The regular meeting of the Development Review Board was held Wednesday, April 5, 2006 starting at 5:00 P.M. in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building.
Members present: Chris Walton, Vice Chair, Ed Izzo, Susan Jary, Larry Jones and Ted Teffner, a former Board member and newly appointed alternate.
Absent: Allan Coppock, Chair.Also present was Tom Jackman, Director of Planning and acting Zoning Administrator. Also those listed in the minute’s book on file.
Chris Walton chaired the meeting in the absence of Allan Coppock.
5:00
Application #:BA 6-088-4A
Property Owner:Jewish Community of Stowe (JCOGS)
Overview:Seeking approval to amend BA 6-088-4 to include a playground
Tax Parcel #:6-088.100
Physical Location: 1189 Cape Cod Road
Zoning District:MRV (Mountain Road Village
Present was Steve Lichtenstein representing JCOGS.Mr. Jackman had suggested it could be handled as an administrative amendment. Mr. Lichtenstein stated they wish to put a playground on the side, next to the water plant off Cape Cod Road. It will consist of a Rainbow set, King Kong clubhouse and King Kong castle connected by a Billy goat bridge. There will be no fencing and there will be no lighting. There will be a shredded rubber surface underneath. Covered and bounded by rubber borders. Dimensions of the structures are 20’ x 43’ x 14’ tall. Definition # 2 allows for playgrounds. Mr. Izzo moved to approve the playground as an Administrative Amendment, seconded by Mr. Jones with Ms. Jary, Mr. Jones, Teffner, Walton and Izzo voting in favor. Mr. Coppock was not present at the hearing. CONDITION:
(1) All of the previous conditions imposed on the original BA 6-088-4A shall remain in force.
5:15
Application #:Z-05-169
Property Owner:Steven Scotford
Overview:Seeking an Administrative Amendment to previously approved application to build a single family dwelling in the SHOD.
Tax Parcel#:7A-075
Physical Location: Cemetery Road
Zoning District:VR-20 and SHOD
Present was Mr. Scotford gave an overview of the property for Mr. Teffner who was not present for the original hearing and explained the changes as six (6) of the windows on the southeast side will become 4”wider and 2 “ taller to meet code requirements and (2) proposing to use poured concrete for the entire basement area as opposed to using shingles on a portion of the wall. Wall will now be painted the same style windows with divided lites will be used. Mr. Walton read the letter of approval from the Historic Preservation Commission dated 3/31/06 finding the changes are minor in nature and in keeping with the original approval. Ms. Jary moved to approve the two changes to the plans as described as an Administrative Amendment, seconded by Mr. Jones with Mr. Izzo, Walton, Teffner, Jones and Ms. Jary voting in favor. Mr. Coppock was not present.
5:25
Application #:S-06-1
Property Owners:Peer, Leslie and Marion
Overview:Two lot subdivision, Lot 1 of 12+ acres, Lot 2 as 4.3 acres.RECESSED from March 7, 2006 in order that the members could do a site visit for the proposed curb cut.
Tax Parcel #:7-055.000
Physical Location:1017 Pucker Street
Zoning District:RR-2 & RR-5
Present was William Kules representing the Peers. Mr. Kules described the project for Mr. Teffner and Mr. Walton who were not present for the first hearing, as being located on Rte 100 north across from the bottom of Brush Hill Road. The proposed house site is in the rear of the property, with two plateaus at the rear of the peninsula, with a few trees on the top of the bank on the south side (some of which will be removed to open up the views). There are no plans for any future subdivision, stated Mr. Kules. The proposed driveway is in the center of the peninsula. There is now a building envelope 90’ deep and between the zoning setbacks. The house will be 4 bedrooms, with septic capacity on site. Mr. Izzo stated he had looked at the site and stated it is a sensitive traffic area, there beingwith several curb cuts existing in a fairly short distance. He also said the proposed driveway would not be level with Rte 100, which could create a safety issue with cars coming up the driveway out of the drive and with no area to stop and wait prior to entering Rte 100. viewing the on coming traffic from the north and south.
Mr. Izzo stated it is not level and would require a lot of fill to create a flat spot. Mr. Kules stated there is verbal approval from the state for a curb cut. Mr. Izzo felt the Board needs to know exactly where the driveway will be located and how they cars will enter Rte 100. Mr. Kules said he understood the concerns but had not thought of the grade. Barbara Allaire’s letter of concern was entered into the hearing. Mr. Kules suggested he could possibly put a road along Rte 100 and access the existing driveway near the barn, but aesthetically and practically it is not a desirable option. That would require filling along the road. Ms. Jary suggested the members look at Sec. 5.4(4) and questioned if approval in this location would be possible. Access Roads and Driveways basically states that parcels of land, including parcels to be subdivided, which are located on state highways, shall have no more than one (1) access road or driveway for the first 1,000’ or fraction thereof of frontage on state highway and one additional access road or driveway for each additional 1,000’ of such. Mr. Kules asked how far the barn driveway is and he said approximately 550’.After discussion, Mr. Jones stated he did not see how the Board could approve a third drive when there is less than 1,000’ from the primary drive. Mr. Kules felt the state has jurisdiction over the highway and he got verbal approval feeling there would not be safety or citing issues. There is no other option other than have it run parallel to the highway and Mr. Kules felt that would detract from the property. Mr. Izzo said he did not see how the Board could get around the Sec. in the bylaw. Mr. Jackman stated he talked with Mr. Engleheart, District Coordinator, who said even though it is their jurisdiction to issue curb cuts, they will defer to the local zoning requirements. Mr. Kules asked if he designed a driveway along the fence and use the driveway next to the barn, would the board consider it?. Mr. Walton said it would be more considerable and the way it is being proposed, he felt it might not pass a vote. Mr. Izzo stated he felt there should be a driveway profile designed and present at the next meeting. and the Board has to take into consideration coming out, need to see how level the area is. Mr. Teffner stated it is a tough standard, which is not happening anywhere else up and down the road, but because this property happens to be large, it is stuck with this standard, which does not match with the neighborhood. Mr. Jones said he was not sure there is a way around it. Mr. Jackman stated there is a provision in Subdivision Reg Sec. 3.1 where the board can modify the requirements, but stated he was not saying that is a good thing to do. Mr. Jones stated when he goes to the egg farm he goes all the way around by West Hill because of the safety. Mr. Teffner suggested knowing the distance to the West Hill entrance from the proposed driveway.Mr. Jackman offered to ask Cliff Johnson, Director of Public Works who issues curb cuts for the town. Mr. Kules will stake the driveway prior to his next meeting. Mr. Izzo moved to RECESS to MAY 9, 2006, seconded by Mr. Jones with Ms. Jary, Mr. Izzo, Walton, Jones and Teffner voting in favor.
5:55
Application #:S-6-2
Property Owners:Kuepper, Tom and Thompson, Marguerite
Overview:Three lot subdivision (now proposing two lots) Lot 1 of 3.02; Lot 2 of 3.18 and Lot 3 of 3.07. RECESSED from March 7, 2006
Tax Parcel #:2-122.000
Physical Location:438 Dewey Hill Road
Zoning District:RR-3
Present: Mr. Kuepper and William Kules who stated they are now proposing a two (2) lot subdivision (as opposed to three). The third one will be looked at in the future. There is total of 9+ acres, a small portion in RR 2 and the rest in RR 3.The existing house is in the center of Lot #2 served by an existing driveway and proposing a six bedroom dwelling on Lot # 1. Because of soils, there is a small area for septic. tape 1 side 2 There are no wetlands on this lot, stated Mr. Kules. Present was George Stearns Attorney for abutting property owner Marcia Maytham. He asked the distance to the well (10-15’), which has a well shield, which expands onto Marcia Maythams property. He questioned if the well shield in that location would limit Ms. Maytham’s ability to put a leach field on her property. Mr. Stearns asked Mr. Kules if he had looked at other possible well sites, which would possibly eliminate the well shield on Ms. Maytham’s property. Mr. Kules stated there are other possibilities, but the terrain and soils on her property within 200’ are not appropriate for septic. They are wet soils. There is an existing 60 g.p.m. artesian well, which could possibly be shared. Mr. Izzo asked why Mr. Kules would put a well shield on someone else’s property and he responded saying he did not feel it would have any impact on Ms. Maytham’s(who has 7.5 acres) ability to develop her land. Mr. Stearns said he did not know about the soils and Mr. Kules could be right that she would not be affected and suggested the Board would have to refer to in the future because it is a state reg. It can have substantial impact if someone puts a house on a property line, it could result in the adjacent property owner’s ability to develop his own property. Mr. Stearns said if a well is drilled there and his client wanted to build and went to the state for a WW Permit, she would have to respect the well shield and could not put any source of contaminate there (leach field). Mr. Stearns referred to Sec. 5.1 (1) and read. Mr. Kuepper stated he had spoken with Ms. Maytham who said according to Charles Grenier, the soils are not suitable for her to build there in the area where they are proposing the septic. It is not in the area where she may wish to build. Mr. Teffner suggested getting a statement from Mr. Grenier. Mr. Stearns stated they are not opposing the subdivision but asked if there is another location for the leach field. Mr. Kules did indicate other locations which have minimal options. There are wetlands on the third (3rd) lot.Sec. 5 reviewed. Lot 1 is 3.02 acre; Lot 2 -6.25 acres.
Clearing is indicated on the site plan. There is a 50’ wide easement across Lot 1 to Lot 2. Mr. Kules stated there will be plans to develop the remaining lot in the future which will require a lot of work. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Interim Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of fact and Conclusion of Law 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 letter shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator from a certified engineer certifying that soils on the adjacent property are not suitable for development or the Board shall receive a letter from Ms. Maytham or her representative indicating the proposed location of the well head protection area on Tom Kuepper and Marguerite Thompson’s land will not effect the future development of Ms. Maytham’s land.from a certified engineer certifying that soils on the adjacent property are not suitable for development or receive a letter from Ms. Maytham or her representative shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator.
(3) Applicant shall complete the Municipal Impact form receiving an “Ability to Serve” letter from the Stowe Electric Department.
(4) The applicant shall submit for the file a corrected subdivision application stating the correct request for subdivision, i.e. two (2) lots.
Mr. Jones seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Izzo, Walton, Jones and Teffner voting in favor. Mr. Coppock was not present.
6:30
Application #:BA 6-121-7
Property Owners: Trapp Family Lodge
Overview:Seeking approval to amend permit # BA 6-121-6 to include Villa’s Units 19, 20 and 21 and renew Permit BA 6-121-6.
Tax Parcel #:6-212.000
Physical Location: 700 Trapp Hill Road
Zoning District:RR-5 and RHOD
Present was Eric Schulz and stated they are looking to extend the zoning permit, which will expire 4/19/06. Mr. Walton stated the request is to include building 19, 20 & 21. Mr. Schulz stated they were originally permitted for 3300 s.f. and none were built at that square footage. They now want to build all to 2500 s.f.6 units have been completed and the 7th coming on line. Mr. Walton asked what happens if there are not built within the next twelve months. It is a two-year permit with a one-year extension. Mr. Jackman stated the Planning Commission is about to change that in the regs going to a 3-year permit. There are no changes to the buildings, stated Mr. Schulz. Discussion re: a new application to amend or to include the other 3 buildings. Mr. Teffner commented the 3 buildings will be on a separate time frame, so what happens, if they are not completed, will the permit expire? Ms. Jary asked what happens about the fees for the 3 new building. Mr. Jones said the permit we would grant an extension to is it that permit that we would be folding in buildings 19, 20 & 21, and if yes, the building of those units expires in one year. Mr. Teffner asked under what permit the 3 units are under nowpresently approved. Answer: another permit. Mr. Jones felt there are two different time lines. Mr. Schulz stated the original permit was issued and amended in 2003 but the 3 units were not included. Mr. Jones: so units 19, 20 & 21 are not under an active permit.
Mr. Mansfield, in the audience, felt there could not be a permit for the entire project. Mr. Jones moved to RECESS to MAY 9, 2006 in order that Mr. Jackman can research the original approval to determine what the original approval consisted of. Mr. Teffner seconded with Ms. Jary, Mr. Walton, Teffner, Izzo and Jones voting in favor of the recess. Mr. Coppock was not present.
6:45
Application #:S-06-3
Property Owner: 148270 aka Cummings Property
Overview:Seeking final plat approval for previously approved two-lot subdivision (S-05-18), which was not recorded in the Town Clerk’s office within the stipulated time period.
Tax Parcel #:11-053.000
Physical Location: 2664 Weeks Hill Road
Zoning District:RR-5 & RHOD
Darrow Mansfield present and explained the location of the property and said he did not get the plat filed on time. The subdivision remains as was approved with no changes. There is 104 acres of land with an existing dwelling and improvements. State permits have been acquired. The two other lots will be for family members, stated Mr. Mansfield. The main house lot is 73.4 acres with house; Lot 1 to be 15 acres and Lot 2 16.06 acres. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Interim Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: S-06-3 in conjunction with the original decision and with the following CONDITIONS:
(1) All conditions as approved with the original approval shall remain in force.
6:50 BREAK
7:00
Application #:BA 7-266 A
Property Owners:Sierra Park Properties (Former Jay Cooke Buildings)
Overview:Seeking approval to convert retail spaces to office and Ski Tuning business with minor retail sales.
Tax Parcel #:7-266.000
Physical Location:722 South Main Street
Zoning District: LVC & SHOD
Present: Karen Crist who explained the proposed uses as: Inntopia who is a processing systems for Destination Marketing Organizations and employees 9 full time with typically 6 employees in the office at any given time and 2 in the barn. Hours of operation: 7:00 A.M. –8:00 P.M. Monday-Friday.There are 12 parking spaces (square footage of 3563). Edgewide Elite Ski Services also will work out of the barn. They do not offer rentals. No exterior changes to either building stated Ms. Crist. Board reviewed Sec. 4.7. Mr. Jackman stated the Municipal Impact form has been completed and received. No exterior lighting changes being proposed and no additional landscaping. Front building will undergo interior renovations, including the removal of one wall. Mr. Walton asked if Edgewise would have any exterior exhausts? Ms. Crist said she didn’t think so. There is a shared driveway whose owner was present and offered no objection. Driveway/parking lot will not be paved, stated Ms. Crist.Ms. Jary moved to instruct the Interim Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law with the following CONDITION:
(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.
Mr. Jones seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Walton, Izzo, Tefnner and Jones voting in favor. Mr. Coppock was not present at the hearing.
Overview:Construction of a 9,550 s.f. maintenance facility including several small material storage shed to serve the Stowe Mountain Club Golf Course. Building has changed in size and has been relocated since last approval.
Tax Parcel #:14-002.25
Physical Location:Spruce Peak Base Area
Zoning District:RR-5 & SKI PUD
Present was Rob Apple and Walter Frame. Mr. Apple stated the original approval for the building was over 9,000 s.f and now plans are for the building to be 8,885 s.f(having been shortened) and will be pushed back from Big Spruce Road another 20’ to provide more front yard. The average height of the building will be 18.9’ on the uphill side and high point of the front will be 29.9’. (height reduced)
An M decision issued 4/23/04 which includes the Master Plan which the building would have a combined use, i.e. in the winter to be used for ski maintenance operation and in the summer for golf.Also approved under 14-002-25-0 the Mansfield Maintenance facility- at the same time this would be located within the golf course (approved but no permit issued). Concerns were raised by the State agencies feeling it would be too close to wetlands and stream bank and suggested it be moved back to the original location. The old plan included some space for ski grooming equipment maintenancedecision had the area for ski purposes, which hasve been eliminated. As now proposed, the building will be used only for golf course maintenance operations., now going to be used for the proposed building.Mr. Apple stated the design of the building is basically the same. It has gotten shorter, on the northwest side, will be flush with the main building. Sec. 4.7 reviewed. Mr. Apple stated the Fire Dept. has requested a list of chemicals to be stored in the out building (which has been done)Chief Mansfield has signed the Municipal Impact form. Mr. Izzo requested a copy. Ms. Jary asked if they have complied with all hazardous waste requirements and the answer was yes. There will be limited use of pesticides approved by the state and the company has to report to the state. No changes in the original application re: traffic patterns with no significant traffic generated other than deliveries in the summer. Employees will park in the Big Spruce Peak parking lot. Construction a permit on hand, stated Mr. Apple. Landscaping plan has been revised to eliminate the parking area and added trees located to the south of the building. The planned parking area will be paved. Building will be painted earth tone brown (as well as other service buildings), asphalt shingled roof . Mr. Apple stated there should be very little noise activity. One storage building will store the chemicals used for the course and another a wash down area for equipment, another a covered fuel area with a canopy over three (3) tanks for fuel. The snowcat area has been removedAccess will be from Big Spruce Road with no other traffic going in. The area will be kept open partially in the winter for access. Mr. Apple stated there will be no shared access, not designed for public use, however there will be 2 small public bathrooms with a walkway connecting to the 4th tee and the Sensation ski lift.going to the area. Plans are for exterior lights ( on record with the original application)which will not be on all night, stated Mr. Apple. Landscaping Plan L1.0 presented. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Interim Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: BA 14-002-25 (M) 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 provide for the Board a list of chemicals to be stored to be stored.
Ms. Jary seconded the motion with Mr.Walton,Teffner, Jones, Izzo and Ms. Jary voting in favor. Mr. Coppock was not present at the hearing.
Application #:BA 14-002-25 (L)GOLF COURSE CLUB HOUSE
Property OwnersSpruce Peak Realty
Overview:Construction of a 16, 2 60 s.f. structure to contain Stowe Mountain Club Golf Course club House and golf cart storage. Plans have been revised since last approval.
Tax Parcel #:14-002.25
Physical Location:Spruce Peak Base Area
Zoning:RR-5 & SKI PUD
Mr. Apple present and oriented the members as to the location of the Club House as being to east of the access road. There is a new bridge which has been built to the course. Golf carts will be stored underneath the building. Building will have a small pro shop and small restaurant serving the golf operation, plus there will be locker rooms and a deck. Using native stone, brown asphalt shingled roof and exterior stained natural. Plans are to eliminate the parking entrance (on original plan). tape 2 side 2 Mr. Apple stated the building has not changed. The height will be 33’6” on the uphill side; no change to the original application re: traffic. Parking garage at Spruce with a path to the course. There will be an air conditioning unit on the south side of the building to serve the first floor and basement near chimney. Mr. Izzo encouraged the applicant to screen the unit. The exhaust ductshoot for the kitchen will go inside the chimney and up, will not be visible, stated Mr. Frame. Mr. Apple
sSaid there will be 10 parking spaces, including 2 handicap, and located to the northwest of the building. In the Master Plan there is a PedestrianTrail going through the old camp ground trail which has to be restored and maintained. Mr. Apple stated there is no change to the storm water management plan and there is no parking being taken out. Ms. Jary moved to instruct the Interim Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of fact and Conclusion of Law re: BA 14-002-25 (L) with the following CONDITION:
(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 decisionif an amendment shall be required.
(2) All conditions related to the original application shall remain in force.
Mr. Jones seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Teffner, Izzo, Walton and Jones voting in favor. Mr. Coppock was not present.
Mr. Jackman told members Rich Baker, from Marshfield, has been hired as Zoning Administrator and will start his duties May 1, 2006.
There being no further business for the board, the meeting adjourned at 8:05 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara S. Allaire
Development Review Board
Town of Stowe
April 19, 2006
The regular meeting of the Development Review Board was held Wednesday, April 19, 2006 in the Banquet Room in the AkeleyMemorialBuilding starting at
Members present: Chris Walton, Vice Chair and Chairing the meeting; Larry Jones, Susan Jary and Ted Teffner, Alternate. Absent: Ed Izzo and Allan Coppock.
Others present: Tom Jackman, Interim Zoning Administrator and newly appointed Zoning Administrator, Richard Baker. Others listed in the minute book.
Mr. Walton, Vice Chair told those present, because there were only 4 members present, they could ask for a postponement if they so wished.
Application #:BA 7A-029-2
Property Owner(s):Pearson, William and Marguerite
Overview:Seeking to renew existing permit # 7A-029 to construct a 168 s.f. addition to the northeast corner of the building for retail space. RECESSED from March 21, 2006
Tax Parcel #:7A-029.000
Physical Location:48 South Main Street-Vermont Heritage Gifts and Crafts
Zoning District:VC-10
Present were Mr. & Mrs. Pearson. Mrs. stated they have done a great deal of work, including the foundation and the walls are enclosed. They expect to have the project completed by mid May. Sec. 23.2 (3) (b) read by Mr. Walton. Mr. Jones moved to instruct the Interim Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law in support of BA 7A-029-2 finding that substantial progress has been made. Ms. Jary seconded the motion with Mr. Teffner, Walton, Jones and Ms. Jary voting in favor. Mr. Izzo and Coppock were not present at the meeting.
CONDITIONS:
(1)All applicable conditions of the original approval will remain in force.
Present were Kim Brown and Ken Walters. At the previous meeting, the Board was concerned with how the ventilator would look on the roof and felt that a warned hearing was required.There were also significant other changes which had not been warned, therefore this hearing. The existing hood has been removed, stated Mr. Brown. He described where the proposed hood will be seen from, and that it does not come into view until approximately 75’ beyond the intersection and then is visible for about 2.5-3 seconds. Mr. Brown stated they recognize it will be more visible than the old one, but did not think it will stand out to the casual observer. The roof will be raised 12” to accommodate the hood. Mr. Teffner asked if all the other work being done was approved prior to this hearing, i.e. the kitchen. There was an original approval on ??? and then there were three (3) requests approved as administrative amendments in March and three that were not. Mr. Walton did not feel driving up the Mt. Road the hood would be very visible. Mr. Jones asked what the color would be. Ans: ordinarily they are galvanized steel, but Mr. Brown said they would be glad to paint any color that will blend in with the rest of the structure. Mr. Jones asked if that could be the same color as the roof or something that will blend with the roof and Mr. Brown said he cannot be certain but would accept a condition which would address the color. The hood will be 60” tall. Mr. Jones suggested the Board retain jurisdiction over the color. Ms. Jary asked about the landscaping plan and suggested that be entered into a possible condition.Mr. Teffner suggested if the Board can be satisfied with the color as a solution, that would be fine, but if it is not satisfied with the color, they (Board) would need better control of the landscaping and that should be documented in the decision. Mr. Brown suggested the neighbor’s hoods are quite visible and asked why, as a condition, they would be asked to do screening at this point. Mr. Teffner:” I can tell you why, because you made an issue of using screening to hide it and the screening may not always be there. It needs to be documented so that it stays there.” Mr. Walton stated if the color works there is no need for more screening but if it is kept as a condition, the Board could revisit it in the future. Ms. Jary moved to instruct the Interim Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: BA 7-004.010 (4) 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 Board shall retain jurisdiction over the color of the hood and if not satisfied with the color, the Board will retain jurisdiction over the landscaping for an unspecified time. Mr. Teffner seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Walton, Jones and Teffner voting in favor. Mr. Coppock and Izzo not present at the hearing.
Application #:S-06-4
Property Owner(s)Sandor Renovations and Design
Overview: Final Plat approval for subdividing an existing 10.2 acre lot into two (2) lots of 5.1 acres each.
Tax Parcel #:1-001.010
Physical Location:Pinnacle Meadow Road
Zoning District:RR-5
Present were John Stuart, Engineer and Mr. Sandor. Mr. Stuart stated the property is off Pinnacle Road . The application was for three (3) lots in 2002[AJC1]. This application has total acreage of 10.2 acres and being subdivided into two (2) lots, S1A & S1B (5.1+/- acre) . Building envelopes are shown and are ¾ -1 acre in size. Mr. Jackman stated a small portion is in the RHOD. Approved Waste Water Permit on file (derived from the first approval) and plans are for drilled wells and well shields are indicated. Sec. 5 reviewed. Mr. Stuart stated there are no wetlands but a stream crosses S1B but beyond any development. Lots found to meet the lot requirements. There is a 50’ r.o.w. for the driveway off Warren Hill Road (which is private) recorded in Bk 256, pg. 289 which will serve Lot S1B and Mr. Jones stated that both accesses, if they are to be used, need to be shown on the plat. Municipal Questionnaire completed with the exception of a letter from Stowe Electric. No plans for covenants, stated Mr. Sandor, but the road will be privately shared. Mr. Walton suggested that the final plat be more legible. Ms. Jary moved to instruct the Interim Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: S-06-4 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 letter from the Stowe Electric Department shall be submitted to the Board for its review. (tape 1 side 2) Mr. Walton explained that only infrastructure work is allowed under the permit approval.
Mr. Teffner seconded the motion with Ms.Jary, Mr. Walton, Jones and Teffner voting in favor. Mr. Coppock and Izzo not present.
Application #:S-06-5
Property Owner(s)Brayton Marvell Family Trust
Overview: Final Plat approval for subdividing an existing 36 acre lot into three (3) lots of 6.9, 15.3 and 13.5 acres.
Tax Parcel#:7-341-010
Physical Location:Covered Bridge Road
Zoning District:RR-3
Present Charles Grenier, Engineer who stated the zone is RR3 with frontage on Covered Bridge Road . Lot 1is 6.9 acres with a driveway of 400’ and comes off a high point where one can see in both directions. This lot has some wetlands which are being protected. The plan shows a no clearing zone and the building zone. Lot # 3 (13.5 acres) is mostly wooded with a restricted building zone with the same driveway access, some wetlands on the lot which are also being protected; Lot # 2 (15.3 acres) is accessed by a r.o.w. across Lot #3 and requires a driveway of 1,000’ to reach the meadow. It crosses Class 2 wetlands which are being protected, except for 750 s.f., which Mr. Grenier described as suffering minimal impact. Mr. Grenier stated they will be applying to the State to do some clearing within the buffer zone of the wetlands. All lots will have on site leach fields. Lots 1 & 2 have a limited view of Mt.Mansfield but all lots get a view of the Pinnacle, stated Mr. Grenier. Curb cuts have been received from Cliff Johnson. Mr. Grenier stated all driveways are in a flat area. Sonny Davis stated where the road goes in at the height of land, in the winter one will not be able to see down the road and there is very little room to pass in the wintertime. He felt it is a Scenic Road . He said it is about 14’ wide. Mr. Walton stated that one definitely has to pay attention when coming down the road. Mr. Davis stated there is no way one could turn out unless excavation is done. Mr. Davis said he is not opposed to the development but felt it a dangerous place for a drive. Mr. Grenier agreed the road is narrow, but felt it could be addressed.David Jaqua stated that he and his wife want to make certain the development has no impact on the significant wetlands, the habitat and the natural resources. He suggested the Board look at the site, and said it is very beautiful. Mr. Grenier agreed and stated it is a very significant wetlands and only crossing in one location of 600 s.f. and at 90 degrees. There is a small ditch with a culvert which will remain, for a total of 750 s.f. . The only cutting will be around the house sites. Mr. Jaqua asked if there are any restrictions on the lots being further subdivided? Mr. Walton stated as long as it meets the RR 3 zone, it could be done, but felt it very limited because of the wetlands. Mr. Grenier stated the area is very limited for septic. He said there are no further plans for subdividing and anything further would be limited because they have been able to locate only 3 areas for septic. Mr. Davis said he has overlooked the top of the large lot since 1957 and would hate to think someone would build a house right in his view. He asked if there will be restrictions, said there are deeryards there and at one time it was a Fish & Game land for the Town of Stowe. Mr.Grenier stated lot 2 is already cleared. Lynn Diapolo asked about the driveway since she has a mound system in the back with a legal easement. Mr.Grenier stated it is 125’ down hill toward Covered Bridge Road which will have less impact on the wetlands. Sec. 5 reviewed. Mr. Jones said he was concerned with the “undue impact” of the sight from the Davis, as well as others properties. He felt the value added on any property in Stowe are the views afforded by the property. Mr. Grenier stated one will see the tops of the houses but it is very wooded. Mr. Teffner questioned whether they would block the Davis view of North Hill and Mr. Davis said if they put a 2-3 story house, they would. Mr. Jones suggested looking at the access to Lot #1 and the view corridor. He said he did not feel the Board could ignore concerns of the neighbors and did not have a sense of what the impacts will be. Mr. Teffner moved to RECESS the hearing to MAY 16, 2006 with a SITE WALK being held MAY 7, at , meeting at the Owl’s head entrance. Mr. Grenier will get a narrative to the members addressing Sec. 5. Mr. Jones seconded with ALL members in favor. Mr. Coppock and Izzo were not present.
Application #:BA 7-020
Property Owner(s):Howard and Howard, Inc.
Overview:Add 4 seats to Subway sandwich shop; increase store hours to -, 7 days a week. No new construction being proposed.
Present Eric Filkowski who recently joined the company, stated he noticed there are 4 seats already in place he is not comfortable about using them without going through the process. Mr. Jackman stated it is a minor change of use from something which used to be a take-out. Mr. Filkowski stated they currently have 18 parking spaces. Mr. Teffner asked what if the Board were to say it is a restaurant? What would the impact be? Mr. Jones read the definition of a restaurant. The only impact would be on municipal services and parking. Mr. Jackman felt it was considered retail when Subway first came in. Mr. Walton said he felt the Board should be careful not to approve as a restaurant. It is a non-complying building with a conforming use. Mr. Teffner asked if the board was comfortable with the available parking spaces. (11 required and they have 18). Hours: increasing operation 2 hours, from 6 AM – 10 PM, 7 days per week to 5 AM – 12 midnight, 7 days per week, to operate the same hours as Maplefield’s . Mr. Filkowski stated he knew that at one point the Grey Fox had some concerns re: noise but he felt the relationship has changed. Blue Rhino propane cylinder sales cage being proposed and under Sec. 8.2(13) would allow for the cylinders, stated Mr. Jones. It will be located between the Alpine and Stowe Auto, 5’ from the building by regulations. Mr. Teffner suggested the Fire Department be informed about the propane cylinders. The Board concluded that the restaurant operation is an accessory use to the primary retail use. Ms. Jary moved to instruct the Interim Zoning Administrator draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: BA 7-020 approving as an accessory use to the primary retail business with the following CONDITIONS:
(1)Any change in the plans or the proposed use of the property shall be brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, prior to its implementation, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.
(2)The applicant shall submit an updated parking plan showing in detail the retail space and reflecting the 4 seats. .
(3)The applicant shall apply for additional water and sewage use.
Mr. Teffner seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Walton, Teffner and Jones voting in favor. Mr. Izzo and Coppock were not present.
Application #:BA 7A-064
Property Owner:Falker, Robert
Overview:Construct a two story addition and convert one residence and 8 rental units into 4 condo units.
Tax Parcel #:7A-064
Physical Location:250 Maple Street
Zoning District:VR-20/SHOD
Mr. Walton stated there is a letter from the Stowe Historic Preservation Commission stating that on 4/12/06 they reviewed Mr. Falker’s plans and they are in agreement that the plans need substantial work before they would approve and recommended a recess. Mr. Jones moved to RECESS to MAY 9, 2006, seconded by Ms. Jary with Ms. Jary, Mr. Teffner, Walton and Jones voting in favor. Mr. Izzo and Coppock not present.
BREAK
Application #:S-06-6
Property Owners:Czaja, Anthony and Moore, Elyse
Overview:Seeking Final Plat approval for subdividing an existing 23.8 acre lot into 2 lots of 11.7 and 12.1 acres.
Tax Parcel #:5-047.000
Physical Location:253 Falls Brook Road
Zoning District:RR-5/RHOD
Present was Mr. Czaja who stated his property is located adjacent to the Lew Coty property in NebraskaValley . There is presently an undeveloped road to Lot #2 and Lot # 1 has an existing residence. He stated the town maintains the road only to the existing bridge and from there Mr. Coty and the applicant take care of the road.House site on Lot #2 is totally within the RHOD. Lot #1 is not. Plans are for on site water and septic. Mr. Czaja stated that a great deal of the area of the proposed subdivision has mature hard and soft woods and you will not be able to see the building site. There is a rise in elevation and lot 1 is heavily wooded. He stated he will be the only person able to see the proposed building. Sec. 5 reviewed.Power line will go underground from an existing line. Mr. Czaja stated he has no plans for future development. No reserved strips.There are driveway, spring and sap-line easements on the property for the abutter Lew Coty. These will be shown on the plat. Plans are for a driveway, 50’ from the buffer that exists. Mr. Jackman stated the municipal impact questionnaire is on file with the exception of a letter from Stowe Electric.Size and dimensions of the lots were discussed and explained by Mr. Czaja. It was determined that they meet the requirements of the bylaws. There is no evidence of any wetlands, stated Mr. Czaja. Ms. Jary moved to instruct the Interim Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: S-06-6 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)The applicant shall submit an “ability to serve” letter from the Stowe Electric Department for the Board’s review.
(3)The applicant shall provide for the record, a copy of the State Wastewater Permit.
Mr. Teffner seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Jones, Walton and Teffner approving. Mr. Izzo and Coppock were not present.
