161.000

Applicant:               Mountainside Resort

Overview:                Proposing renovations to Buildings C and D 

Tax Parcel #:          6-061.000

Physical Location: 171 Cottage Club Road

Zoning District:      UMR

Present for the hearing was John Bolio, Mark Hazeltine and Michael Diender on the Board of Directors. Mr. Diender stated the long term project consists of renovating the exterior of the 7 older buildings at Mountainside Resort. Present to discuss buildings C and D which are identical in design. Asking for a slight modification to the roofline of the staircase areas (in which there are code violations).  There will be no change to the density, parking or footprint. Plans are to extend the roof out over the staircases (interior of stairs way to be gutted ). Buildings C and D are the least visible buildings in the resort (possibly slightly visible from Stoweflake property). Plans are to put on new vinyl siding broken up using clapboard type siding. (color chart on file). New roofline will not be extended higher, but will make the roof look smaller. Mr.Diender stated the plan is to return to the Board next year for buildings A & B.  Plans are that all new doors will face onto the stairwell and replacing the existing lights next to each door with 9 watt compact fluorescent shielded lights. Roof material will be of a black rubber membrane. Board was being asked to approve a change of appearance to the roofline, building siding and change in lighting. After review of Sec. 4.7, Mr. Aumand moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law limited to buildings C and D, finding that the proposal does not change the height of the buildings and the renovations are to non-complying. Ms. Jary seconded with Mr. Jones, Aumand, Izzo, Coppock and Ms. Jary voting in favor. Mr. Walton not present. 

   CONDITION:

   (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. 

Mr. Coppock, Chairman, thanked Mr. Brink, who is resigning as Zoning Administrator,  for his service, both to him and to the Board. It has been a pleasure having Bryant working for us and with us and all members agreed he will be missed and THANKED him.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Development Review Board

Town of Stowe                                                                       

March 21, 2006

The Development Review Board held its regular meeting March 21, 2006 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M. 

Members present: Allan Coppock, Chair; Larry Jones, Susan Jary, Ed Izzo and Francis Aumand. Mr. Aumand attended his final meeting as a member as he was elected to the Selectbaord at Town Meeting 2006.

Absent: Chris Walton .

Also present:               Stowe Reporter as well as those listed in the minute’s book.

5:00 P.M.

Application #:            BA 11-202.02

Property Owner:       Meadow View LLC

Overview: Seeking approval to build five (5) energy efficient, multi-family dwellings (three triplex and two quads) on 7.32 acres of land.  RECESSED from March 7, 2006

Tax Parcel #:             11-202.02

Physical Location:    Corner of Houston Farm Road and Route 108

Zoning District:        UMR and MOD

Present were: Jonathan and Regina Farrell, Bruce McCarthy, Tom Walsh and Jeremy Owens. Mr. Farrell stated they have revised Sheet L1 as of 3/21/06 and now added 38 20-28’ balsam firs on the berms at the southern border of the property, 17 of them will be a minimum of 25’ tall at the time of planting. Adding some additional willows and maples as well as some white spruce. Mr. Farrell showed another picture of the visual impact at 5 and 10 years in the future. Mr. Coppock stated he felt the addition of larger trees is having an impact on the view across the meadow within the 5-year period. Other members agreed and felt it was a great effort. tape on. Sec. 4.7: Mr. Coppock started to go through the final information on file and that which will be required i.e. letter on file from the Stowe Electric Department; traffic information re: issue of the high accident area; need General Construction Permit with a contact person (engineers) as there is concern with run-off during construction. Plans are for propane fireplaces and will have AC compressors on the exterior surrounded by plantings (need to be on the site plan). Access & driveways: parking for guests is adequate but a discussion took place re: Lisa Haggerty’s driveway which will be given up. Plans are for one- way drive. Ms. Farrell stated any change to her site would be handled under a different permit. VTRANS mandates one (1) curb cut. Mr. Farrell asked if Ms.Haggerty should come before the Board with another plan, would the Board listen? Mr. Coppock stated if she were to come before the board with a plan for her driveway, she would be heard, but any questions over the language in her deed would be a civil matter; if she objects to the one curb cut shown in this plan, she could appeal the decision of the Board. Mr. Coppock stated any approval of this project will be dependent on closure of the existing curb cut and there appears to be language in the deed which grants the applicant the right to do that. Charles Granger’s plan in detail shows how the run-off will be handled with the net result showing there will be no additional storm water run-off. Sec. MOD  Mr. Coppock read aloud the general requirements and Sec. 15.1 purpose statement. Mr. Coppock stated a large portion of the hearings have been spent discussing the impact on the meadow, and the applicant’s have made a significant effort to try and mitigate the view from off site. Ms. Jary asked about the comments Paul Percy, adjourning property owner, had when he attended a meeting re: the Landmark Meadow and spreading of manure on the meadow in the spring prior to planting corn or any crop.  Mr. Coppock asked the applicant if they see that as being a potential source of conflict? Mr. Farrell stated they were fully aware that there is a cornfield there when they purchased it. He stated he felt the additional screening would help to create a buffer between the cornfield and the project. Mr. Coppock stated the State of Vermont legislatively has gone to great lengths to protect agriculture. Ultimately, most farmers have the right to spread manure although there are some limitations for “large” farms. Mr. Coppock said he felt it could be an issue, and that it would be appropriate for the developer to make any potential purchaser aware of what is involved in having an agricultural property as a neighbor. Mr. Izzo commented, “it’s going to happen”. A lighting plan has been submitted, along with a revised landscaping plan.  The site plan needs to show the compressor units. Mr. Izzo asked that as part of the covenants, what can be stored in the garages be restricted (i.e. hazardous materials). Mr. Farrell stated there would be no kitchen facilities over the garages so cannot use as a dwelling unit. Mr.Izzo moved to instruct the Acting Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: BA 11-202-02 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 enactment, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.

(2) A copy of the covenants shall be submitted for the file.

(3) There will be only one (1) curb cut onto Route 108 and in granting approval, the Board relies upon the curb cut approval granted by VTRANS as well as the language between the adjacent parties which grants the developer to do this.

(4) A copy of the General Construction Permit shall be submitted

(5) The Board required a copy of the actual curb cut permit for review.

(6) A sample of the building color, roof and trim colors shall be submitted for the Board’s review.   Ms. Jary seconded with Mr. Izzo, Coppock, Jones, Aumand and Ms. Jary voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Walton not present at the hearing and still remains one vacancy on the Board.

5:45

Application #:          S-05-44

Property Owner:     Story, Genevieve Trust

Overview:                Proposal is to subdivide 741 acre parcel into two lots Lot 1 of 13.7 acres and Lot 2 the remaining acreage. RECESSED from February 28, 2006.

Tax Parcel #:           8-026.000

Physical Location:  Intersection of Brownsville Road and McCall Pasture Road

Zoning District:      RR 5 

Present representing the prospective purchaser, who has the property under contract, was Attorney Alan Thorndike, and Attorney Sharon Green representing the Story Trust.

The latest memo from Cliff Johnson, Director of Public Works for the Town dated 3/16/06 re: Brownsville Road improvements. The memo indicates that money was approved for the FYO8 budget and it is the intent of the Highway Department that they improve a sufficient portion of the northerly-unimproved section of the road so that access to a newly subdivided lot beyond the Page property will be possible throughout the year. It is estimated that 200’ of roadwork will be required to the north end. tape 1 side 2 Mr. Thorndike stated there is no legal curb cut at this time and 200’ is all the purchaser will need to acquire a curb cut. Mr. Thorndike stated it seems no zoning permit for construction of a house or barn, which would require access, would be issued until the road improvements are done. Ms. Jary asked about the road being designated as scenic. Mr. Thorndike stated the maple trees along the road are a “thing of beauty” and agreed with the scenic road designation. He felt the applicant would like that. Sec. 5.4 read by Mr. Coppock, i.e. scenic corridor and roads. Mr. Coppock stated, and members agreed as well as Mr. Thorndike, that the road is a scenic road.   Mr. Coppock suggested the Board could designate under Sec. 5.4 (7) this remain a scenic corridor. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Acting Zoning Administrator with the following CONDITIONS:

(1) All relevant conditions imposed at the 1-17-06 hearing shall be in force, i.e.:

(2) 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 enactment, for a determination if an amendment shall be required;

(3) A municipal impact form shall be submitted for the file.

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

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

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

(7) The buffer zone along the road will b e designated on the plat as a no cut zone.

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

(9) No development shall take place until the town has issued a curb cut.

(10) Under the powers granted to the DRB under Sec. 5.4 (7) require that the section of Brownsville Road fronting on the property being subdivided be designated as a scenic corridor/road and be shown as such on the subdivision plat.

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

6:05

Application #:          BA 11-255-4D

Property Owner(s)  Covered Bridge Associates

Overview:               Requesting to amend previously approved planting pan for building #13. Also requesting approval to adjust previously approved clearing limits for building# 13.

Tax Parcel #:           11-255.000

Physical Location:   51 Brook Road

Zoning District:       RR-5

Present were C. Paul Reed and Kenneth Biedermann. Mr. Reed stated they plan to remove some of the plantings in front of the building when thinking the building would be visible, but now know it is not visible and the very top of the building is all that will be seen. Small inconsequential trees will be removed. Mr. Reed stated they would be planting on the slope for aesthetic purposes to cover the view of the retention pond. This will only affect building #13. Mr. Reed had a plan representing the trees to be removed with new trees identified. It was felt a finished plan would required showing what exists and what be planted and improve the legend. Ms. Jary felt the change would be minor but an amended plan to the Zoning Administrator would be needed. Mr. Jones said an amended plan could add trees. That being correct, a new plan would be required. Plantings on the slope could be an administrative amendment to the plan.  Mr. Reed stated (2) of the request is that they wish to cut a ski trail approximately 200’ x 250’ which will have very limited views toward Brook Road and Big Spruce. Would like to remove approximately 20 trees within the acre. Not a public highway and the tree cutting would not be a corridor, stated Mr. Reed. Mr. Coppock, along with other members felt it a potentially visible site. Mr. Aumand asked what the view would be from Big Spruce. Mr. Reed stated the project is flat so view will be limited and would possibly see from Big Spruce a small area of the buildings. Would see nothing from the Mountain Road. Mr. Jones asked if the 20 trees are in a line or are they spread out? Mr. Reed stated they would thin so there would not be a corridor, “I do not want to have a corridor” stated Mr. Reed. Ms. Jary said she would like to see something on paper what was approved and what is planned to remove. Mr. Jones said are talking about thinning, and could consider talking up to 20% in 5% increments. Mr. Coppock felt the Board needed to go to the site and look. Mr. Izzo asked about building #12. Mr. Reed stated they will be in very soon

with building #12 and suggested waiting until that time to address the second part of the request. The Board agreed to amend the request of the modification to the present landscaping plan dated 9/15/05) and a CONDITION: provide the Board will revised drawings showing what exists and what will be removed. Mr. Reed suggested withdrawing this portion of the request as well. Mr. Izzo moved to RECESS to MAY 16, 2005 at which time the applicant will have applied to construct building #12. Mr. Jones seconded with Ms. Jury, Mr. Jones, Coppock, Izzo and Aumand voting in favor. Mr. Walton was not present.

6:30

Application #:        S-06-88-5

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 March 7, 2006.

Tax Parcel #:          6-088-5

Physical Location:

Zone:                      HT, MRV and MOD      

Application:           S-05-31 P

Property Owner:    Ampersand Properties, LLC

Overview:              Preliminary Layout for 10.02 acre 21-lot residential and commercial subdivision. RECESSED from March 7, 2006.

Present Ken Biedermann. Mr. Aumand abstained from the hearings. Mr. Biederman submitted a comprehensive packet, several documents required for the final hearing and changes. (1) Calculation of the MOD district (Meadow Overlay District) which the meadow is 4.94 acres; (2) letter from Labor & Industry dated 3/14/06 recognizing the distance between the buildings as 20’ with commercial buildings 30’. It recognized the residential space. (3) A master draft of the covenants for all Associations, and then each entity will have their own set of covenants operating under the master covenants; (4) compressors will be located next to the residential buildings which will be screened. Will not be put on the Mt.Road side of the project. Commercial compressors will be larger. (5) submitted 2 copies of the revised landscaping plan with identification. Mr. Biedermann stated they have added significant plantings along the top of the riverbank but nothing closer than 50’ with lower bushes to create a view corridor. tape 2 side 1 Mr. Biedermann stated the height of the fences are identified on the plan along the Mt. Road (overall height of 7’)  as well as the fences between the individual buildings and the tall fence along the river bank. There is no relocation of the Rec Path, stated Mr. Biedermann. Next to the fence on the

Mr. Biedermann stated the intent is that Ampersand will build each house themselves and not sell vacant lots. There are only two- single-family buildings in the project. Mr. Biedermann agreed to return to the Board for the review of each building (residential as well as the commercial). Mr. Biedermann asked if the fee could/would be waived. Mr. Coppock responded saying the Board is not in the fee setting business, but he felt the gain in the ability to manage what goes on is worth the loss in dollars if the Town were to say no fee was required. It was felt the Board would probably be dealing with each dwelling unit administratively as its final review would be a condition of the approval. Traffic: The traffic engineer had suggested that turn lanes off

Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Acting Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: S-05-31 P according to the Subdivision Regulations subject to the CONDITIONS listed. Mr. Coppock stated the conditions might be altered when doing the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law.

(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 copy of the 3 individual sets of covenants shall be submitted for the file as they are developed.

(3) Modifications of the fence going into the public place, showing dimension, shall be submitted for the Board’s review.       

(4) The applicant shall return to the Board for their review with plans for each residential structure (as well as the commercial) showing elevations, footprint, design and colors. 

(5) The applicant shall return to the Board for their review, with information from the Traffic Engineer suggesting a trigger point for the installation of the required turn lane, subject to the Board’s review.

(6) The applicant shall submit for the Board’s review, the General Construction Permit as evidence to managing the storm water run -off during construction and satisfying the bylaw.

(7) The Board agreed to waive the double setbacks on the northern border, which allows for a larger green space in the center of the project and the MOD mandates the green space. 

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

BA 6-088-5   Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Acting Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law with the following CONDITIONS:

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

(2) All of the mentioned applicable conditions for subdivision S-05-31 P shall remain in force.

Ms. Jary seconded the motion with Mr. Izzo, Jones, Coppock and Ms. Jary voting in favor of the motion. Mr. Aumand abstained and Mr. Walton was not present for the hearing.

BREAK 7:40 P.M.

7:50

Application #:       BA 7A-029-2

Property Owners:  Pearson, Marguerite and William

Overview:             Renewal of existing permit (BA 7A-029) to construct a 168 sq. ft. addition to the northeast corner of the building for retail space.

Tax Parcel #:         7A-029.000

Physical Location: 48 South Main Street-Vermont Heritage Gifts and Cards

Zoning District:     VC-10

Present were Marguerite and William Pearson. The Pearson’s had a building permit (hearing date 3-16-04)  and effective 4-30-04, to do the described construction. Sec. 24 (2) (C3), which states if the applicant has made substantial progress the activities described in the permit prior to the expiration date of the permit, the applicant, may file for renewal of the permit and the DRB may approve a renewal of 12 months without fee etc. Mrs. Pearson stated they are beginning construction April 3, 2006 and expect it to last 6 weeks. Mr. Coppock said he felt the applicant should not be penalized for coming before the Board early, however, the Board cannot be in the business of granting extensions of permits which do not coincide with the bylaw. Right now, the Pearsons have made no progress at all. Mr.Pearson stated they want to get it done as soon as possible (off season) but are waiting for Walker Construction. They have done the portion of the permit, a 5’ x 5’ enclosure of the basement stairs in the rear. Mr. Aumand stated the language in the bylaw is specific and said he would not be opposed to granting a permit, but progress has to be made. Mr. Pearson asked what substantial progress means and in whose eyes is it. Mr. Coppock responded by saying it is in the eyes of the Board and there is a subjective sense to it, but in the past, getting a foundation in and framed are things we have viewed as substantial progress. We need to see you are far enough along in the project that it will be finished.  Ms. Jary moved to RECESS to APRIL 18, 2006, seconded by Mr. Jones with Ms. Jary, Mr. Izzo, Coppock, Aumand and Jones voting in favor. Mr. Walton was not present. Mr. Coppock suggested at the 4.18/06 meeting, the applicant appear with some photos showing the progress.

8:05

Application #:      BA 7-155

Property Owner:  Town of Stowe  

Overview:             Requesting to add a 30’ x 30’ one bay garage to existing equipment storage building.

Tax Parcel #:         7-155.000

Physical Location: to the rear of the ball field and Jackson Arena

Zoning District:     RR-2  

Present were Cliff Johnson, Public Works Director and Bruce Godin, Superintendent of Parks, Grounds and Facilities. Mr. Johnson stated that access is off Park Street. The existing building is 30’ x 80’ and requesting to add 900 sq. ft. addition. Plans are to have one (1) garage door. Lot is 11.1 acres with coverage increase of .68 % in an RR 2 zone. Setbacks will be met. No need for water or sewer capacity. This addition involves no new employees. The addition is strictly for storage. The addition will be on a slab, exterior materials to be Texture 111 stained a green. There will be no exterior lights on the addition. No increase in traffic, stated Mr. Johnson. Building not heated. Mr. Johnson stated it cannot be seen from off-site. Ms. Jary asked about water run-off and Mr. Johnson stated they do not have a storm water permit but when the ice rink project gets started, they may be required to include these other buildings in the application to the State. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Acting Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: BA 7-155 with the following CONDITION:

(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.

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

8:15

Application #:        BA 7A-102-5

Property Owner:     Berson, Steve

Overview:               Requesting approval to add a 12’ x 30’ deck to the front of the existing restaurant building (Pie in the Sky) on the southwest side.

Tax Parcel #:           7A-102.000

Physical Location:  492 Mountain Road

Zoning:                   VC-30

Present Steve Berson who described the location of the deck as being on the right    of the entryway. The deck will have no roof over it. Plans are to add 20 seats. Presently have 90 seats including inside and the existing covered deck on the left of the entryway. Mr. Berson stated he has increased his parking in the rear of the building to accommodate spaces for 8 employees and 42 for customers, including two (2) handicap spaces. Mr. Berson stated there is no new lighting planned for the addition of the deck. Mr. Aumand moved to instruct the Acting Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of fact and Conclusion of Law re: BA 7A-102-5 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 for a determination if an amendment shall be required.

(2) Applicant shall submit a copy of the water and sewer approval

(3) A parking plan, with a legend, shall be submitted showing the number of seats, employees and customers. The plan shall indicate the location of the handicap parking spaces.

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

 tape 3 side 1

 8:25

Application #:         7A-161

Property Owner(s)  Brede, Deb and Ken

Overview:   Requesting approval to modify existing small building into a guesthouse for family and friends.

Tax Parcel #:           7A-161.000

Physical Location:  95 School Street   

Zone:                       VR-20 and SHOD 

Present for the hearing was Susan Fishman from Stowe Craft Design. A letter of Project Recommendations from the Stowe Historic Preservation Commission based it’s findings on sheets A-4, A-5, A-6 & A-7 dated 2/22/06. The existing building is not considered historic even though it is in the Historic District. The Guidelines for Specific Building Details are as follow: (1) The roofline and roofline material of the addition will match the roof of the exiting structure;  (2) 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;