Town of Stowe

                                                         May 9, 2006

 

The regular meeting of the Development Review Board was held Tuesday, May 9, 2006 in the Banquet Room starting at 5:00 P.M.

 

Members present: Allan Coppock, Chair; Chris Walton, Ed Izzo, Susan Jary and newly appointed members, Ted Teffner and Dean Pineles. Mr. Coppock thanked the new members for joining the Board.

Absent: Larry Jones. Others present: Scott Monroe, Stowe Reporter and those listed in the minute book.

 

Also present: Richard Baker, newly appointed Zoning Administrator, replacing Bryant Brink. Mr. Coppock welcomed Mr. Baker.

 

Overview:               Twp lot subdivision, Lot 1 of 12+ acres; Lot 2 4.3 acres. RECESSED from March 7^th to April 5 to May 9, 2006              

A letter dated May 9, 2006 from Bill Kules, representing the Peer’s seeking to RECESS to June 6, 2006. Mr. Teffner moved to RECESS to 6-6-06, at the applicant’s request, seconded by Ms. Jary with all members voting in favor.

Overview:              Asking to discuss the scheduling of a special meeting to review the application of the expansion of Topnotch Resort PUD. RECESSED from April 19, 2006  

Present representing the resort was Darrow Mansfield asking for an evening to be set aside specifically for this application. Mr. Coppock stated this has been done on a limited basis for large projects. Mr. Teffner moved to RECESS to MAY 23, 2006 at the applicant’s request for a 2-hour session, seconded by Mr. Walton with all in favor. Mr. Coppock stated beyond this special meeting, the applicant would be required to fit into the regular schedule. 

 

Overview:              Administrative Amendment to previously approved application for transfer lift.

Present was Rob Apple who stated the Board approved the transfer lift but the gondola storage area (pole structure on the Mansfield side) was not shown on the original plan. The transfer lift will operate from Spruce to Mansfield, located between Stowe Mountain Lodge and Spruce Peak Base Lodge. A small bridge will connect to the gondola barn. Lift will accommodate 8-10 passengers and will operate during the day and possibly some evenings. The structure will be an open pole barn to be used for the storage of 14 gondola cabins. Mr. Coppock asked if the barn was a part of the original application and Mr. Apple said no. Mr. Coppock felt it could not be treated as an Administrative Amendment being a new structure. An administrative amendment is to allow for approving minor changes to already approved projects. Mr. Apple stated they knew there would be storage for the cabins, but argued it is a small change, an open barn, not enclosed and located next to the terminal. Approval has been given for the transfer lift but any structures related to it have not been approved and will need a warned hearing. The Board declined to treat the request as an Administrative Amendment.

 

Overview:               Requesting to construct a two (2) story addition to existing building and convert one (1) residence and eight (8) rental units into four (4)condo units.

RECESSED from APRIL 19. Mr. Falker was present and described the location of the property to members as well as the project. House was built in 1840 (and will not be changed) with an addition put on in the rear in 1965. Existing are 5 apartments, 3 rental rooms and the main house. Seeking to convert to 4 condo units, which will include the house unit; the previous addition will be converted to 1 unit and behind the 1965 section they will add 2 units, 1 of which will be made to look like a barn. Property has been surveyed and the construction will be within the setback requirement. The front of the main house is non-complying, but the construction will not change this. 4 garages included, each being assigned to each unit. Mr. Falker stated there would be at least 10 parking spaces allocated. 6 spaces along the center of the property line and 4 in the garages. No dimensions were shown on the elevations (done by David Blosser Drafting & Design dated 4-24-06, sheets S-1 & S-2) showing the height of the roof as measured under Zoning. Use is being changed, going from rental apartments to 4 condominiums.

Mr. Falker stated the parcel is 1 acre. Multi family dwelling are permitted in the VR 20 zone but Mr. Falker referred to Sec. 10.5. It was agreed the use is being reduced, and the VR district does not seek to layout densities for multi-family housing. Members agreed what is being proposed is less dense than what exists. The application had no calculation of building coverage which is limited to 20% of the lot. Mr. Coppock stated the exact size of the lot will need to be known as well as the size of the footprint of the building.  

tape 1 side 2 A letter from the Stowe Historic Preservation Commission dated 4/27/06 was submitted, giving approval with no specific conditions other than being in compliance with the plans, which were submitted. Mr. Coppock stated there are dimensional issues that the Board will have to have addressed prior to making a decision. Mr. Falker stated each unit would be approximately 2,000 s.f. Sec. 4.7 reviewed:

A letter is on file from Cliff Johnson, Public Works Director, stating there is sewer and water capacity for a total of 14 bedrooms; Stowe Electric “letter to serve” states there can be service up to a year. Mr. Coppock stated the Board’s permit would match the life of the letter. Traffic: it was agreed the project would not add to the traffic in the area; Character of the Area: neighborhood residential; no wetlands involved but there will be impervious area added by this construction. Mr. Falker stated most of the run-off goes to the side of the property. Mr.Falker stated he might be required to move the driveway access since according to the survey; the head of the driveway is 2-3’ on the neighboring property (in dispute at the present time). He stated all driveways and parking will be within the bounds of the property per site plan dated 4-26-06 as currently surveyed. There will be no shared access. Bylaw required 2 parking spaces per unit and the testimony is there will be 10 spaces. These spaces will not require anyone to back out onto Rte 100, stated Mr. Falker. Landscaping: There is lawn in the rear of the property now, which will be maintained. 4 trees will be removed which Mr. Falker said are not in good condition. Mr. Coppock said given the large size of the building, he felt additional landscaping should be required to break up the east elevation of the building (a very long building as seen from the road). Mr. Teffner suggested a full landscaping plan be submitted for the Board’s review. The Board needs the back of the application completed. A complete lighting plan is needed which will show that the source of light will be shielded. Mr. Izzo asked about snow removal. Mr. Falker stated there is an area in the rear where the snow will be pushed. No dumpsters proposed. The Board will need the location of air conditioning units which could be noise issue (if there are to be any and showing any screening); copy of the condo bylaws. Ms. Jary asked about drainage. Will it alter the drainage patterns on site? Mr. Falker stated he has no intent to pave the drive. Jed Lipsky, an abutter stated he is in favor of the project, but stated the lawn in the rear is at a lower elevation (not flat) and suggested it may alter the current run off in the rear (if the area is filled in). Mr. Coppock asked Mr. Baker, Zoning Administrator, to go to the property with the plans and report back to the Board re: whether a discharge plan is needed. Mr. Falker stated in the rear it does dip down and he will excavate and fill. He felt it level with Lipsky property. He stated Mr. Bourgeois on the other side has a problem after the pond was installed on the former Kneale property. He was concerned this project may contribute more water to the pond. Mr. Lipsky stated he is concerned that all the parking is on Mr. Falker’s land and he (Lipsky) plans to put in a fence along their property for screening. Mr. Falker stated this is subject to dispute. Mr. Coppock ended that discussion as not relevant to the hearing. It is the testimony of the applicant that the site plan is representative of what is being proposed and the Board will be required to be signed by a professional engineer.

List of requirements for the Board: landscaping plan showing existing trees etc; plan needs dimension of the building, building height and calculations of building coverage on the second page of the application; copy of the condo declaration; lighting plan showing number of type of fixtures, numbers and location; drainage situation to be reviewed; site plan signed by surveyor re: survey lines; show any proposed air conditioning units; letter from the Fire Department (Mr. Pineles asked if emergency equipment could get in there if parking is allowed along the side). Charlie Berry, brother-in-law of an abutter, was concerned with the view across the grassed area and concerned if the parking will be seen. She will lose the view of the existing parking lot but see the rear of the building. Mr. Izzo moved to RECESS to June 20, 2006 as requested by the applicant since he could not be present for the June 6^th meeting), seconded by Ms. Jary with Mr. Walton, Coppock, Teffner, Izzo, Pineles and Ms, Jary voting in favor of the recess. Absent: Larry Jones.

 tape 2 side 1

 

Overview:               Design review for demolition of a non-historic garage and construction of a guesthouse on property containing an historic building.

Present were Tim Meehan and Kim Brown. Mr. Meehan described the location of the property as being below Percy’s farm on Weeks Hill Road and on the west is bordered by the Stowe Land Trust property. The 24’ x 30’ garage will be torn down and build a guesthouse on the existing foundation. No dimensional changes. There is a small structure on the property line which has a bedroom and bath (pre-dates zoning). That building will be used for storage (remove the bedroom and bath). Mr. Coppock asked how the guesthouse building would be used. Mr. Meehan replied it will be used for the family but it is not contemplated to be a dwelling unit. Plans are to have a microwave, but no stove, stated Mr. Meehan. This is not intended to be used for rental purposes. Mr. Meehan stated there is no plan to have a stove. Mr. Meehan stated the building is 60’ from the main house and after discussion about the second dwelling unit, agreed there will not be kitchen facilities. Sec. 6.1 (3) . RR 3 zone and side yard is 68’. Mr. Meehan withdrew the proposal of a having a stove. Mr. Walton moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law as an accessory use to the main dwelling 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 enactment, for a determination if an amendment shall be required. 

(2)   The applicant shall modify the plans to show the removal of the stove so there will be no cooking facilities.

(3)   The applicant shall provide a lighting plan showing the number of fixtures with cut sheets, wattage and location. 

(4)   The letter from the SHP dated April 27, 2006 recommending approval as presented is incorporated into the conditions. 

(5)   The applicant shall complete the back page of the application

Ms. Jary seconded the motion with Mr. Walton, Teffner, Pineles, Izzo, Coppock and Ms. Jary voting in favor of the motion. Absent from the meeting was Larry Jones

 

Overview:              Design Review for construction of a 1,100 sq. ft. garage located in the SHOD.

Present was Erik Miller who described the project as an existing one level house of 900 sq. ft. and the proposal is a connector between the house and the proposed 32’ x 28’ garage which will have a second story. The property will remain a single-family residence. Mr. Coppock told members the reason it is before the Board is that it is in the SHOD so review is limited to the historic aspects. A memo dated April 27, 2006 from the SHPC recommending approval was submitted. Existing house has cedar clapboards and plans are to have vertical siding on the garage. Mr. Miller stated colors would be close to the house, if not, just natural. Mr. Miller stated this property cannot be seen from Route 100. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Decision 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)   The letter dated April 27, 2006 from the SHP recommending approval as presented is incorporated into the conditions.

(3)   A set of plans shall be submitted for the file describing the project as presented.

 Discussion took place regarding the possibility of adding a deck under this application. It would be set on sauna tubes on the ground. Members agreed that since it was not a part of the application, and few details were available on the site plan. It had not been before the SHP committee and Mr. Miller was advised to apply when he is ready to build the deck..

 

Mr. Walton seconded the motion to approve Z-06-19 as presented with Ms. Jary, Mr. Coppock, Izzo, Pineles, Teffner and Walton voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Jones was not present at the hearing.

 

Overview:               RHOD review to construct 4 dormers, 4 new windows and a chimney.

Mariah Brown present and stated there are 2 bedrooms on the second floor with limited light tape 2 side 2 so they are proposing to put in 2 dormers on the front, and on the south side they plan to remove the stove and construct a chimney with a fire place. There are two windows in the downstairs. On the rear, proposing a shed dormer in the master bedroom and a window 30x 26”. The downstairs is basically one room and proposing to add 3 windows to match the one that exists plus a large 8’ x 5’ window in the kitchen. Plans are to replaces all the shingles, which will be black, which matches the garage roof. Mr. Coppock stated the first issue is whether the changes (additions) are minor or major in the RHOD under Sec. 16. Ms. Brown stated the house is currently brown and will remain that way. Question was, can it be seen from any vantage point. Ms. Brown stated it cannot be seen from Stowe Hollow Road but it can be seen from Trapp’s. Mr. Pineles asked if the sun will reflect off the windows and Mr. Coppock replied that is one of the key questions. View side of the house is west. Members had concern with reflectivity with so much glass being added and if it will be seen. Ms. Jary moved to RECESS to MAY 16, 2006to allow the Zoning Administrator to do a site visit. Mr. Teffner seconded the motion with all members in favor. Mr. Jones was not present. Members were urged to go to the site also if possible.

 

Property Owner:  Wallis, Rosamund Tasha

Overview:              Design Review and request for a dimensional waiver from the front setback requirement to construct a front porch in the SHOD.

Zoning District:     VR 20/SHOD     

Present was Ms. Wallis who stated the house is at 96 Sunset Street, former Ed Lambert house. She is requesting to put on a porch in the front of the house, back to its original style and out 7’ from the edge of the house. (there was a porch previously) The stonewall will be covered by the porch so will not be seen. There were two issues, (1) construction of a porch of any size onto the historic structure (Sec. 17.5 (a) and (2) the waiver request under Sec. 17.9. Mr. Coppock read aloud. Ms. Wallis stated the setback will be 25’ to the overhang. It was found that the proposed porch would be similar to others in the area. Letter from the SHPC dated April 27, 2006 was discussed. Ms. Wallis did not have a set of plans and Mr. Coppock told Ms. Wallis the Board does not approve things without plans. Ms. Wallis stated it is a very small project and assured the members what is built will be what she described. Mr. Coppock stated everyone is held to the same standards. Plans and elevations to scale are required in enough detail so the Zoning Administrator can review what is built. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: Z-06-34 with the following CONDITIONS:

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

(2)   The applicant shall provide the Zoning Administrator with plans, both plan view and elevations, for the Board’s review.

(3)   The SHP letter dated April 27, 2006 with recommendations shall be a condition of the approval.

The metal roof will be unpainted. Balusters on the porch will be painted white. Mr. Teffner seconded the motion as stated with Ms. Jary, Mr. Teffner, Izzo, Walton, Pineles and Coppock Mr. Jones was absent.

 

Overview:                 Construct a 12’ x 45’ deck for outside seating

Present were: Mr. Rovetto and Kim Brown. Mr. Brown explained the proposal as an addition of a deck 12’ x 45’ which will provide seating for 18 with the confines within existing footprint as shown on the site plan. Plans are to remove the stairs, which now go to an apartment on the second floor and will now be used as an office. A small landing will be constructed and the roof extension removed. tape 3 side 1. Current approval is for 139 seats, stated Mr. Brown. Mr. Coppock stated the parking regulations have changed since the previous approval; restaurant parking is now calculated on both seats and participants. This number will be needed to determine the parking spaces. Mr. Brown described the lighting (cut sheets provided) having 8 additional lights of 3 types. Consist of (5) 75 watt incandescent; type H shielded down fixture (2) of 100 watts; 1 wall lantern next to the door, type J. 2 Mr. Brown stated there would be a total of 675 watts, at least semi-shielded. Plans are to replace a window on the deck with a French door. Mr. Pineles asked how close the nearest structure is and Mr. Brown said approximately 200’. Mr. Izzo questioned the red light on the chimney which illuminates the building. Mr. Rovetto said he would remove it. Mr. Coppock stated he felt there is a lot of light being proposed, and the building is highly visible from the road. Mr. Brown stated they do not intend to put the wattage in that is defined on the cut sheets. Mr. Rovetto explained the existing landscaping but did not have plans for additional plantings. Mr. Coppock felt more might be needed. The Board suggested the following information would be needed when the applicant returns:

(1) need to know the number of seats and participants. 

(2) Landscaping plan showing additional screening

(4)   music/ loud speakers/ amplifiers

 

Mr. Teffner was concerned with the amount of lighting and said the fixtures need to be addressed; some of those submitted show the source of illumination which will shine off the site. Mr. Pineles asked the hours of operation, which will be: weekdays till 10:00 P.M. and Sat & Sun until 11:00 (when serving is stopped. Mr. Coppock stated that while this is a commercial zone, there is also a residential component in the area and lights, noise etc can affect the neighborhood. Mr. Teffner moved to RECESS to JUNE 6, 2006, seconded by Mr. Walton with Ms. Jary, Mr. Walton, Izzo, Coppock, Pineles, Teffner and Izzo voting in favor. Mr. Jones absent.  

Overview:                Seeking approval to construct an outdoor pool and community building of 1,570 s.f. for use by owners of the Villa units.

     Present were Han Van Wees, General Manager and Douglass Viehmann, Architect.

     Mr. Van Wees stated both applications are related to the villa site. The project originally received approval for 40 residential units, 3 bedrooms each, and 12 owners to each unit. 25% completed with final a total of 480 owners. Water, sewer and road with a 1-way loop, are in place. 18 of the units are adjacent to the proposed community building which will serve as dressing rooms for the pool, restrooms and snack bar. Mr.Viehmann explained the site. There are 18 parking spaces which will only be used by the owners and most are within walking distance of the building. Plans are for a screen house in the future. The fencing around the pool is to be black metal see-through with a wooden picket fence with a wooden gateway. Gate will be closed and locked at night. The building will have two floors, the lower being mechanical and storage for housekeeping supplies. Main floor will be basically one large room, have couches and chairs, a kitchen and 2 bathrooms. Building will be dark brown (Trapp brown) with all glass being in the south elevation. Building 1400 s.f. The original site plan for the Villas shows the lighting plan, (sheets L1 and L3) stated Mr. Viehmann. Board members agreed they need to know the number of lights, wattage and location. Mr. Viehmann stated there would not be a view from the pool beyond the units. The pool will be lit, but no lights around the pool. The current road has a pull offs for overflow parking, stated Mr. Van Wees. There will be no signage along the main road. stated Mr. Van Wees.

Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: the pool and community building 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 the municipal impact questionnaire as required.

(3)   The applicant shall submit for the record, an updated lighting plan showing the number of lights, wattage and location. 

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

Overview:                Construct Villa units 19, 20 and 21. Originally approved as BA 6-121-4. Permit has expired and design changed to conform to Villa units approved under BA 6-121-6

tape 3 side 2 Mr. Van Wees present and stated the original permit for these 4 units has expired. There are 2 single units, 21 and 28 and one duplex with units 19 & 20. Design plans of these units are exactly the same as the other 36 units, which were approved. Since the permit has expired, a new application for the proposed 4 units was required. Mr. Walton asked if there are any changes to the previous plans and Mr. Van Wees stated no, including the locations. Some of the landscaping is in near #28 but there is none on the view side. Mr. Coppock stated he was initially troubled by the visibility of the first two duplexes and remains troubled by single unit #28 which will be outside the woods line and potentially be very visible. This is in the RHOD and Mr. Coppock said we have to review it as we do all new buildings in the RHOD. Mr. Van Wees asked the members to look at the project as a whole and these components are a part of that project. Mr. Coppock suggested a site walk and asked Mr. Van Wees to stake the location out with something, which can be seen from the road. Members will do a site visit at 4:00 P.M. on June 6, 2006 meeting at the Tea House. This will be first on the agenda when returning to the meeting. Mr. van Wees asked if the Board could approve the other units at this time and the Board agreed that could be done. Ms. Jary moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law in re: BA 6-121.030.2 for Units 19, 20 and 21 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)   All previous conditions, which were applied to the original 36 units, shall remain in force.

(3)   The Board did not approve any construction of unit #28 at this time.

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

 

Ms. Jary moved and Mr. Teffner seconded that consideration of Unit #28 is RECESSED to June 6, 2006.   All in favor.

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 P.M.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Barbara S. Allaire

                                                       Town of Stowe

                                                        May 16, 2006

 

The regular meeting of the Development Review Board for the Town of Stowe was held Tuesday, May 16, 2006 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M.

 

Members present: Allan Coppock, Chairman, Ed Izzo, Susan Jary, Larry Jones, Chris Walton, Dean Pineles and Ted Teffner.

Also present: Rich Baker, Zoning Administrator and Scott Monroe, Stowe Reporter.

 

Overview:             Expansion of retail space and addition of front covered porch

                               (Withdrawn by applicant)

This application was withdrawn per letter dated 5/15/06 from Architect, Sam Scofield on behalf of the applicant.

 

Overview:              Construct a two-story addition and storage shed

Ms. Jary moved to POSTPONE to JUNE 6, 2006at the applicant’s request per letter from Architect Sam Scofield dated 5/15/05, seconded by Chris Walton with all in favor.

 

Overview:               Access and drainage improvements to special events field A and B, Mayo Farm. Requesting to postpone to June 6, 2006

Mr. Izzo moved to POSTPONE BA 7-042-AB until June 6, 2006at the applicant’s request; Mr. Jones seconded the motion with all in favor.

 

Overview:             Review of proposed elevations for reconstruction of porch as requested by DRB at the May 2, 2006 meeting and as a condition of approval..

Mr. Baker, Zoning Administrator, explained to the members he had suggested Ms. Wallis submit an overlay on the existing photo showing the accurate dimensions of the proposed porch to satisfy a condition as imposed when approved at the 5/9/06 meeting. The building is not historic but is in the historic district. Mr. Izzo commented that he felt a rendering would be required in order for the Board to know what it will look like when completed. Mr. Coppock asked Mr. Baker if he could work with the overlay when porch is completed. He said yes, it has the measurements. The Historic Preservation Commission wrote that the details and the posts are not an issue and left it up to the applicant. Mr. Teffner stated he felt it was not clear where the height is measured from. Mr. Izzo stated he was reluctant to accept what was submitted as a representation of the project being proposed, and he felt it was a concern. There needs to be some sort of rendering. Mr. Pineles stated Ms. Wallis submitted a 1970 photograph of the existing porch at the hearing and she stated she would build a replica of the porch. Mr. Teffner responded saying the little gable is not going to be built so it will be a straight roof. Ms. Jary said it was approved with the condition that a plan be submitted and the Board does not have a plan showing what it will look like. Mr. Coppock felt what the Board was being shown did not represent the 1970 photo. Mr. Coppock stated the Board needs better set of drawings with dimensions showing what she going to replicate. Mr. Teffner stated she said at the hearing she would not be putting in the “gable”, so the Board could not require it now. The plan was accepted at the last meeting. Mr. Baker stated the decision has not been approved so said the members could require further details. Mr. Pineles stated he felt the Board needed to have a better understanding of what they are “buying”. Mr. Walton said the drawing should be better than what was submitted. The Board suggested Mr. Baker consult with Ms. Wallis and suggest better elevations, or narrative, and ask her to

come to the 5-23-06 meeting to explain her project.  

 

Overview:               RHOD review to construct 4 dormers, 4 new windows and chimney (RECESSED from 5-9-06)

RECESSED from 5-9-06 Ms. Brown was present. Mr. Baker did a site visit in order to determine if the house can be seen from any area in town since the Board has to determine if they should treat the addition of windows and a chimney as a minor or significant in the RHOD. Mr. Baker stated it is a straight shot looking from the Trapp area, very little can be seen. If the building could be located, one would not be able to see construction. Mr. Coppock also visited the site. The clearing has already been done. Mr. Coppock asked Ms Brown if the trees on the right are on her property and the answer was yes. Mr. Coppock felt if those trees were to be removed, it would open up the view substantially. If it were to be approved as a minor, there should be a limitation that there be no additional cutting on the sides of the property. The view is mostly across the valley. The concern was with the large amount of glass in the dormer. French door exists and have snap-in’s. The 2 center windows are 30” x 50” and the 2 outer windows will be 18” x 50” with snap-in muntins. Concern was the reflectivity from the glass. Mr. Izzo stated there is a reason the RHOD is in place and these are sensitive areas, which need to mitigate the impact of the house. (issue is whether or not there is a sufficient amount of glass so there is a reflectivity issue). Mr. Coppock felt using the different window sections, true divided lights in the upper sections with mullions in the top it would reduce the amount of reflective area.  

Mr. Walton felt it a minor, especially if the window on the top were not to be put in, and the only place it can be seen is from Trapp’s. tape 1 side 2 Mr. Jones said there are small panes of glass and the testimony is there is substantial screening in place. Ms. Jary felt it a minor if no additional clearing is allowed. Mr. Pineles asked if there are other places in town where reflectivity was an issue and Mr. Coppock said that this was an issue with the Trapp’s Villa project, and in order to approve that application, significant landscaping was required, the location of the building was altered etc. Mr. Pineles asked if the approval could be conditioned. Mr. Coppock stated if needed, the Board could require additional landscaping. Could require that the upper windows be true divided lights. Mr. Jones felt the bottom of the windows would be approximately 10’ above ground. Ms. Brown told the members there would be black full size screens on the outside year around. Mr. Teffner said he was a Selectboard member when the RHOD was adopted and he was worried about a new structure sky lighting, not this type of project and did not believe a house has to be hidden in the RHOD. Ms. Brown stated there is no new exterior lighting being proposed. Based on testimony that there would be exterior screens on these windows on a year round basis, Ms. Jary moved to direct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law and approve as a minor in the RHOD with the following CONDITIONS:

(1)   Any change in 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)   There shall be no additional cutting on the right of the property

 Mr. Jones seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Teffner, Pineles, Izzo, Walton, Coppock and Jones voting in favor. No one voted against the motion.

 

Overview:              Review of lighting and landscaping plan as condition of approval of decision dated 8/1/05

Ernie Ruskey was present with landscaping and lighting plans to satisfy conditions of approval. He explained the changes as there would now be landscaping in the island (previously stated it could not be done because of drainage). Lighting: Mr. Ruskey described sheet 329 which shows a 2- 5’ post light inside the island; 7- path lights on 2’ posts, 13 watt bulbs on photo cells which will not be on unless there is an activity planned; L3 shows the sign light with an up 35 watt up light. Mr. Coppock stated there is continuing concern with sign lights in town and the concern is the visibility from the road and he stated this light has to be very well shielded. Mr. Teffner stated what has to happen is there has to be something under the sign, plants, board or something, which blocks the light from the road. Mr. Ruskey agreed to convert the light to a down light and amend the plan. L3- shows 2 fixtures on the church, WM 1, have frosted glass, fluorescent fixtures, one by the egress from the basement and the other at the emergency exit and will be on when the church is used and on photocells. CM 4- 1 fixture hung under the roof of the front porch. Planting: There will be a total of 12 street trees in the plan, 1 green ash tree (or red oak), 3-3.5” caliper on each end of the island with the remaining 10 trees placed around the perimeter of the property. Mr. Ruskey said they may plant native grass in the rest of the island, which would have some benefits, but the Board felt that decision could be left to the applicant. It was felt the trees in the island would help satisfy the Board’s concern. Ms. Jary moved to ACCEPT the lighting plan shown on L1 & L2 as satisfying condition #4 of the previously granted approval with the sign lighting being amended to show a down light. 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, fro a determination if an amendment shall be required.

(2)   The applicant shall provide the Zoning Administrator with a new set of plans showing the lighting fixtures, types and location.

Mr. Izzo seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Teffner, Pineles, Coppock, Walton, Jones and Izzo voting in favor. No one voted against the motion.

 

Overview:    Proposing a three-lot subdivision (Recessed from 4-19-06).

Present for the hearing was Charles Grenier, Engineer. Mr. Coppock stated he was not present at the hearing but listened to the tape, did a site visit and read the minutes so would participate in this hearing. Mr. Pineles and Izzo abstained from participating, as they were not present at the original hearing. Mr. Jones, Ms. Jary and Mr. Walton did a group site walk with Mr. Grenier and Mr. Teffner went on his own. Mr. Walton reported stated they stopped at each house site, looked at the building envelope. Mr. Grenier stated they started at Owl’s Head Lane, went through the snowmobile trail, looked at Lot # 3 and noted the clearing would allow for a view of the Pinnacle; walked and intercepted the location of the driveway going to Lot #2; and followed that through the wetlands to the field. Stood in the building zone and noticed it is heavily wooded between the zone and the Davis and    ???    property lines and this was all part of the class 2 wetlands so will not be cleared. Mr. & Mrs DePaolo were present. Could see where their house is located and their septic system. The closest point of any building zone on Lot 2 is 270’ to the property line and 335’ to the house. Then walked to Lot #1, went into the field and observed the intersection. The driveway tee-off at the crown of the hill so can see both ways. Mr. Walton felt the DePaolo house is the closest, but still quite a distance away. Mr. Coppock asked Mr. Grenier about the size of the building zone on Lot #2, stating he felt it quite large. Mr. Grenier responded saying it is a 15-acre lot. He said clearing is shown on Lot #3 and limits of clearing on Lot #2. tape 2 side 1 Mr. Grenier stated there is no intent to clear anything on the northeast side of Lot #2 . This is in the wetland but seeking a permit to clear 25’ within the 50’ buffer of the wetlands. Mr. Coppock stated that the area is heavily wooded along Stowe Hollow Road and a primary reason why the visibility is limited is because of these woods, yet the applicant is not showing any cutting limitation in that area. Mr. Grenier stated he would be willing to add a no cut line in that area. When asked, Mr. Grenier stated less than 3 acres will be cleared on the 15-acre lot. Mr. Grenier stated they would not be restricting any further subdivision of the lots by means of the covenants. It would be difficult to further subdivide since the septic areas are limited. Mr. Coppock noted that technology in septic disposal has changed and in the future it may allow for septic systems in locations that might not be allowed today. Subdivision Review continued: Natural & Scenic features were discussed re: the wetlands impact; no additional screening or landscaping being proposed as part of the application and members felt no additional required but will refer to the covenants. Traffic: three residences will not have an undue impact on the scenic road and have received a curb cut for each lot; no effect from storm water run-off; lot configuration follows the guidelines; building zones on the plan; letter received from the Fire Department stating no impact on service. Property not in the RHOD. Lynn DePaolo present in the audience and stated from her house she will be looking directly to a house and asked if there could be some screening. Mr. Grenier stated the closest point would be 270’ from the property line with some natural screening in the area. Mr. Jones felt because of the nature of the property it would not have an adverse impact on the view shed. Mr. Walton said he felt the distance between her house and the building zone is adequate. Ms. Jary agreed. Ms. Jary moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: S-06-5 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, prior to its implementation, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.   

(2)   The cutting limits shall be on the plans and provided for the file

(3)   A copy of the CUD permit shall be provided for the file

(4)   The applicant shall provide the Board with a copy of the covenants for their review.

Mr. Teffner seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Coppock, Walton, Jones and Teffner voting in favor. Abstaining were: Mr.Pineles and Mr. Izzo. No one voted against.  

 

 

Overview:   Administrative Amendment to change previously approved planting plan for building # 13. Also requesting approval to adjust previously approved clearing limits to Building #13. (Recessed from 3/21/06). This not part of this hearing.

Present were Ken Biedermann and C. Paul Reed. Mr. Biedermann gave an overview of the entire project for the two new members present and Mr. Baker, Zoning Administrator. Area is an Ag PRD of 460 acres originally including the Bouchard farm (permitted for 90 units) . Project located off Brook Road. Density was transferred     and Phase I of 18 units was done in the 80’s; Phase II in 1999 of 9 units; Phase III is for 10 buildings totaling 30 units. Criteria has been reviewed for the entire project, but the applicant is required to come before the Board for each building. This application is to amend the planting plan for building #13. Project is in the RHOD. Mr. Coppock explained that the concern in this area was the view from the Edson Hill area and the view down-slope of building #13. Mr. Biedermann stated the only buildings that there is any possibility of being seen are buildings 12, 13 and 14. Mr. Reed stated buildings 13 and 14 were approved in the summer of ’04 with the presumption there would be a view from Rte 108, therefore the substantial plantings. Mr. Reed said it is apparent now that buildings cannot be seen (possibly the rooflines, stated Mr. Coppock) and asked to eliminate some planting (this was withdrawn at the hearing).Applicant before the Board now seeking to eliminate plantings identified in plan dated 4/13/06.  Mr. Reed stated there is a Conservation easement in the deer yard area which is filed in the Town Clerk’s Office which states the area cannot be built on. tape 2 side 2 The applicant stated there are huge trees in and around the buildings and requested flexibility in plantings for building #13 and asked the Board to approve the plan with the addition of two clusters of birch trees. From this point on, Mr. Reed stated he would be discussing building #12. Mr. Reed stated they are not asking for any additional cutting at this time. After more discussion, Mr. Izzo moved to accept and approve the revised plan (which eliminates the trees highlighted in pink on the original submittal) and plant or leave those on the plan dated 2/14/06 and revised 4/13/06, as an Administrative Amendment for building #13 with the stipulation that no approval is granted for additional clearing. Mr. Teffner seconded with Ms. Jary, Mr. Coppock, Izzo, Walton, Jones and Pineles voting in favor. No one voted against the motion.

 

Overview:               Construct building #12, Covered Bridge Condominiums

Present were Ken Biedermann and C. Paul Reed. Mr. Coppock said the Board would start with review of Sec. 4.7. Mr. Biedermann stated the building is on town water and they have asked for a water permit for 13 bedrooms. Sewer is onsite; a letter on file from the Fire Department with a condition that steel ladders be built on the chimneys which Mr. Biedermann stated was done on the first building; chimneys are for wood burning and gas fireplaces. A traffic study was done and approved at the subdivision level, stated Mr. Biedermann, which shows minimal daily traffic. Character of the Area: on a hill in the RR-5 and Ag PRD zones. It was agreed there will be no adverse impact on the aesthetics in the area. Access road is private as are the internal roads. There are 6 parking spaces for each unit and 2 garages. (8 spaces for the 3 units with no provision for non-residence parking). Mr. Reed did not feel it was necessary to provide extra parking since there are very few times when all units are occupied and typically there is one car per family. Catamount Trail will be relocated to the perimeter of the project and connect with the existing ski trail. Mr. Biedermann asked the members to refer to the landscaping plan for buildings 13 and 14 stating there may be slight changes and the plans are the minimum which will be put in. RHOD reviewed: Mr. Reed stated he had been to the site with Mr. Baker for the purpose of deciding where, if at all, the building would be seen. tape 3 side 1 After discussion, Mr. Reed said there are mature trees in the front, building will be set back, and felt one may be able to see the ridgeline briefly from Rte 108, stating building 12 will be less visible than # 13. Mr. Baker agreed the site is protected. Mr. Teffner suggested, because of the RHOD, members go to the site and asked the applicant to put something up which will indicate the proposed height of building #12. Materials will be shingled roofing, clapboard siding with the same colors as exist on the other buildings. Mr. Izzo moved to RECESS the hearing to June 6, 2006 with a site walk to be held Friday, May 19^th at 4:30, meeting at the intersection of Brook Road and Rte 108. The following documentation will be needed at this point for any approval: 

Ms. Jary seconded the motion with all members in favor.

 

Overview:  Requesting an Administrative Amendment to change standing seam roof from copper toned to dull bronze/brown  

Zoning District:       RR 2/RR 5/RHOD         

Mr. Baker stated this is a barn which has been moved and converted to a house and seeking this change. Mr. Baker went to different areas of town and determined it cannot be seen from any area because of the trees. Mr. Reed stated he could not find the house from any distance. Mr. Reed stated the location is the next driveway after Sunset Hill.

Request is to change the standing seam roof from a stained copper to a dark brown bronze standing seam metal, install one sky light on the east side and reducing the size of the other two windows which are on the side of the building away from the public’s view. Mr. Izzo moved to treat as an Administrative Amendment in the RHOD the change to a standing seam metal roof, mansard brown or a dark bronze in color and the installation of a sky light on the east side of the building and the reduction of two windows which are located away from the public’s view. Ms. Jary seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr.Teffner, Jones, Walton, Izzo, Pineles and Coppock voting in favor. No one voted against the motion.

 

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

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Barbara S. Allaire

                                             Development Review Board

                                                     Town of Stowe

                                                      May 23, 2006

 

A special meeting was held in the Banquet Room of the Akeley Memorial Building Tuesday, May 23, 2006 starting at 5:00 P.M. for the purpose of hearing Application # BA 11-138.01 (Resort PUD) and Application #: Z-06-34, Rosamund Wallis.

 

Members present: Allan Coppock, Chair; Ed Izzo, Susan Jary, Chris Walton, Lary Jones and Ted Teffner. Absent: Dean Pineles. Also present: Rich Baker, Zoning Administrator.

 

Present for TN Associates were: Mark DeAngelo, Construction Manager for TN Associates; Don Marsh, Engineer; Darrow Mansfield, Land Planner, Arthur Kreizel, Director, Bob Chamberlain, Resource Systems Group, Traffic engineer; Dan Oberlander, Managing Director; Rolf Kilman, Architect; Mike McAnn, Architect; Keith Wagner, Landscape Architect;    Carolyn Orben, Landscape Architect; John Slason, Traffic Engineer. Also present: Missy Merrell and Tasha Wallis.

 

Overview: Reconstruction and expansion of main hotel and construction of a new West wing. Also, seeking to incorporate a 3.9 acre parcel into the Resort PUD

 

Overview:                  Amend Resort PUD

Mr. Coppock opened the hearings stating they were RECESSED from 4/19/06 to 5/9/06 then to this date. Mr. Coppock stated he was not present at the April 19^th meeting but had reviewed all submittals and the minutes and felt comfortable in participating, as did Mr. Izzo who also was not present at the 4/19^th meeting.

 

Members had heard an overview of the project at the April 19^th meeting. Mr. Coppock stated he understood TN Associates had purchased the parcel of 3.9 acres adjacent to the resort and the request is to fold it into the total acreage and amend the PUD. Mr. Mansfield described the 3.9 acres as currently having 3 residential structures on it. Density Tab 20 of the black book  

Total acreage in the PUD= 110.4- PRD (53 condos)=29.4- pool & tennis condo-8 units = 80.3 acres for development. Project will require              leaving 53.4 acres for future development. Review: Sec. 19.4 Resort PUD (1) requires 100 contiguous acres, which existed at the time the Resort PUD was created. Mr. Coppock said that the Board will have to review the total parcel with the 3.9 acres included against the standards in the bylaw. Tab 21 affidavit of density. Roads will remain private, including the new driveway which is being created. Mr. Mansfield stated the Fire Department has reviewed the proposed project as designed. Mr. DeAngelo stated there would be security cameras on site but there is currently no security department connected to TN. With the addition, there will be someone on duty at least 16 hours per day as well as the cameras. Mr. Mansfield stated the (Tab 20 pg 2& 3) proposed coverage is 108,032 square feet or 2.9%. Mr. Mansfield stated no dwellings or hotel units are being proposed for the 3.9 acre parcel. Sec. 19.3 discusses multi-family dwelling units, interval ownership etc. Sec. 7.3 UMR district. Permitted are hotels, tourist lodges and motels as conditional uses. Standards for Development include a requirement for a 200’ greenbelt along the outside boundary of the project, which the Board is given the authority to modify that standard. Mr. Mansfield responded saying they have not applied the 200’ buffer, as there is nothing being proposed for the land, as it will be a parking lot. Mr. Mansfield stated he is asking the Board to waive the standard. The proposed setbacks would vary between 12’ and 110’. Mr. Coppock read from the bylaws “the DRB may modify or waive the setbacks standard if they determine the greenbelt is not necessary to protect the interests or privacy of adjacent properties”. Mr. Coppock stated that this particular lot represents a challenge due to its irregular shape. Resort PUDs by their nature tend to be intense developments in otherwise residential zones with a lot of activity and the idea behind this requirement is to provide some measure of insulation from the activity for adjacent property owners. First the Board would have to determine if any waiver should be granted, and then determine the extent of the waiver it might grant. Sec. 18 (PRD) 18.2, 3 & 4 reviewed. Mr. Coppock read into the record a letter dated May 4, 2006 from Attorney William Kelk who represents abutting property owner Gloria Kreizel. The letter states Mrs. Kreizel’s concerns about the proposed driveway and the realignment of the existing driveway as well as drainage, grading, noise, lighting and the removal of any trees on her property. Mr. DeAngelo stated they have attempted to meet with Little River Survey (representing Mrs. Kreizel) and a meeting is scheduled for Friday, May 26^th. They have also been in contact with Mrs. Kreizel’s daughter Susan Weintraub who expressed that she is satisfied with the efforts being made. Mr.DeAngelo stated they have been in contact with Mr.Gill, abutting property owner on the other side regarding combining his driveway (on the south side) with the proposed one. They have submitted an application to VTRANS for combining the two driveways and VTRANS now wants a revise application, which separates the two driveways and has that been submitted. Don Marsh, Marsh Engineering stated all activities are well beyond any 200’ buffer. He said with longer stays and valet parking, it is within the greenbelt but a less intense use. He explained they will be about 12’ below the Kreizel property and nearly impossible to see the Kreizel house. Mr. Marsh stated the road and all parking will have curbing, bringing all the storm water down to the existing VTRANS culvert and across the road on TN property. There will be no run-off on the Kreizel property, stated Mr. Marsh. Coming away from the Gill property with the two roads and the road will be one way so no head lights will be headed away from the gill property. Mr. Wagner, Landscape Architect stated being proposed is dense plantings of 10-12’ evergreens, which will protect the Gill property. The existing drive will be moved over 40-50’. Snow removal: Mr. Marsh stated that most of the snow being plowed will go in the buffer area and no doubt there will be some mechanical removal required. Mr. Coppock was concerned about the potential run-off which could go onto the Gill property. Class II wetlands will have a buffer zone. Mr. Jones questioned the statement that the Kreizel property will not be seen and Mr. Marsh responded saying the house will not be seen because of the elevation. tape 1 side 2 Lighting: Mr.         explained the lighting as on sheet 13 of 43 in formal plan booklet as having no lighting on the road itself, pedestrian walkway will have bollard lights and no lighting in the employee’s parking lot. Plan is to have valet parking at the porte cochere. Garden lights to be 20” tall there will be 28 pole lights 10’ tall with 100-watt metal halide bulbs. Rolf Kilman, Architect explained the area is 30’ off the road up 30’ to a plateau and then terraced down 35+/- with all downward lighting, making the impact of the lights minimal (if at all). Mr. Teffner stated the adjacent property is lower and asked the applicant if they are relying on the foliage on the adjacent property. Sheet 14 of 43 explains the site plan and contours, explained Mr. Kilman. Mr. Teffner asked the elevation to the Kreizel house. Mr. Marsh explained the location and the knoll that separates the two properties. Mr. Coppock stated the reason for the greenbelt is to provide protection for a PUDs neighbors. The bylaws seeks to provide certain protections and were we to grant a waiver, we would be reducing the protection that the bylaw requires. This is a threshold issue for any review of this request. Mr. Walton agreed with Mr. Coppock’s comments. Mr. Arthur Kreizel (in the audience) suggested that a site walk would be beneficial and would reassure the Board they would not be offending the abutting properties in any way. Mr. Izzo questioned if the Kreizel property could be developed because of the topography. Mr. Jones stated the way the bylaws are written, “to protect the interest and privacy of the adjoining properties” he would have to do a site walk, but part of the process is that notification is given to adjoining property owners and felt it is incumbent upon those owners to take some steps in protecting themselves rather than relying on the Board. Ms. Jary expressed concern for the Kreizel property and their concerns per the letter from Attorney Kelk. Mr. Coppock stated by the time a site walk is done, there should be some input back from Mrs. Kreizel after their meeting with the applicants. Mr. Teffner said he felt something could happen on the Kreizel lot (not knowing if the topography would allow for development) and stated his concern with the 10’ wall next to the Gill property. (road is approximately 25’ from the lot line). Mr. Marsh stated the land is terraced making the wall lower. Mr. Coppock asked that the road/parking lot, development area closest to the adjacent property line be identified in some manner as well as the retaining wall area for the SITE WALK. Mr. Coppock stated this part of the hearing would continue at the first meeting after a site walk. Mr. Mansfield stated he would now like to present an overview of the new structures, layout, construction, landscaping etc. as well as the traffic study. Mr. Kilmer from Cullens & Truex Associates, and Mike McCann present. The new road is one way –in only, stated Mr. Mansfield. Mr. Kilmer stated the footprint of the structures being proposed is not that far removed from the tennis courts and existing structures, although larger. The hotel (4 floors) is the largest piece of the development, with a roof of a Vermont slate, the lower portion of the wall being natural stone and cedar shingle with wood trim. The west wing (3 stories) has a grass roof with slate, is 2-3 stories high and gently inserted into the hill. Mr. McCann stated they are asking for a waiver for the height of the main hotel expansion. Because of the time frame, it was decide to discuss the interior of the buildings at a later time. West wing has 43 rooms with 76 keys- replacing 20 keys with a net of 56 keys. tape 2 side 1-- Traffic tab 12: Bob Chamberlain from Resources Systems Group, presented the traffic study and stated this is a comprehensive study, using a description of the proposed project and it looks at conditions as of 2008 and then 5 years out, both with and without the project. It looks at safety records, site circulation and pedestrian access. Mr. Chamberlain stated he had met with Tom Jackman, Town Planner and VTRANS, to look at the scope of traffic. He said they had been asked to focus on the traffic situation at both of the driveways. He said the second driveway (new access) will be right turn only so felt it will be very safe; looking at 76 new keys, 22 new indoor restaurant seats and 70 outdoor seats which will generate traffic (35-40 additional vehicle trips during PM peak house and 15-20 additional Sat & Sundays). The traffic study has three (3) recommendations: (1) in discussion with VTRANS re: having a cross walk across Rte 108 (recommending this) and should be lighted; (2) TN is willing to put a trolley stop sign on Rte 108 and (3) there is a potential concern with left turn at the new access and some of the data suggests a left turn lane in the future (VTRANS would prefer not to have one built) and suggests this be reviewed after 1 year after full occupancy. At that time TN would commission a new traffic safety study to see if any issues have arisen. (VTRANS will make this a condition of approval). Mr. Teffner re: cross walk stated in the past the Selectboard has had concerns and he continues to have a concern because one does not expect to see a cross walk that far out of town. Mr. McCann stated there are guidelines used to install a cross walk and this project meets those. i.e looking at in-ground lights (or street lights). Mr. Marsh stated it is estimated at 20% of those pedestrians which cross Rte 108 are not related to TN. Question, where do they come from. The applicants said that was inconclusive: probably the Rec Path, cross country skiers etc. It was stated the trolley will be driving up to the hotel. Mr. Coppock asked if TN contributes financially to the operation of the trolley and Mr. Wagner stated they have not been asked to. (at the present time it does not stop at TN). Mr. Coppock stated that the Board may impose the recommendation, especially item # 3 of the Resource Group, in any approval given. Mr. Coppock concerned with the design of the right turn for those driving up Rte 108. He went on to note that it appears the numbers provided would support the assertion that there will be no adverse impact from this development on the entrance onto Rte 108. Mr. McCann did a slide show for the members, showing both what landscaping exists on the property and that being proposed. (tape turned off). Mr. Wagner stated the trees that will be seen are 20-30’ tall at planting. Mr. Coppock read Sec. 19.4 pertaining to building height and said the challenge is Sec. 19.4 (1) maximum of 35’ and where the buildings are not visible from public roads. Mr. Teffner stated from the cross section and the slide, it appears the trees are not hiding the tops of the buildings. (tape turned on) Mr. Wagner stated the one of the ways to address the issue of visibility of the buildings is to plant the hedgerow close to Rte 108 on TN property and then the buildings would not be seen. This is a simple solution, stated Mr Wagner.              

 

Ms. Jary moved to RECESS BA 11-138.02 and S-06-06 to JULY 11, 2006 with a SITE VIST at 3:30, members meeting at the proposed new driveway, and the hearing will be resumed from 5:00 –6:00 P.M. on that date.

Property Owner:    Wallis, Rosamund
Overview:   Review of proposed elevations for reconstruction of porch as requested by DRB.

Ms. Wallis was present with an artist rendering of the proposed porch and was seeking to satisfy condition #   of the previous approval. The drawing showed where the roof is being measured from and the dimensions. Mr. Teffner moved to approve the sketch dated 5/23/06 as satisfying Condition #     of the approval May 16, 2006 , seconded by Mr. Walton with all members voting in favor. Mr. Pineles absent. 

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 7:35 P.M.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Barbara S. Allaire