The regular meeting of the Stowe Development Review Board was held Tuesday, June 6, 2006 in the Banquet Room in the AkeleyMemorialBuilding starting at
Members present: Allan Coppock, Chair, Chris Walton, Ted Teffner, Dean Pineles, Larry Jones, Ed Izzo and Susan Jary. Other present: Richard Baker, Zoning Administrator, Scott Monroe, Stowe Reporter and those listed in the minute book.
Application #:BA 6-121.030.2
Property Owners:Trapp Family Lodge
Overview: Proposing construction of Unit 28 (site visit 6/6/06) RECESSED from 5/9/06
Tax Parcel #:6-121.030
Physical Location:Villa’s Trapp Hill Road
Zoning District:RR-5/Ski PUD/ RHOD
Mr. Coppock opened the hearing by stating a site walk was held this date at with all members attending except Susan Jary. Also present were Johannes von Trapp and Hans van Wees. Mr. van Wees described the site location and the original landscaping plan which calls for 6 –2 ½” sugar maples.Mr. Coppock explained this was a part of a larger application for 4 units (19, 20, 21 and 28). Units 19, 20 & 21 were approved on 5/9 but unit 28 was not approved in order that the RHOD aspects could be examined. Members felt it would skyline. Mr. Pineles said he was not sure the Board would know how visible it would be, but suggested planting along the roadside as did Mr. Izzo. Mr. Coppock stated the Board could retain jurisdiction over landscaping. Mr. Jones said he felt it would be significant and should go back to the applicant to come in with a plan to mitigate the visibility. Mr. Teffner felt a significant portion of the first story would be seen as well as the 2nd story and did not like the idea of plantinga hedgerow along the road,because of the open meadow but suggested plantings in front of the house to soften the impact with good-sized maples (2” will not work) and with some softwood. Mr.Coppock said the criteria states “visibility from public roads”. Mr. Jones eferred to standard #9, page 16. Mr. van Wees stated in the original application Unit #28 was never brought up. Mr. Coppock stated the Board did not have review under RHOD when the others were approved. He felt this unit will have approximately the same impact as the others. Ms. Jary moved to RECESS to June 20, 2006to give the applicant the opportunity to address the Board’s concern re: landscaping and the RHOD impact. Mr. Teffner seconded with Ms. Jary, Mr. Teffner, Izzo, Walton, Coppock, Pineles and Izzo in favor. No one voted against. All members present.
Application #:BA 11-255-12
Property Owner(s): Covered Bridge Associates
Overview:Proposing the construction of building # 12, Covered Bridge Condominiums (RECESSED from 5/16/06. A site visit was held 5/19/06 at
Tax Parcel #:11-255
Physical Location:35 Brook Road
Zoning District:RR 5/ AG-PUD
Ken Biedermann present. A site walk was held 5/19/06 with all members present.
Mr. Teffner stated it was determined that the roofline would be seen but not substantially. Mr. Coppock said he felt it wouldn’t take much clearing in the foreground of the building for it to become visible. Mr. Jones felt there was one cluster of evergreens which would need to remain on the site. Mr. Coppock suggested the Board could maintain jurisdiction over landscaping and limit the amount of clearing. Mr. Coppock thanked the applicant for providing the man-lift for the site walk. Mr.Biedermann stated all letters of approval have been submitted, with the exception of an updated Stowe Electric Dept letter. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law with the following CONDITIONS:
(1)All previous conditions shall remain in force.
(2)The applicant shall limit clearing 25-30’ from the wetland buffer which is shown by a retaining wall with the DRB retaining jurisdiction over landscaping and clearing shown on site plan dated 4/13/06.
Mr. Teffner seconded with Ms. Jary, Mr. Coppock, Izzo, Pineles, Walton, Izzo and Teffner voting in favor. No one voted against the motion. All members were present.
Application#:BA 7-42-AB
Property Owner: Town of Stowe
Overview:Proposing to change access and drainage improvements to Special Events field A & B of the Mayo Farm. (POSTPONED from 6/16/06)
Tax Parcel #:7-042.000
Physical Location: 258 Weeks Hill Road (Mayo Farm)
Zoning District:WBCS
Present were Cliff Johnson, Public Works Director and Dougfrom Summit Engineering. Mr. Johnson stated Field A has experienced problems when it rains.Nothing is being proposed to area C or D at this time. Plans are for underground drains and graveled drives. tape 1 side 2 There will be grading/ fill in areas (can be as much as 2’) to fill in the low spots.The road will be no more than 6” above the ground, stated.Accesses will remain in the same locations. There will be no drainage done on Field B, only graveled drives. Act 250 is addressingsetbacks to the buffers, the river and Weeks Hill Road , and may allow for the graveled drives to be constructed now.Mr. Pineles asked if the road will be open at all times or only when events are taking place and Mr. Johnson replied, only when the events are taking place. It is not meant to be open to the public. The intent is to keep vendors off the grass. Closest point to the Rec Path is 125’. Mr. Johnson stated the vendors have been asked to put up a fence between the events field and the Quiet Path. Same uses of the field will remain. Have to maintain a 100’ buffer from the bank of the river near the Quiet Path. Mr.stated there is no guarantee that this will prevent any other drainage problems (provided there is a very large storm). The area is in the Flood Hazard. There will be up to 2600’ of drainage (depending on the cost). Mr. Coppock stated the application is before the Board because of the construction of the roadways. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: BA 7-042-AB with the following CONDITION:
(1)Any change in the plans or the proposed use of the property shall be brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, prior to its implementation, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.
Mr. Jones seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Walton, Izzo, Coppock, Pineles, Jones and Teffner voting in favor. No one voted against. No member was absent.
Application #:BA 6-087.3-01
Property Owner:Midas Enterprises
Overview: Proposing to install a yurt by Mud City Adventures to be used as a base facility.
Tax Parcel #:6-087
Physical Location:1677 Mountain Road
Zoning District:MRV
Present was Christine Colangeli who stated the yurt is a portable structure with a deck of 32’x 32’.. The plan is for summer camp use for the next 4 months. This will be approximately 125’ off the Mt. Road . There are 3 different parking areas on the property, one by the structure, the first lower parking area and another area, which goes back towards the river. Mr. Coppock stated the Framers Market is using parking on this property to satisfy their parking requirements and the yurt could diminish that parking. A letter from Ms. Colangeli states they will be giving the Farmer’s Market permission to use the two paved lots behind the structure during their market season, as well as the upper parking lot in front of the structure. No programs on Sundays. Mr. Coppock stated the issue is the availability of parking on Sundays. If Ms. Colangeli leases the entire property, then she would be in a position to allow the FM parking to continue. The yurt will occupy 8 current spaces, but the spaces along the Mt. Road could replace them only if the Stowe Dogs building is not in use on Sundays. When the original hearings took place re: the Farmer’s Market, there was considerable concern regarding parking stated Mr. Coppock.The age groups for kids are 3-16 years and a day program. Ms. Colangeli stated they do not spend much time at the facility, it acts as a home base. Mr. Pineles stated this is at a very dangerous intersection. Ms. Colangeli agreed it has been a concern of theirs and are in the process of putting time in to making procedures, which will help to make it safe. tape 2 side 1 Ms. Colangeli stated they would like to use the Stowe Dogs building on Sundays and would not affect the Farmer’s Market parking. Mr. Pineles suggested looking at it after the summer. Mr. Coppock stated the only way it will work is for the board to prohibit the use of Stowe Dogs building to be open to the public on Sundays. The program ends the 9th of September.Sec. 4.7 reviewed. There will be no water and no power on site. There will be some traffic with pick up and drop off. Hours of operation: for drop off (a total of8-9 cars) and pick up from Character of the Area: Mr. Teffner had a problem with the yurt in that location, very visible and did not feel it appropriate there. Mr. Pineles said the Board has no idea what it will look like on the lot and agreed the Board should approve for a short period of time. Mr. Coppock stated he was sympathetic to Mr. Teffner’s concern; it will be hard not to notice it as one comes down the Mt. Road .“The economic community survives on its image, stated Mr. Teffner and I am unwilling to speculate on the impact”. Ms. Colangeli stated they have a night program, Saturdays from . There is no lighting. Mr. Jones felt it is in keeping with the activities in the area as it is an active community. Ms. Jary felt depending on how temporary, the Board could get feedback and conclude the impacts. Mr. Izzo agreed. Mr.Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law 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 provide the Board with a copy of the lease for the entire property.
(3) The applicant shall provide the Board with an updated letter from Ms. Colangeli or the Landowner to the Farmer’s Market replacing the letter date 6/6/06 from Stowe Dogs.
(4) There shall be no use of the Stowe Dogs building to the public on Sundays.
(5)A site plan shall be provided to the Board showing the location of the yurt and size of the platform.
(6)The approval expires October 30, 2006 unless an application is filed to continue the use in that location.
Ms. Jary seconded the motion with Mr. Izzo, Walton, Pineles, Jones, Coppock and Ms. Jary voting in favor of the motion. Mr. Teffner voted no.
Application #:Z-06-45
Property Owner:Haslam, Peter
Overview: Proposing a garage addition in the SHOD (Postponed from 5/16/06 hearing)
Tax Parcel #:7A-173
Physical Location:48 Pike Street
Zoning District:VC-20 (SHOD)
Peter Haslam, Jr was present Mr. Coppock stated the request is for an addition to anon-historic structure in the Overlay District. A memo from the Historic Preservation Commission dated 5/30/06 outlining their review and recommending approval with the condition that any changes to the plan would require their review.
Mr. Coppock stated the scale of the addition does matter in the Historic District (contrary to what the Historic Preservation Commission stated in their findings).
Mr. Pineles questioned what would be seen from School Street . Mr. Haslam stated because of the elevations, he felt only the top of the addition will be seen from School Street , and it is further away from the road than the existing house. The colors will be the same as the existing house. Mr. Pineles moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: Z-06-45 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 Findings of the Stowe Historic Preservation Commission in their letter dated 5/20/06 shall be a condition of the Development Review Board.
Mr. Izzo seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Coppock, Teffner, Jones, Walton, Izzo and Pineles voting in favor. No one voted against. All members present.
Application #:Z-06-46
Property Owner:Rowe, Donald
Overview:Proposing changes to the exterior of the commercial building in the SHOD
Milfred Cushman, Architect present and Mr. Rowe. A letter from the historic Preservation Commission dated 5/20/06 was submitted for the record with conditions. Mr. Cushman stated he was prepared to abide by the conditions imposed by the Historic Preservation Commission. View from the road is the south and east elevations. Sheets A3.1; A3.2; A2.1 and A2.2. Mr. Cushman described the changes as shown on sheets (elevations). Ms. Jary moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: Z-06-46 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 Findings and Conditions stated in the letter date 5/30/06 from the Historic Preservation Commission shall be in force as a part of the approval.
Mr. Jones seconded with Ms. Jary, Mr. Teffner, Walton, Jones, Coppock, Izzo and Pineles voting in favor. No one voted against the motion. All members present.
Application #:S-06-1
Property Owner(s) Peer, Leslie and Marion
Overview:Proposing a two-lot subdivision (RECESSED from 5/9/06)
Tax Parcel #:7-055
Physical Location:1017 Pucker Street
Zoning District:RR-2, RR-5
Present was Bill Kules, Land surveyor stating there are presently two existing driveways, 1 to the garage and 1 to the barn (the barn one would be closed off when the new drive is installed). Plans are to discontinue the one to the barn shifting to the south to provide access to the new lot and create a new drive running parallel with Rte 100 (ending with 2 driveways). There will be 530’ between the drive to the house and the new driveway. 680’ from the new driveway to the entrance to West Hill Road . Mr. Coppock stated he and Mr. Pineles were not present at the original meeting so would not participate in the discussion or any vote. Mr. Walton Chaired. Mr. Kules stated the entrance will be 16’ wide until it splits on the property and will then go to 12’. Mr. Teffner stated he would consider waiving the provision and felt it would not be appropriate for cars to be going in the opposite direction of Rte 100.Mr. Jones argued (tape 2 side 2) that on the driveway going to the Egg Farm, between that drive and West Hill Road , there is a lot of activity, raising a safety issue and he argued against the driveway at all. Mr. Izzo stated there is a lot of activity in a short distance, driveways along the way cannot be seen and there is a lot of traffic, not only on Rte 100 but West Hill and did not like the proposed driveway going parallel to Rte 100. Mr. Walton said he was not certain he was opposed to the curb cut but definely did not like the road running parallel. Mr. Kules said this design meets State requirements. Mr. Jones asked why there needs to be another curb cut on property. After more discussion, Mr. Kules agreed to go back to the drawing board. Mr. Teffner moved to RECESS to June 20, 2006in order that Mr. Kules is given the opportunity to interpret what had been heard from Board members and give members the opportunity to view the site. Ms. Jary seconded the motion with all members in favor.
7:35 P.M. BREAK
Application #:BA 7A-132.02 (POSTPONED from 5/16/06)
Property Owner:Law Center of Stowe, LLC
Overview: Proposing to construct a 2-story addition and storage shed to rear of building.
Tax Parcel #:7A-132
Physical Location:125 Mountain Road
Zoning District:VC-30/SHOD
Present was Sam Scofield , Architect and Jesse Goldfine. Mr. Coppock explained this property is covered by the development agreement between the Town and then Old Centennial Inc. (the former Yodler property). Item #5 of the development agreement requires OCI or its successors to be the applicant, thus now a joint application between Lipsky’s and Law Center of Stowe. Mr. Scofield stated the addition is in the back, approved by the SHPC. There is sewer capacity by letter dated 5/25/06 from Cliff Johnson.Lighting shown of the site plan. Existing lights on the front of the building shall remain with one additional light (75 watt) in the very rear next to the doors leading to the patio. Parking: presently requires and there are 8 spaces in the rear of the property (1 located on Stowe Inn property but with the development agreement is permitted) with 5 additional spaces being required.The additional spaces will come under the development agreement and the warranty deed from OCI to Clarke to Barr, which says they have the right to use the lower section at such time they are not being used by the Inn .Mr. Scofield said they are asking to continue the arrangement. Mr. Coppock stated he read it as” each new application, the construction of which would require parking, would be required to show the Town the minimum parking required by the ordinance is available on site.” He asked where the 13 spaces required by the Law Office are on the site plan. Mr. Scofield stated it is a long-standing agreement with the Inn . Mr. Baker said it comes under Sec. 22. 3 C-multiple uses of a building. Mr. Pineles asked if any portion of the proposed addition will be visible from Rte 108 and Mr. Scofield replied, no, only a small portion coming south. Mr. Coppock read the letter from the Stowe Historic Preservation Commission dated 5/29/06 and the applicant agreed to the conditions. Sec. 4.7 reviewed. VC-30. Closest point to the property line is 21’6” and 54’ to the rear yard. so do comply with the setbacks. Mr. Scofield stated the materials use would match the existing building. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the 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)An updated parking plan and legend showing the multiple uses and delineating the spaces shall be submitted to the Board for their review
(3)A letter from Cliff Johnson stating there is adequate water allocation shall be submitted for the file.
(4)The letter dated5/29/06 from the Stowe Historic Preservation with recommendations and conditions shall be a part of this approval.
Mr. Teffner seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Walton, Izzo, Jones, Pineles, and Coppock voting in favor. No one voted against.
Application #:BA 6-075
Applicant(s):Rovetto, Edward
Overview:Construct a 12’ x 45’ deck for outside seating (RECESSED from 5/9/06)
Tax Parcel #:6-075
Physical Location: 1899 Mountain Road
Zoning District:MRV
Present: Mr.Rovetto and Kim Brown. Mr. Coppock stated the hearing was recessed to allow the applicant to address the Board’s concerns re: landscaping, lighting plan, hours of operation and available parking. Mr. Brown stated parking is permitted for 55 spaces. Participants are 123; new deck seats will be 18 seats (6 spaces) and requires 41 spaces, plus 15 spaces for employees per shift for a total of 62 spaces required. Took the 20% reduction of 12 spaces based on maintaining a green belt. An alternative parking area is available as 9 spaces along the front of the property. Plans are to install 9 spruce trees (6-7’ tall) and maples and remove the 2 very large trees which exist as they add very little screening, stated Mr. Brown.tape 3 side 1Ms. Jary said she would like to see more green spacerather than allowing for future parking in the green space there is.Mr. Coppock stated the bylaws mandate the spaces be available year around. Mr. Brown said there will be landscaping along the deck, plan to plant maple trees3” caliper and 4 yews. A lilac tree exists screening for a portion of the year.Mr. Bartlett, abutting property owner of the motel property, said he does not wantparking coming closer to his property because of his guests. Cars turn around in his yard thinking they are driving in to the restaurant and was very concerned with the noise and lights. Lighting Plan: shows 4 lights along the railing, 13 watts each. Type H-2 is wall fixtures and 26 watts each with diffused screen.Type J is a porch lantern, 26 watt with an acrylic lens. Asking for 3 down-lights on the rear of the building, fully shielded (A1.4). Hours of Operation for the deck: Sunday thru Thursday – and Friday and Saturdays from –11:00 P.M. Mr. Coppock asked if the applicant proposes to have music of any variety on the deck /outside of the building. Mr. Rovetto submitted a document dated 6/6/06 stating his proposal which is 2 -6x10 base speakers playing ambiance music such as light jazz. Food and alcohol will be served on the deck. Mr. Teffner moved to RECESS to JUNE 20, 2006, seconded by Mr. Pineles with all in favor.
Application #:BA 12-044.000
Property Owner(s)Notchbrook Homeowners Association
Overview: Request to construct two pumps stations associated with replacement of water system. (REQUEST POSTPONEMT to 6/20/06).
Tax Parcel #:12-044
Physical Location:Notchbrook Road
Zoning District:RR-5
A letter was submitted dated 5/24/06 requesting to POSTPONE to June 20, 2006. Members took note and will reschedule.
Property Owner(s): State of Vermont (lease to Mt. Mansfield Company)
Overview:Final design for gondola cabin storage barn associated with Mansfield-Spruce transfer lift.
Tax Parcel #:14-002
Physical Location:Mt.Mansfield Base Area
Zoning District:RR-5/SKI PUD
Present were Rob Apple and Rod Kessler from Mt. Mansfield Co. Mr. Apple stated attached to the terminal is a 2,497s.f barn, open on three sides to be used to store the gondolas at night and for servicing. A small service area and office for the operator is included. There will be a walkway from the Mr. Mansfield parking lot. Sided with vertical siding, stained brown, consistent with adjacent with Mountain Operations building. Roof will be green or earth tone brown, asphalt shingles. Height of building24’ overall. The building is located north of the Mt.Operations building. Sheet LA-400 described the landscaping plan. Mr. Apple stated there will be some night operations but not on a consistent basis, related to the servicing of the gondolas. Exterior lighting consists of 9 exterior lights, 42 watt compact down shield to illuminate the walkway. There will be no noise generated, stated Mr. Kessler. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: BA 14-002-25 c.2 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 submit for the file, cut sheets of the exterior lights to be used, showing the wattage and location.
(3)All conditions, which were a part of the original approval for the transfer lift, remain in force.
Ms. Jary seconded with Mr. Teffner, Walton, Izzo, Jones, Pineles , Coppock and Ms. Jary voting in favor. No one voted against. All members were present.
Application #:S-06-11
Property Owner(s): 232511 Investments Ltd.
Overview: Requesting to change the Resort PUD designation to a PRD. Preliminary subdivision plans to merge parcel 1, lot 21, and lot 22 into one parcel and subdivide into 13 clustered single family residential lots and two parcels of open land.
Tax Parcel #:11-250
Physical Location:Sinclair Drive (Stowe Club Highlands)
Zoning District:
Present were Jim Connacher and Harold Stevens, Attorney representing the applicant.
Mr. Coppock stated, as he understood it is an application to convert the entire parcel from being a Resort PUD to being a PRD. Stevens: “correct”. Approximately 36 residential lots, parcel 26 has 4 condos, parcel 4 has 17 townhouses on 14 acres. Proposing to put on parcel 1 lots 21 & 22 -13 houses such as parcel 4 and do away with the former hotel site. Mr. Stevens said the plan conforms to all the criteria for a PRD. Mr. Coppock stated the question is, tape 3 side 2 whether or not this is a complete application and whether or not all owners have to be a party. Mr. Stevens said the owners were not making a complaint about it so the issue is moot, so here today with the 10th supplement which gives us the private property right(Mr. Coppock: “over the entire parcel?) Right, said Mr. Stevens. Mr. Coppock:”is that true?” Yes, stated Mr. Stevens. Mr. Coppock asked if the 10th supplement grants control over parcels 20, 21 and 22 or does it grant control over the entire 235 acres? Mr. Stevens said it provides that they can change the PUD to a PRD designation for the entire property. Mr. Coppock stated if the Board is going to review as creating a new PRD, it is incumbent upon the Board to review the entire parcel. Stevens: “correct”. Mr. Coppock asked if the Board could do that without the other landowners being applicants. Mr. Stevens: yes, they could be interested parties. Mr. Coppock said, in reviewing the conversion to PRD status of a 235 acre parcel which has been partially developed, there are legitimate questions of open space, road network etc that the Board would discuss. How does the Board review that absent the remainder of the parties being applicants as it may be that things are required of them”. Mr. Stevens: “I agree with you as a DRB and anyone that is interested as a party can be- to argue that there needs to be a hotel there, that’s a planning issue, but as to who has the right to apply and ask for the application, we maintain it is Stowe Highlands as we have the property rights”. Mr. Stearns, Attorney representing Dominique Root, owner of lots within the Stowe Highlands subdivision, said he felt the Court said until Stowe Highlands seeks to amend its permit from a Resort PUD to a PRD, the question of whether it must include co-applicants is hypothetical. Mr. Stearns felt the other owners must be co-applicants. Stowe Highlands does not own the entire 235 acres, stated Mr. Stearns; they never did own it all and were not the permittee any more than any other landowners. Subdivision regs define an applicant as the owner of record or an optionee. Mr. Pineles asked if Mr. Stearns opinion was 100% of the people up there would have to be applicants and Mr. Stearns: yes. He felt the Board is the only one who has the right to change a designation. . Leighton Detora, property owner in Stowe Club felt that all owners need to be applicant, the declarant has no more rights than any other owners. Mr. Detora referred to the meeting 1-7-85 at which time the Board would not act until such time that there was documentation showing combined ownership and that was a condition of the approval. A letter from Mary Lintermann dated 6/1/06 was read by Mr. Coppock. Ms. Root stated they had a meeting of most of the owners and the majority were against clustered houses there and there was a vote. Mr. Coppock asked that anyone who intends to participate at the next meeting submit materials prior to the packet being sent to members. Mr. Stevens said he felt they could prove the applicant has the rights and there are just a few people against. Mr. Teffner moved to RECESS to 7-11-06, seconded by Mr. Jones with Ms. Jary, Mr. Teffner, Coppock, Izzo, Walton, Pineles and Izzo voting in favor of the recess.
Application #:Z-06-44
Property Owners:Walton, James and Jennifer
Overview:Single family house construction in RHOD
Tax Parcel #:2-197
Physical Location:500 Hidden Valley Road
Zoning District:RR-5(RHOD)
Mr. Walton present . Mr. Baker stated the house was approved to be built in the RHOD and modifications were done, then the permit expired so this is a new application. (see new elevations and site plan) Mr. Walton explained the changes.Mr. Walton stated the dormers with a copper roof (which was approved) have beenpainted and now look brown. The Board agreed the changes were minor. Mr. Izzo moved, under Sec. 16.4 finding the changes to be minor and to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law approving the changes. Mr. Teffner seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Coppock, Pineles, Izzo, Jones and Teffner voting in favor. No one voted against. Mr. Walton did not vote. CONDITION:
(1) All changes in the original approval shall remain in force.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 10:
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara S. Allaire
Development Review Board
Town of Stowe
June 20, 3006
The regular meeting of the Development Review Board was held Tuesday, June 20, 2006
In the Banquet Room in the AkeleyMemorialBuilding starting at
Members present: Allan Coppock, Chair; Ed Izzo, Susan Jary, Larry Jones, Dean Pineles and Ted Teffner ().Absent: Chris Walton.
Also present:Rich Baker, Zoning Administrator, Scott Monroe, Stowe Reporter as well as those listed in the minute book.
P. M.
Z-06-18 Bitter, E. Ward re: lighting plan for guesthouse. After reviewing the lighting plan, Mr. Izzo moved to approve only if the floodlight is on a motion sensor as satisfying condition # 3 of the approval. Ms. Jary seconded with all in favor except Mr. Teffner who was not present.
BA 7-273-3 South Main Street Ventures re: completion of landscaping and seeking an extension from June 30th to August 30th. Mr. Baker stated because of the wet weather, the project has not been able to be completed. Mr. Izzo moved to grant the extension to August 30, 2006. Mr. Jones seconded the motion with all in favor except Mr. Teffner.
Mr. Teffner arrived to the meeting.
BA 6-087-3.01 Midas Enterprises re:submittals. A copy of the lease as a condition of approval and a revised site plan showing the location of the platform for the yurt were submitted. It was noted that Midas Enterprises is leasing the entire property, including the Stowe Dogs building.
Z-05-85 DePiano, Jimmy re: construction of a cabin in the RHOD on West Hill Road.
Mr. Baker stated Mr. DePiano would like to have members do a site visit, as he would like to change the color of the building. Members felt an application needs to be submitted before a site visit can be planned.
Mr. Coppock stated that the Board normally elects officers in June, however, he announced he will be leaving the Board, probably in July but plans to see the larger projects, i.e. Stowe Club and TN Associates through the process. He told us that his travel schedule is prompting him to make this decision and did not feel it is fair to the Board to have a Chairman who is away so much. Also, he stated he has been on the Board 21 years. He said he feels very comfortable leaving the Board with the members now in place. Mr. Jones, speaking for himself said ‘ Al, we appreciate your leadership, we will miss your skills and your talent.” All members agreed, including Barbara.
