Development Review Board

                                Town of Stowe

                                 August 1, 2006

 

The regular meeting of the Stowe Development Review Board was held Tuesday, August

1, 2006 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M.

 

Members present: Allan Coppock, Chair; Ed Izzo, Ted Teffner, Susan Jary, Larry Jones, 

and Dean Pineles (who left immediately to respond to a Rescue call).

 

Absent: Chris Walton.

Also present: Rich Baker, Zoning Administrator and those listed in the minute’s book.

 

5:00 P.M.

Project #:              3046

Property Owner: DePiano, Jim

Overview:             Changes in siding color for previously approved RHOD house

 (SITE VISIT at 4:40)

Tax Parcel #:          6-101.10

Physical Location: West Ridge Road

 

The Chairman opened the hearing by noting a site walk took place this date at 4:30 with all members, except Mr. Walton were present as well as Mr. DePiano and Mr. Baker.

Members parked at Romy’s on Cottage Club Road and determined that the visibility of the site is substantially reduced in the summer as opposed to the site visit last year. Sample of the stain and the raw boards were submitted. Mr. DePiano stated his plan is to plant additional confers- 8-10’ high blue spruce and some low pine on the visible side of the house and build an 18” wall closer to the house and bring the bank down to more of a slope. Mr. Teffner felt a darker color would make the house more visible in the winter and in summer only a small portion of the house can be seen. Ms. Jary said she felt the same way. Mr. Jones stated the Board’s site visit last year was in July. Members agreed about half the year the house will not be seen. Ms. Jary moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: project 3046 changing the color of the stain, with the following CONDITIONS:

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. 

All conditions imposed in the previous approval Z-05-85 shall remain in force.

Mr. Teffner seconded with Ms. Jary, Mr. Izzo, Jones, Coppock, voting in favor.

Absent: Dean Pineles and Chris Walton.

 

5:15

Project #:             3090

Property Owner: Baumhover, Gary

Overview:            Appeal of permit # Z-06-61 to construct a single family dwelling

Tax Parcel #:          5-037

Physical Location: Corner of Nebraska Valley and Beech Hill Roads 

Present was Mr. Baumhover, Will Metro, Laine Nichols, Attorney. Mr. Coppock stated a hearing was held 7/18/06 and recessed to 8/1/06 in order to allow the owner, appellant and Zoning Administrator to meet. Mr. Baker explained that they had met and the basic issue revolved around the well. No additional issues came up regarding zoning. Mr. Baker stated modifications have been made to the septic and driveway plans. He noted there are agricultural uses on the abutting property so the well has to be designed to with that in mind. Mr. Coppock asked Mr. Metro – “What is the Stowe zoning issue that is being appealed?” Mr. Metro stated he felt because of State recommendations, his future right to farm is in jeopardy. He felt his only recourse was to appeal to the Board. Mr. Coppock reminded him that the Board does not review or oversee state health issues. Mr. Teffner suggested that in approving subdivisions, the Board does look at wells, water and sewer. Mr. Baker stated this is a pre-existing small lot, which does not require subdivision or state wastewater review. Mr. Baker showed Mr. Metro the revised septic plan, which was provided. Mr. Metro asked for 2 minutes for consultation. Resumed hearing with Mr. Metro stating he felt very strongly it will affect him in the future and has no recourse but to appeal. If he were to withdraw here, he cannot go further and so this is the only avenue to pursue. Mr. Coppock said it appears what is being appealed is Mr. Baker’s action as Health Officer and it is too late to appeal to the Selectboard Mr. Jones said he was sympathetic to the situation but agreed it not properly before the Board. Mr. Teffner moved to instruct the Chairman to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law to DENY the appeal finding that the appeal is not properly before them. Ms. Jary seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Teffner, Izzo, Jones, Coppock and Izzo voting in favor of the denial. Mr. Pineles and Mr. Walton were not present to vote.

 

5:35

Project #:              3047

Property Owner: Town of Stowe

Overview:             Demolition of Rotary Barn

Tax Parcel #:         7A-162

Physical Location: Behind the David Gale Center

Zoning District:     VR-20/SHOD     

 

Mr. Baker stated the application had been WITHDRAWN based on advice from Counsel, Steve Stitzel, re: Title 24, 117 Sec. 4413 limits the zoning review of town owned facilities and demolition is not one of the things that is permitted to be reviewed through zoning. Mr. Baker was advised not to refer this to DRB and for the Zoning Administrator to issue a zoning approval. This law applies to town owned property and churches. Mr. Coppock stated the Board does not solicit applications nor do they direct that applications come to them; applications have to come by way of the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Coppock stated the new law has not yet been included in the Zoning Regulations, so if it had come to the Board, he felt they would have heard it under the bylaws in existence. The action taken removes it from the Board’s review. Mr. Coppock noted that this or any other action of the Z.A. is appealable to the Board. Steve Riley asked if a permit was issued and appealed, who would hear it. Mr. Coppock replied that it would be heard by the DRB. Tim Meehan, Historic Preservation said the Town has a historic district and is following its own rules, which it created. Mr. Coppock stated when the town developed a historic preservation district it did not exempt itself-the newly adopted state statute did that. Mr. Coppock commended the Historic Preservation Commission for taking a look at the building and for being willing to speak up for its continued existence. Mr. Baker stated there is no basis for denial, based on advice from the Attorney, because there is no criteria to review. Mr. Coppock stated the bylaw states a permit is required for all land development and there is nothing in Sec. 117 that says no permit is required. It may be that no review is required by the DRB, but the Town does not get a free pass on all zoning issues. Note: Project 3047 was WITHDRAWN by the Zoning Administrator.

 

5:50

Project #:              3030

Property Owner:   Bosland, Paul

Overview:             Seeking approval for an addition to existing house in the RHOD 

Tax Parcel #:         1-009

Physical Location: 732 Upper Pinnacle Road

Zoning District:      RR/RHOD

 

Present representing the owner was Brian Elmendorf who explained the house is at the end of Upper Pinnacle Road. Plans are to construct an addition of 16’ x 10’ to the kitchen facing south, extending the deck out (an additional 140 s.f.) and a small section of glass on the side of the deck and adding a sliding glass door on the west side. Mr. Elmendorf stated they will be using natural cedar clapboards on the exterior. Mr. Baker had gone to the site and stated there is no road visible from the site. tape 1 side 2 There is no additional exterior lighting planned. Mr. Elmendorf stated there are no plans to cut any existing trees. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law finding that this application is a MINOR with the following CONDITIONS:

Any change in the plans or the proposed use of the property shall be brought to the Zoning Administrator, prior to its implementation, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.

There shall be no additional tree cutting on the property without DRB approval.

Mr. Teffner seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Izzo, Jones, Coppock and Teffner voting in favor. Mr. Pineles and Walton were no present to vote.

 

6:00

Project #:                3020

Property Owner:   Johanson, Gordon and Susan

Overview:               Seeking approval for an addition to existing house    

Tax Parcel #:           2-164

Physical Location: 46 Dunham Lane

Present was Brian Elmendorf . Mr. Baker had visited the site and stated the public road is not in the RHOD and this property is the first in the RHOD. The only vantage point is right in front from the road with very little being seen. The clearing has taken place where the building will be located. Proposing an entry room to the house and connecting to a new garage. Mr. Elmendorf stated the addition would be lower than the existing house. Exterior materials will match the house and roof will a brown standing seam. Mr. Elmendorf was uncertain as to what additional exterior lighting will be installed. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of fact and conclusion of Law finding that the application is a MINOR with the following CONDITIONS: 

Any change in plans or the proposed use of the property shall be brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator prior to its enactment.

The applicant shall return to the Board if any tree cutting shall be proposed along 

the town road

Any change in type of roof other than the brown standing seam, shall be brought to DRB for approval.                

A lighting plan shall be submitted showing the type of exterior fixtures, numbers and location on the site plan.

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

 

6:10

Project #:              3025

Property Owner:   Chamandy, Glen

Overview:             Seeking various amendments to a previous approval in the RHOD

Tax Parcel #:         15-042.30

Physical Location: 72 Pasture Road

Present were Milford Cushman and Andrew Volansky, Architects. Mr. Cushman explained that approval was given for the house on 7/29/05 with the Board finding it a minor. There is no visibility on the west side where an addition of 160 s.f. is being added to the master bedroom shown on elevation drawing A-1.1, expansion of the roof over the footprint (which will not be changing) adding a pane of glass on the west side. On the north side an additional window, changing windows in the master bedroom to a door and adding windows on the lower deck. Mr. Cushman stated they would be eliminating the proposed gazebo; adding an arbor on the end of the building and the height of the building is not being changed. Mr., Cushman stated the only visible area would be towards Needle’s Eye. Exterior lighting: Mr.Cushman explained the proposed lighting in detail, numbers of lights, location of each with a total wattage           of 5310 on house plus landscaping. These are shown on the plan submitted and wattage is up from the 2950 watts previously approved. Mr. Izzo stated there is a glow issue. Mr. Jones stated he was concerned with the amount of glass coming from the (6) 5’x 10’ windows on the west elevation the testimony has been it will not be visible. Mr. Coppock stated the Board’s concern is, is it too much light. Mr. Cushman continued to testify it would not be visible from off site. Ms. Jary moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law determining it a MINOR, with the following CONDITIONS:

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.

The DRB shall retain jurisdiction over the lighting. 

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

 

 

6:55

Project #:3031 (former subdivision # S-05-35 & Conditional use # BA 7-251-1

Property Owner(s) Lamoille Housing Partnership

Overview:              Final approval request of the PRD and subdivision

Tax Parcel #:          7-251

Physical Location: Sylvan Park Road

Zoning District:       RR-1

This application has been granted preliminary subdivision approval at a series of hearings conducted on 12/6/05, 12/15/05, 1/10/06 and 2/21/06. They are now applying for final plat approval. Present were Darrow Mansfield, Land Planner and Michael Wisnieski, Architect. Mr. Mansfield stated the layout and subdivision remain as presented previously as part of the preliminary approval and addressed the conditions of subdivision /conditional use approval granted. (1) Capacity to serve letter: the Stowe Electric Dept will not give a new letter for a year after the previous letter expires which is 11-16-06. Mr. Mansfield stated the goal is to be under construction by the fall. Mr. Mansfield was asking to have the wording changed in the approval so that construction can start. Mr. Coppock stated the reason for the condition was that Stowe Electric had been before the Board saying they would not issue an ability to serve letter for more than one year; therefore, the Board started imposing that as a condition. Mr. Coppock said for the Board to waive that condition would be inappropriate. He continued saying this is a subdivision which is entirely different that giving approval for a single-family dwelling. Mr. Teffner stated he could not understand why the Electric Dept couldn’t void the current approval letter and give the applicant a new one starting this date. (2) Fence: between the subdivision and Thomas Lane will be 6’ high black fence. Pedestrian Link; 5’ wide asphalt pedestrian path will come down Sylvan Park road, cross over Sylvan Park road and follow down on Commodores side of road.  

(3) Water & Sewer: capacity letters have been submitted. Fire & Safety Permit

Mr. Mansfield stated they have not applied as yet for this permit and asked to submit it to the Zoning Administrator prior to a permit being issued. Fire Dept: asked to have the hydrant moved and is shown on the plan. Landscaping along Sylvan Park Road: trees have been increased in size at the entrance to 3.5” to 4” caliper. Quality Control Permit: being amended and will be supplied to Z.A. Wetlands Permit: will submit to Z.A. when secured, stated Mr. Mansfield. 

Board returned to the issue of the Stowe Electric Dept letter with discussion.

The Board originally determined they could not approve a subdivision for which there was not adequate power. To do so would be to have failed in its responsibility, stated Mr. Coppock. He continued saying power is an Electric Dept issue (and they have to conclude they can provide power). This is not a zoning issue. Mr.Mansfield stated the Electric Dept has said they have power but will only approve until November when they will give another letter. He asked that the condition of the permit be changed enough so they can get their permit. Mr. Coppock stated the Zoning Regs provide that the DRB not grant approvals which will create a burden on municipal services and without the letter, we don’t know that won’t happen. tape 2 side 2. Other members agreed they should not change the condition as written. Mr. Teffner moved to RECESS to AUGUST 15, 2006so that the applicant can have the opportunity to get a letter from the Stowe Electric Dept.which would satisfy the condition imposed in the original approval. (If not able to get the letter, the application will be recessed to 9-5-06). Ms. Jary seconded with Ms. Jary, Mr. Izzo, Jones, Coppock and Teffner voting in favor. Mr.Pineles and Walton were not present to vote.

 

 

7:55

Project #:                  3021

Property Owner(s) Kylie Realty Trust

Overview:                 Change of use from funeral home to Spruce Peak Realty information center.

Tax Parcel #:             7A-043

Zoning District:         VC-10/SHOD

Rob Apple present and stated Spruce Peak Realty has entered into a lease to create an Information Center. Mr. Apple stated that this area is not set up to be nor is it intended to be a sales center. Mr. Apple stated the plan is to replace the front door with a glass door having true divided lights. Plans are to have a handicap lift inside the building in the rear of the building. Will be installing 4 windows on the south side, identical to the 2 windows that exist. The 5 residential units will remain. 16 parking spaces provided (using the allowed 50% reduction from the 20 places required and 1 will be designated as handicap). Hours of operation will be consistent with the retail community. Existing beds of flowers in the front will remain and the sign will be installed within the flowerbeds. Historic Preservation Commission met 7/19/06 and gave approval. Light fixtures on the side of the front door will remain. Mr. Apple stated the intent is to minimize the visual change to the exterior of the building, as the Stafford building is very important to the character of downtown. Mr. Coppock stated if the nature of the use is changed the applicant shall return to the DRB for further review.   

Mr. Coppock stated the Board is approving a specific use as an office. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law with the following CONDITIONS:

Any change in the plans or the proposed use shall be brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, prior to its implementation, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.

The new windows on the south side of the building will be of the same size and style as those that exists with true divided lights as will the door being replaced.

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

 

8:15

Project #:                3091 (App # BA 11-138.01 PUD)

Property Owners: TN Associates

Overview:                Reconstruction and expansion of main hotel and construction of a new West Wing. RECESSED from 4/19 to 5/9 to 5/23 to 7/11 to 7/18/06 to 8/1/06.

Tax Parcel #:           11-139 & 11-142

Physical Location: 4000 Mountain Road (Topnotch Resort)

Zoning:                    UMR (Upper Mountain Road  

 

Present were Darrow Mansfield and Mark DeAngelo (as well as others listed)

Mr. Coppock read a letter dated 7/27/06 from Attotney Kelk, representing abutter Robert Gill indicating Mr. Gill does not want the 200’ buffer from his property waived.

CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW & SITE PLAN REVIEW:

 Sec. 4.2 Temporary structures (trailers) will house the operations of the hotel while doing the west wing as office space. Mr. Coppock stated adequate parking has to be on the site at all times through the different phases and an affidavit will be required. Mr. DeAngelo said they would do that. Sec. 4.1 (a) (b) (c) lighting: specifics were shown and on file with specifics. All lighting will be on photocell

(but Mr. DeAngelo said they would not object to using motion sensors) Water & Sewer: letters submitted that both could be provided from the Town of Stowe. Power: the usual 1-year ability to serve letter submitted for the initial requirements (tab 8). Mr. DeAngelo stated Stowe Electric will only issue the 1 year letter, part of the 1st phase is take the overhead power line down and pick up some of the load on the building so that is what the Electric Dept is looking at presently (committed for 100 KW). tape 3 side 1 Mr. Coppock stated as they gain approval for additional power they could renew the building permit through the requirements in the bylaws. The Board’s approval will mirror the Electric Dept. approval. Emergency Services: Stowe Fire Department has reviewed the plans and a letter submitted. Traffic: a traffic study has been submitted which requires from VTRANS, a review is done at the end of one-year of completion of both entryways. Character of the Area: discussed previously. Need to look at the mass of the structures along with the landscaping. Bylaws in Effect: The applicants are seeking waivers of certain parts of the bylaws to gain approval and thus may not be in total compliance. No Unreasonable Soil Erosion: Mr.Mansfield stated there is a program in place and a Construction General Permit is required for this project. Aesthetics etc: Petersen Brook area will have plantings for buffers. Don Marsh, Site Engineer stated there are wetlands below the parking lot and plans are for curbing. Water, Air & Noise: Edge of cooling tower and emergency generators are within the 200’ buffer, located past the existing parking lot near the ledge. (depicted on site plan). Traffic study, pg 8: Mr. Mansfield stated it is proposed there will be 56 new turns per hour into the new driveway and 47 fewer turns in the existing. Saturday A.M. adding 50 in the new drive and taking 43 out of the existing. Mr. DeAngelo stated one would not be able to see any traffic from the Gill property. Mr. Pineles asked if there would be sound at the Gill property. Mr. DeAngelo stated he did not think there would be much noise as they have gone to great lengths to buffer the area. (The applicant needs a plan showing how they will be dealing with the noise issue from the generator, cooling tower, trucks etc). Mr. Coppock stated the delivery trucks need to use the new drive because of noise. Mr. Teffner stated a truck tends to sit up higher and make the berm less effective. Only area to be used for wedding ceremonies will be between the pool and the green lawn (already permitted as part of the restaurant). Driveway Access: main entrance remains with a new one way in driveway. Proposed shared access with Mr. Gill no longer exists. Mr. Pineles asked Mr. Mansfield on a scale of 1-10, how critical is the new access road. Ans: Mr. DeAngelo, 9.5, very . Mr. Jones asked if there is another curb cut to the parking on the on the other side of the road and Mr. DeAngelo stated the curb cut will be directly across from the driveway. Parking across the road will have 55 spaces. Mr. Wagner, Landscaper stated they have shortened the parking lot and created the parking so that it will be kept away from the Rec Path. Sec. 4.9 TN Associates are   noted in the Town Plan. Storm Water Management: 50’ requirements will be met from all watercourses. Plans have been submitted. Mr. Teffner moved to RECESS to AUGUST 8, 2006 starting at 5:00 P.M. to 7:00 at which time the Board will start review of Section 7. Mr. Izzo seconded the motion with all in favor. 

 

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

 

Respectfully submitted,

  

Barbara S. Allaire     

                           Development Review Board

                                     Town of Stowe

                           August 7, 2006- Special Meeting

 

A meeting of the Development Review Board was held Monday, August 7, 2006 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M. for the purpose of continuing the TN Associates hearing.

 

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

Also present: Richard Baker, Zoning Administrator, Cindy Allen from the Vt. Journal and Scott Monroe, Stowe Reporter as well as those listed in the minutes book on file.

 

5:00

Project #:               3091 (formerly BA 11-138.01 PUD)

Property Owner(s) TN Associates

Overview:  Reconstruction and expansion of the main hotel and construct a new West Wing (RECESSED from 8/1/06)

Tax Parcel #:          11-139 & 11-142

Physical Location: 4000 Mountain Road (Topnotch Resort)

Zoning:                  UMR (Upper Mountain Road)

 

Mr. Coppock explained that this hearing is a resumption of project # 3091 that was recessed from August 1, 2006. The previous hearing ended at review of Section 7, UMR. Darrow Mansfield present for the applicant. Sec. 7.3 (1) A: hotels, tourist lodges and motels allowed as Conditional Uses as are retail sales and restaurants. He then went through the density (tab 20) total of 110.4 acres in the Resort PUD. Mr. Teffner questioned the small condos and pool as having .7 acre dedicated to them. Discussion followed. Don Marsh stated they are pre-zoning and not included because it is acreage that is surrounded by the PUD but not included in the density calculations. The .7 acres is under separate ownership, stated Mr. Marsh. Mr. Mansfield stated the PRD existed before the PUD, but there is sufficient density for this project. Mr. Coppock asked, does the PUD include or exclude the parcel of .7 acres when it was created? If it has been carried all these years, Mr. Coppock suggested fixing it and a correct PUD density calculation be prepared. Mr. Teffner stated it needs to be made clear in the affidavit submitted. Coverage is explained on page 11 of the pre-filed narrative. This project is 2.92% density (#21 of the affidavit) . Architectural Design: Sec. 7.7(1)A):  Mr. Coppock stated the Board needs to consider (and read aloud) the section starting with adequacy and appropriateness architectural design and visual context. Mr. Coppock noted that the only thing specifically required in the Bylaw is that the DRB SHALL: find that the proposed development is designed in a manner compatible with the areas rural character—everything else are things that the Board SHOULD consider. Ms. Jary felt traditional materials will be used; substantial landscaping is planned and the project will not stand out. Mr. Izzo felt it a massive structure but will blend into the slope and landscaping will help mitigate the size. Mr. Jones stated existing hotels in the area already define a section of the district. Mr. Coppock said that the applicant’s property includes a large open meadow across the street and one way to preserve the rural character of the area is to confine the development to the existing hotel area rather than to allow it to expand into the meadow. Mr. Teffner said, to the extent there is a rural character there, this will not diminish it. Mr. Pineles felt the project will be well screened in order to qualify for the height and will not be seen from Rte 108. (Mr. Coppock stated the hotel will be seen from other areas of Town). The Board agreed the proposed development is designed in a matter compatible with the areas rural character. Sec. 7.7(1)(3) Driveways: Mr. Coppock referred to a proposed agreement between TN and Mrs. Kreizel re: the relocation of the existing drive adjacent to the Kreizel property. TN is seeking a 10’ waiver. Mr. DeAngelo stated they believe they have an agreement, however, Mrs. Kreizel’s daughter is out of the country so are waiting for her signature (Mr. Coppock said that it is actually Mrs. Kreizels consent that is required). Attorney Kelk (present on behalf of Mr.Gill, but he is also attorney for Mrs. Kreizel) said that the Kreizel’s and Topnotch are working towards the agreement and was optimistic there will be a resolution. Sec. 19 PUD (pg 13 of the filed testimony) Addressed 19.1 general requirements. (19.4 (1) (B) Existing road will remain private and has been reviewed by Fire and Police Departments with letters submitted. Mr. Coppock asked if the “security maintained surveillance supplemental to the town police” was addressed in the Police Department approval. (tab 10) tape 1 side 2 Mr. Mansfield stated there will be 24 hour security as a part of this project . Mr. Oberlander felt they have 3 full time staff members 11-7P.M.and burglar alarms and cameras will be increased. Mr. Coppock said to Mr. Oberlander: “ to say you will come into compliance is helpful but we have to be assured security is maintained supplemental to the police”.   

Sec. 19.4© discussed earlier. Sec. 19.4(F) 1, 2 & 3: building height:  Seeking a waiver from the 35’ restriction. The Board felt this had been adequately discussed. Sec. 19.4(2) 

Proposed uses allowed in the district. Sec. 19.4 (3) & (4) Greenbelt requirements

Mr. Mansfield stated that if the 3.9 acres is included in the PUD, we have asked for a waiver in order to allow for the upper parking lot. Mr. Mansfield explained where the 200’ and 100’ setbacks (if the waiver were to be granted were on the plan) Mr. Kelk, was present with Mr. Gill and stated the Gill’s have owned the house (duplex chalet) adjacent to TN since 1977. Chalet is rented and the other portion is used frequently by the family. Mr. Kelk stated Mr. Gill met with Mr. DeAngelo and Jesse Goldfine, finding the plan to be improved but Mr. Gill is concerned as well with truck traffic going into the driveway, noise, etc. He feels the driveway is dangerous and presently a bad situation, and to go left there is a short sight line which will be worse in the winter. Mr. Gill wants to enjoy his property as he has the last 30 years and is not in favor of granting a waiver as requested, stated Mr. Kelk. Mr. Gill reiterated Mr. Kelk’s statements and said he also has a building lot behind his house for a family member in the future. He said “my mission is to protect my ski chalet in the woods for my family” and did not feel he could agree to a waiver for the buffer. He stated he is concerned with the curb cut as it is already a dangerous situation and will be made worse with additional traffic. Mr. Coppock stated he previously raised the issue of whether the proposed driveway will be used for truck deliveries and he was sympathetic with Mr. Gill’s concern on that topic. Mr. De’Angelo, Construction Manager said the parking lot is approximately 300’ from Mr. Gill’s house, and proposing to put in a 9’ berm with 10-12’ trees on top. The closest point to Mr. Gill’s house will be 170’ and the road will be posted for 10 m.p.h. Mr. De’Angelo said that in order to comply with the 200’ greenbelt they would lose the minimum parking needed. He said they have taken into consideration with the landscaping the issue if a house were to be built in the future on Mr. Gill’s property. Plans are to move the driveway 30’ from the curb cut which the Gill’s are using. Mr. Coppock asked members their thoughts after listening to Mr. Gill. The 200’ greenbelt is applicable to the parking area and not the roadway stated Mr. Coppock. He suggested deliveries use the existing road which would solve a concern of his as well as Mr. Gill. Bob Chamberlain from Resources Institute, who did the traffic study for the project, stated the new driveway is entry only and only by right turns (that it is critical Mr. Chamberlain stated). He stated there is an issue for Mr. Gill, but did not feel the additional traffic for TN would affect the sight distance. There will be 1 vehicle per minute past Mr. Gill’s driveway. He felt the existing southerly curb cut appears to be on TN property but TN will be moving their curb cut up 30’ up the road with a drainage area restored to green between the two drives. Mr. Pineles (referring to pg 18 of the traffic study, tab 12) said he was concerned with the site distance of 425’ heading north as one approaches the new curb cut. Mr. Pineles said it is his experience from driving the road many times, there is a slight turn in the road and as one approaches the turn there is a blind spot-one cannot see a car making a right turn ahead. Jon Slason from RSG explained the site distance at that location-looking south and looking left is 450’ measured from the middle of the lane. (measured at eye level from a car). Mr. Pineles stated his concern again referring to the blind spot in the road and turning into the drive and acknowledged Mr. Gill’s concern turning out of the driveway. tape 2 side 1 Mr. De’Angelo felt they would not be exacerbating the driveway condition. Mr. Kelk asked if the people driving down the mountain road have been considered? He said it will happen they will turn into that drive, he stated. Mr. Chamberlain said it is designed to discourage that. Mr. Teffner asked where the signs will be located and it was explained there will be a sign in the meadow and a single sided sign going north. Mr. Coppock said one of the issues for the Board is, whether or not this project and the traffic it generates makes Mr. Gill’s situation worse: (a) is the driveway up the hill safe and (b) does the addition of right turning traffic in that location make Mr. Gill’s driveway substantially less safe? 200’ greenbelt and parking lot: Would granting the waiver be contrary to the interest/privacy of the adjacent property owner? Mr. Pineles asked Mr. Gill if there was anything else that TN could do to mitigate his concerns. Mr. Gill said the driveway will cause a traffic problem. He continued saying TN has another lot which could be used. Mr. Coppock asked Mr. Gill about the 40 car parking lot and how he thought it would impact him. He said it probably wouldn’t much but there will be lights at night, noise and stated he has a front deck which is frequently used in the summer and also he is looking ahead to the future and the possibility of an additional house on the lot. Mr. Jones said the parking lot itself is below the drive going into the area, which means cars being parked will be below the drive and have a visual buffer for lights. He continued saying northbound traffic could be a safety issue because of the short sight distance, but relies on the traffic engineer. Ms. Jary agreed that trucks should not use the drive and concerned with the noise from the parking lot. Mr. Izzo felt the applicant had made every effort to mitigate the traffic issue and did not feel Mr. Gill’s present house would be impacted. Mr. Teffner: agreed with Mr. Pineles coming up the road, it is hard to see the driveway but could see a car in front of you.

There will be noise from trucks and did not feel they would be going in and out a lot. The required greenbelt is 200’ which could be a mowed field which would not create much of a sound or visual buffer. This is smaller, but will be heavily forested. He did not feel there would be much noise at night from the parking lot. Mr. Pineles: TN has done a superb job with their proposal and cooperated with all but the proposal does not eliminate the concerns. Has an ongoing concern with the safety at the right hand turn and not minimizing Mr. Gill’s concerns, feeling they are valid. The 200’ buffer is there to protect the little guy from the big guy but felt TN has made every effort to mitigate the parking lot. Mr. Teffner asked about the air conditioning/generator on the premises. That report will be taken up at the next meeting. Mr.Oberlander stated there are approximately 9 deliveries per day going from 6:00 A.M. –5:00 P.M.   

Mr. Coppock stated there would be additional trucks as business increases.

 

Additional information from interested parties and the applicant need to be in the Zonin Office by 8/23/06

 

Mr. Teffner moved to RECESS to TUESDAY, AUGUST 29, 2006 at 5:00 P.M., seconded by Mr. Izzo with all in favor.

 

Possible proposed conditions to this point from these minutes:

Kreizel/TN driveway agreement for the DRB’s review. 

Check the .7 acres included in the total density. 

Security maintained on the property(?) as requirement of the regulations.

Single sided sign required

Retain jurisdiction over the delivery truck issue

Right turn lane issue- if doesn’t work at the end of a year, possibly require to close.

 

LAW CENTRE SITE PLAN & PARKING LOT PLAN.  Members agreed to accept as presented and satisfying CONDITION #      of the approval, seconded by Mr. Teffner with all in favor.

 

The meeting adjourned at 7:30 P.M.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Barbara S. Allaire

                                             Development Review Board

                                                      Town of Stowe

                                                      August 15, 2006

 

The regular meeting of the Stowe Development Review Board was held Tuesday, August 15, 2006 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M.

 

Members present: Allan Coppock, Chair; Ed Izzo, Susan Jary, Ted Teffner and Dean Pineles. Also present: Rich Baker, Zoning Administrator and those listed in the minute’s book.

Absent: Larry Jones and Chris Walton.

 

5:00

Project #:       3115

Owner:           Falker, Robert

Tax Parcel #: 7A-064.000

Location:         250 Maple Street

Project:            Addition and renovations of building in the SHOD (conceptual discussion)

Zoning:             VR-20/SHOD

 Mr. Coppock stated this is an informational meeting and not a warned hearing. Mr. Falker said he is now proposing 3 units which will shorten the entire structure by 25’ and the barn unit by 13’ (will be 22’ from the property line). Will be removing 1 cedar shrub on each end of the shrub row next to Rte 100 and putting back a shorter one on each end. Trees on the northerly line will remain. All AC units will have bushes around them or a trellis type of shielding. Mr. Coppock stated as part of the review, the site will be looked at as surveyed without regard to a law suit which has been filed against his abutting neighbor on the south side, unless such suit is decided by the time of the hearing. Mr. Teffner asked if in the past the board had considered the noise from air conditioners next to neighbors. Mr. Falker described the location of the AC’s as being 2 under the deck of the old house and one unit facing the woods. Mr. Pineles asked if this plan would mitigate the storm water issue and Mr. Falker described Mr. Grenier’s plan, which includes 2 dry pond areas and a berm. Mr. Coppock asked if there is anything in the new proposal that would change the water run off and Mr. Falker said, possibly. Mr. Izzo felt the plan is somewhat improved but asked for another site walk with the proposed building staked out, and mark the trees that are being removed and a more definitive storm water plan. Mr. Falker said the project has to be engineered and he would not mark every tree or branch. Mr. Pineles said it is an improvement but asked for a site walk. He felt it addresses concerns to some degree, i.e massiveness and the barn being block off from seeing any green space in the rear. Ms. Jary felt there would be some difference with the massiveness and aesthetics. Members agreed to have a site walk on 9-19-06 at 4:30 prior to the meeting. Mr. Bourgeois, abutting property owner, stated his concern of the project has been the shrub row on Rte 100, which is within the r.o.w. and felt it should meet the 25’ setback. He has stated in previous hearings it is a safety hazard. This will be viewed at the site walk.  

 

5:20

Project #:       3116

Owner:          Two Little Beres LLC

Tax Parcel #: 7-051.000

Location:        717 Maple Street

Project:           New accessory building in SHOD (postponed from 7/18/06 as the application was incomplete). 

Ms. Jary moved to POSTPONE for the 3rd time to SEPTEMBER 19, 2006, (3rd seconded by Mr. Teffner with all members in favor. Mr. Walton and Jones not present.

 

5:25

Project #:      3031

Owner:          Lamoille Housing Partnership

Tax Parcel #: 7-251.000

Location:       Sylvan Park Road

Project:          36 units in 17 buildings –Final Approval (RECESSED from 8/1/06)

Present were Darrow Mansfield and Mr. Broderick from Housing Vermont. Mr. Broderick stated a new letter has been issued from the Stowe Electric Dept. giving a year approval for power of 227 KW. A master meter has been installed but not energized and cannot be until Labor & Industry issue a permit (will be generated within the year). The Board agreed the letter would be sufficient to satisfy the condition. Mr. Mansfield stated the ANR condition remains but they have not received a permit. Approval has been submitted for water, sewer and curb cut. The clapboard siding request has been withdrawn. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law as seeking final plat approval with the following CONDITIONS:

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.

All conditions of the previous approval and any conditions not modified by recent submittals shall remain in force.

Mr. Teffner seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Izzo, Coppock and Teffner voting in favor. Mr. Pineles abstained from voting as he had not participated in any of the hearings pertaining to this project. Mr. Jones and Walton were absent. 

 

5:30

Project #:       3087

Owner:           Bryan, Lee and David, Jr.

Tax Parcel #: 10-064.000

Location:        475 Tansy Hill Road

Project:           2-lot subdivision

Present was Bethany Harrington from Little River Surveyors who stated there were originally 4 lots which were combined into one lot of 59 acres. There are 2 existing houses and plans are to subdivide off a house on each lot. Each house has an existing driveway, own power, water and septic. There is an existing woods road but will not be used as any passage for either lot. There are no easements proposed as part of the subdivision. A southerly portion is in the RHOD on Lot 1 but will not be affected by the subdivision, stated Ms. Harrington. Lot 2 is 5 acres and both houses meet the zoning setbacks and standards in the RR 5 district. Preliminary testing has been done for septic replacement areas and is shown on the plan. Sec. 5.1 reviewed. There will be no traffic impact, as the 2 houses exist. No plans for additional landscaping. No reserved strips. The owner is reserving the right for further subdivision of Lot 1 under the standards applicable at the time. The Board waived the requirements for setting monuments on the southwesterly end of Lot # 1, in accordance with the subdivision definition and as indicated on the plans. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Project # 3087 with the following CONDITIONS:

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.   

The replacement leach fields shall be shown on the final plat.

The woods road shall be removed from the plat.

Any further subdivision of Lot # 1 shall come before the DRB

Testimony was that there are no easements being created. 

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

 

5:50

Project #:        3082

Owners(s):      Pitstick, Darrick and Drill, Rich

Tax Parcel #: 11-230.000

Location:         452 Cottage Club Road- Timberholm Lodge

Project:            Addition to owner’s quarters

Present were Darrick Pitstick and Kim Brown. Mr. Pitstick present seeking approval to add a bedroom to the owner’s quarters over the dining area. tape 1 side 2 Have been before the SHPC on 8/10/06 who approved the plan but recommended changes which have been made i.e. (added supports on the exterior, changed the railing style to match existing, added scallop details) There will be no changes to the front of the building with the exception of a stairwell with a roof on the end of the building. The footprint is not changing. Board reviewed the SHPC and Conditional Use criteria. Ms. Jary moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: project # 3082 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) Any conditions of the SHPC are a condition of this approval.

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

 

6:00 P.M.

Project #:   3078

Owner:       Mill Pond Development LLC

Tax Parcel #: 7-263.000

Location:   673 South Main Street (former “Ma” Russell House)

Project:      Proposing to demolish and reconstruct a historic building for office use

Present was Dean Economou who stated after stripping the old structure, it was found to have deteriorated to the point it not feasible to restore. Plans are to reconstruct the building, which will look essentially the same as the original one. The square footage will remain the same and the window design will have more detail. External chimney planned. (the SHPC did not review the external chimney). After discussion, members agreed that external chimney would not be a part of an approval and referred it back to the SHPC. Mr. Pineles asked for clarification as to what was being approved since he was not present for the original proposal and approval. Members were being asked to remove that portion of the approval which dealt with the rehabilitation of the structure and instead allow for its demolition and reconstruction. Same footprint, same plans with slight change in architectural details. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: project 3078 based on the plans dated 8/15/06 of Stowe Design by Gerry McDermott, with the following

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.

The approval is given without the external chimney.

 All Previous conditions of the original approval shall remain in force.

 All SHPC conditions are a part of this approval 

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

 

6:15

Project #:        3076

Owner:            Spruce Peak Realty LLC

Tax Parcel #: 14-011.000

Location:         Spruce Peak Resort

Project:            Proposing the installation of five (5) temporary structures in the Spruce Base Area to serve the Base Lodge.

Rob Apple present and stated the plan is to install 4 structures temporary (Sheet SE-1) within Spruce Peak parking area to serve as skier facilities while the base lodge is being built. Mr. Apple stated he was asking for a 2-year approval (this winter and next). 2 of the structures will be of a white fabric material. Main fabric structure is 9, 780 s.f. of which will be used for ticket sales, ski storage, rentals etc with 248 seats inside and located on the black top. The metal market building will be used for pre- made sandwiches, soups etc. A secondary fabric tent with 288 seats connected to the metal building with all structures connected by fire walls Plans are for 2 trailers for the men’s and women’s restrooms and connected to the waste water system. Mr. Apple explained the site plan re: parking in detail, the drop off area /foot traffic. He stated the estimate is 96 parking spaces will be lost but additional parking at Mansfield is being created and the Barnes Camp lot will be used. Mr. Apple said he would admit parking could be problematic. tape 2 side 1 . Changes to one of the fabric tents will be going from 3,216 s.f. to 4,284 s.f.and to 288 seats instead of 272. A trailer will be placed at the base of Slalom Hill and at the edge of the roadway to serve as a combination for the Ski Patrol and Race Timing Office. Mr. Apple said they were asking for a 2 year life of the permit) Mr. Pineles asked about the circulation for Rescue Vehicles and asked if any members has reviewed the plans. Mr. Apple stated they will be using the same drive, pick up and there will be a turn around area to drive out. Mr. Baker stated they responded on the Impact Questionairre favorably. The Fire Department has reviewed and approved the plans with no concerns. Conditional Use Review: When asked about the snow removal, Mr. Apple stated the fabric is intended to allow for the snow, did not feel there would be any build up and management will be maintaining the area. Mr.Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for a two (2) year approval, with the following CONDITIONS:

Any change to the plans or the proposed use of the property shall be brought top the attention of the Zoning Administrator, prior to its implementation, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.

The applicant shall provide for the record an updated parking narrative.

(3) An appropriate access shall be maintained for emergency vehicles. 

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

 

6:55 PM

Project: 3077

Owner: Spruce Peak Realty LLC

Tax Parcel #: 14.011.000

Location: Spruce Peak Resort

Zoning:            RR-5/SKI-PUD  

Project:            Seeking to revise the size of the previously approved Golf Clubhouse Zoning:            RR-5/SKI-PUD  

Mr. Apple stated the original approval for the golf clubhouse was for a building of 16,260 s.f. Now seeking to modify that plan for a 2,100 s.f Golf Starter Cottage in a slightly modified location. Cart path around the cottage. 4 parking spaces. Material similar with those approved. No restaurant, limited food service, small bar, small pro shop. Carts will be kept at the parking garage at the Base of Big Spruce. There will be small locker rooms. Mr. Apple stated occasionally there may be a tent put up for events during a golf tournament, but not on a season long basis. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: project # 3077 with the following CONDITIONS:

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. 

Any applicable conditions imposed with the original approval for the building shall remain in force.

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

 

7:10 BREAK

 

7:20

Project #:      3084

Owner:          TN Associates

Tax Parcel #: 11-138.000

Location:       4000 Mountain Road

Project:          Requesting to allow for amplified music at the pavilion tent until 12:00 midnight on 9/2/06 and until 11 P.M. on 9/3, 9/17 and 10/7/06.

Zoning:           MRV

Present were Jesse Goldfine, Dan Oberlander and Shawnnalea Young from TN Associates. Others present are listed in the minute’s book as well as those who spoke. Mr. Goldfine explained the location of the tent and said at the hearing when they got their approval for the tent there was a condition that amplified music shall be cut off at 10:00 P.M. He continued saying a month ago TN discovered that they had made commitments for some weddings, which required music past the 10:00. They notified each client and now are before the Board to seek an extension to 11:00 P.M. Jaclyn Dollinger, the bride to be for the first wedding spoke and said that for religious reasons the Rabbi cannot perform her ceremony until 7:00pm. She said they put their faith in TN. Mr. Coppock stated it is not the Board’s intent to be mean to brides, but TN obtained a permit for the use and either didn’t read it or didn’t choose to be constrained by the limits set forth in the permit. The problem is of TN’s making since there was concern originally and it was testimony of the applicant that music would be turned off at 10:00 P.M. Mr, Coppock stated at the original hearing there were neighbors (B. Price & Mark Plagaldo) who were very concerned with the noise. Mr. Coppock then read a letter, dated 8/10/06, into the record from Patricia Skene who lives at 4088 Mountain Road stating her concerns and objection to the music. Mr. Coppock stated the board is now in a position where TN has sold something and cannot deliver and there are adjacent property owners who are not unreasonably unhappy with this intrusion into their enjoyment of their property. The Board is in the middle. Mr. Goldfine apologized for the oversight and said he understood. He asked the Board humbly for 4 weddings. It is true, stated Mr. Goldfine, there has been amplified music on other occasions (have received 2 notices of violations). Mr. Plagaldo, abutting neighbor on Brook Road and Beverly Price were present. Ms. Price said to TN:“ you can understand how we have lost faith in your word”. Mr. Pineles asked if the other 3 weddings (other than Ms. Dollinger) were in the same situation that the wedding cannot start until 7:00 P.M. Mr. Oberlander, TN said he did not know for certain. He said all the functions were booked prior to the hearing. Mr. Coppock said” if TN knew they had commitments to go to 11-12 midnight and presented the Board with an offer to stop at 10:00, I am not sure I feel any better about that”. Ms. Young, Wedding Manager from TN, stated the tent would not fit near the lodge because of the construction. Mr. Coppock stated the tent operated without benefit of a permit for a year, and then got a permit when they sought to move across the road. Mr. Teffner, a neighbor, stated they heard it at their house, especially the Helen Day function, which the music did not end at 10P.M. Mr. Coppock stated the permit expires 10/31/06. Mr. Teffner said that some of the issues would be brought up if TN requests approval to extend this permit for future years. He would agree to extend the hours for the people who have booked the parties, not to get TN out of trouble. (tape 2 side 2). Ms. Price asked that the volume be turned down. Mr. Coppock stated two of the impacted neighbors are present, plus a letter and felt the Board has a responsibility to not unduly harm the adjacent property owners. Mr. Goldfine felt there would be minimal impact after 10 P.M. Ms. Jary stated the original hearing was warned with one neighbor appearing and the permit expires 10/31/06. Mr. Oberlander stated they would take it onto themselves to speak to the Skene’s. Betty Teffner, a neighbor stated she did not have a concern with the 9/2/06 date but asked why the other neighbors were not present. Ms. Young stated of the 11 weddings, she was able to work with 7 to end at 10 P.M. but they are asking for the other 3 to extend to 11 o’clock. She was not certain the starting time of all the weddings. Mr. Pineles said it is a dilemma and said he could come down, somewhat reluctantly, on the side of the brides and grooms but did appreciate the concern of the neighbors. Ms. Jary agreed. Mr. Izzo stated the Board is present to enforce the bylaws, this being a tough situation and concerned about precedence. Ms. Price stated she would not dream of ruining a wedding, but to TN, I am very disappointed and will never believe anything you say again. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for project 3084, to modify the condition of the previous approval to allow the amplified music in the tent to be extended on the following dates: 9/2 music to 12:00 midnight; 9/3, 9/17/ and 10/7/06 until 11 P.M. Mr. Izzo asked if weddings were scheduled for next summer and the answer was “yes”. Mr. Coppock reminded TN that the permit expires 10/31/06. Mr. Teffner seconded the motion with the following CONDITIONS:

   (1) All the conditions in place at the time of the original approval. 

Those voting in favor of the motion: Ms. Jary, Mr. Izzo, Teffner and Pineles. Voting No: Mr. Coppock. Mr. Jones and Walton were not present. Vote: 4-1 in favor.    

 

8:00

Project #:      3089

Owner:          Rovetto, Eduardo

Tax Parcel #: 6-075.000

Location:       1899 Mountain Road

Project:          Requesting approval to have live entertainment (POSTPONE to 9/5/per applicant).

Mr. Teffner moved to POSTPONE to 9-5-06at the applicant’s request. Ms. Jary seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Izzo, Coppock, Teffner and Pineles voting in favor. Mr. Jones and Walton were not present.

 

8:05

Project #:      3088

Owner:          Midas Enterprises, Inc.

Tax Parcel #: 6-087.000

Location:        1677 Mountain Road

Project:           Seeking to change the use of Outfitter business and to allow a permanent yurt to be constructed.

Zoning:             MRV

Present was Christine Colangeli, owner of the yurt, stated she has changed the size to a 30’ diameter decking with a circular base and the yurt will be 13-15’high. The only complaint she has had is from Michael Diender as there is a trail behind his motel property which was being used. She did not find it financially feasible to put the yurt up this summer until she signs a new lease. After 12 years of having the business, stated Ms. Colangeli, she would like to have a permanent place for the yurt. There is currently landscaping on the property and felt the yurt would be screened. Ms. Colangeli stated her current lease expires 10-31-06, and on 9-15-06 has an option to renew and asked for a permit of 2 years. Mr. Coppock stated at the original hearing, the issue arose re: the relationship between this property and the Farmer’s Market as the Board gave the Farmer’s Market approval based on using this property for some parking. Ms. Colangeli stated the Market is not a concern as she is not operating the business while the market is open. She said she would be happy to provide any spaces available to the market and work with them. Mr. Coppock stated a condition was included in the Farmer’s Market approval was if they lost their parking they would have to return to the Board, and if this operation were to take place on Sundays, it would have an instant affect on the Market parking. The Board cannot grant a permit to use the parking lot twice. Mr. Coppock asked the members for their individual opinions. Mr. Teffner stated he did not have a problem with the use but his concern was the aesthetics from Mt. Road. Mr. Pineles said his concerns were how it would fit in with the character of the area as it would be very visible. Ms. Jary said the use fits very well and asked if the yurt could be screened. Ms. Colangeli stated it will be made of wood and designed to fit in with the character of the area. Mr. Izzo felt the Board needs to be concerned with the impact in the area. After continued discussion, Mr. Coppock gave Ms. Colangeli the opportunity to recess and return to the Board with a site plan showing landscaping and the view from Rte 108 or withdraw her application if she desired. He stated to her there were only five members present and if it were to be denied, the only avenue would be for her to appeal the decision. Her comment was, “ A denial is a denial but I need a decision tonight”. Mr. Pineles moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: project # 3088 with the following CONDITIONS:

Any change to the plans or the proposed use of the property shall be brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator for a determination if an amendment shall be required.

The yurt will not be placed on the site sooner than 6-1-07 and the permit approval shall be until 10-31-08.  

Ms. Jary seconded the motion with Mr. Pineles, Coppock and Ms. Jary voting in favor of the motion. Mr. Izzo and Teffner voted no. Motion did not pass. Mr. Jones and Walton were not present. 

 

8:45

Project #:       3080

Owner(s):      Palmer, Heather and Mark & Mansfield, Darrow

Tax Parcel #: 7-312.100

Location:        996 South Main Street- Moody Farm Property

Project:           4 Lot Subdivision

Mr. Mansfield stated there is 23 acres on the property with frontage on Rte 100 and the River Road. 3.5-4 acres around the house, with a bank which goes to the river. They are proposing to divide the property between 2 families. There will be 4 parcels; (1) 3.2 acres with frontage on Rte 100 which will become a building zone for an office building; 1A & Lot 1B is 10 acres in the field; (4) 7.4 acres including the house and building lot. (4) 2 acre strip to be conveyed to a neighbor with no development. Mr. Mansfield showed the flood line on the map and there is a 25’ r.o.w. down to Lot B. Driveways are approximately 400’ apart and Mr. Mansfield stated the reasons for not having a single access are very mature apple and maple trees which are unique to the property. They are asking not remove them as they have been there for many years. Site will have on site septic and will be applying to hook up to the Lower Village Water System. New power service will be upgraded from a pole across the road and go underground to the property.  

Mr. Mansfield was urged to get Stowe Electric approval prior to any approval being given. There will be septic and power easements to both lots. Members were urged to drive by (or do individual site visits) to familiarize themselves with the site.

 

Project #:       3079

Owner(s)        Mansfield, Darrow & Margaret

Tax Parcel #: 7-312.100

Location:        996 South Main Street

Project:         Convert existing single family dwelling into 2 business units

Ms. Jary moved to POSTPONE to 9-5-06 (due to time constraints) , seconded by Mr. Pineles with all in favor.

 

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

                                            Development Review Board

                                                     Town of Stowe

                                                    August 29, 2006

 

A special meeting, for the purpose of resuming the hearing for TN Associates, was held Tuesday, August 29, 2006 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M.

 

Members present: Allan Coppock, Chair; Dean Pineles, Ed Izzo, Susan (Jary) Britton and Ted Teffner.

Absent: Larry Jones. It was announced that Chris Walton will be formally resigning.  

Others present: Richard Baker, Zoning Administrator and those listed in the minute’s book.

 

Congratulations to Board member Susan Jary on her marriage to Peter Britton, which took place August 28^th.

Overview:              Reconstruction and expansion of main hotel and construction of a new West Wing (RECESSED from 8/7/06)

Present was Darrow Mansfield and stated William Kelk was present on behalf of Gloria Kreizel, abutting property owner. Mr. Kelk stated that on 8/29 he, Jesse Goldfine, Topnotch and Susan Weintraub (Mrs. Kreizel’s daughter) had a conference call and he felt the parties were pretty much in agreement and a written agreement should be signed by Mrs. Kreizel within the week. Mr. Coppock stated he would be reluctant to make any decision without having received a letter from Mrs. Kreizel, as the Board had been told a very similar story at several previous meetings. Mr. Kelk was also present with Robert Gill, an abutter, and he stated that Mr. Gill and representatives from TN Associates met this date to address Mr. Gill’s concerns (stated in a letter dated 8-7-06 to the Board). Mr. Gill thanked the Board and said he appreciated Mr. Pineles’ concern in discussing the “blind spot” in exiting his driveway. Mr. Kelk explained there would be an agreement signed shortly between Gill and Topnotch. Mr. DeAngelo stated TN will be cutting back the bank along the Gill property on a 1-1/2’ slope, removing the large dead pines and regarding the bank in accordance with VTRANS approval. Jon Slason, RSG Resources, stated the existing site distance is 225’ and with the cut back slope, it will be 340’, which will increase the visibility immensely. Mr. DeAngelo stated the plan is to replant 15 pine trees in a staggering pattern beyond the bank which is being cut back which will help with noise and visibility. Mr. Gill’s driveway will remain in its existing location. Mr. DeAngelo stated that as part of the agreement, TN plans to continue the drainage ditch on Mr. Gill’s property, put in a catch basin, tie into the new TN drainage ditch, where the water will go through a culvert under Rte 108 and into the TN storm water system. Both Mr. and Mrs. Gill will sign the agreement. Mr. Pineles asked Mr. Kelk if all the issues between TN and the Gill’s are satisfied in the agreement. Mr. Kelk: “We think we have put it all to bed, between moving the parking lot across the street, constructing the berm and the white pines to be planted, and resolving the issue of the corner at Mr. Gill’s property.” Mr. Coppock said the Board needs to see the signed agreements for their review.

 

Mr. Mansfield referred to revisions to Secs.18 (parking calculation) & Sec. 20 (Resort PUD Density). Mr. Coppock stated the applicant needs to have a phasing plan for review.

Members satisfied with items 1-6

Item 6 explains what the applicants are proposing and Mr. DeAngelo stated 6.D should read 35 units (not 33). Conditional Use Review Sec. 4.7 (2) (A) standards of review: 

Stowe Emergency Services: it was noted that Fire and Rescue do not get to approve or deny a proposal but rather can make recommendations. Electrical Power: Mr. Coppock stated there is a letter from Stowe Electric Department allowing for 100 KW of additional power, and he asked how the applicant proposes to get to 730KW of total need. Mr. Coppock stated when the building is torn down; there will be a temporary excess of power and how does that fit with the construction of the new hotel. Mr. DeAngelo stated it would be enough to build the building, close it in and start to do the finish work. Additional power is needed is when they start to do the kitchen, cooling system, lights etc. The 100KW of additional power will take them to 80% of completion. Mr. Coppock stated, however, that the building permit being sought is for the construction of the entire hotel, not just to build the shell of the hotel and then get subsequent permits. Discussion continued about any permit to be issued. Mr. Coppock asked if the Board was being asked to approve a plan which does not have enough power to allow the completion of the structure which is being covered by the permit. Mr. DeAngelo: yes. SED (Stowe Electric Department) says they will commit only to power that will be used within 12 months. Mr. DeAngelo stated TN is already a customer. Mr. Coppock said it puts the Board in a difficult position when being asked to approve a project when there is not adequate power and there is no further commitment for more power in the future. Mr. Mansfield stated the Board has to make a leap of faith and assume the power line will be built; if the power is not available, the hotel will not go ahead. Mr. DeAngelo stated they wouldn’t be able to get financing until they have permits. tape 1 side 2 Mr. Baker suggested the possibility of a phased permit so that the applicant could obtain financing. Mr. Coppock felt phasing should be tied to construction. Phasing discussed:

Possible Phase I: clear lot, put in road, put in parking lot, reconfigure driveway, landscaping, storm water run-off plan. Mr. Teffner stated activities need to be defined for each phase and plans should show what happens if each phase is not carried out. Phase II could include demolition of hotel, which includes a plan showing what happens if the applicant were forced to stop at the end of phase II. Phase III would be predicated on receiving confirmation there is adequate power to complete the project. Mr. Coppock said what is being covered in each phase needs to be very specific. Members agreed it would be possible to grant a permit which would include 3 phases. Mr. Baker asked when the expiration date would be for the permit. Mr. DeAngelo gave the Board a completion date of DECEMBER 31, 2009 (at which time the applicant could ask for a year’s extension). Mr. Coppock asked if that date would be adequate for their needs and Mr. DeAngelo said yes. Mr. Teffner stated he was not comfortable the power line will be built in ’07.  Board will need a letter from VTRANS stating they are satisfied with the new proposal at the Gill entrance. The Board will retain the right to review both driveways at the same time that VTRANS reviews the Main Entrance ( one year after the hotel reaches full occupancy. Sec. 4.7(A)(4) Bylaws then in effect: need to expand to include the language of the waiver etc. #15: Refer to sheets L3- 1 to L3-5. Mr. Coppock asked if there is construction within of 50’ of the top of the bank of Peterson Brook. Don Marsh, Engineer stated yes, need to remove the overhead power line and the waterline in a very short section comes within 45’ from the brook, but all within an existing disturbed area. No building will take place near the spa. Mr. Marsh argued they area a non-conforming use which will be diminishing. Mr. DeAngelo stated SED has cleared everything and TN plans to replant nearly an acre of land. Mr. Wagner, landscape architect, showed the buffer replanting outside of the stream per a state approved plan. 

Truck traffic on the new access, on an ongoing basis, will be limited to 7:00 A.M. –7:00 P.M., Monday - Saturday and prior to and after that time the main driveway will be used. Mr. DeAngelo stated that during construction, and depending on the phase of the project, both drives will be used. On average there will be 16 truck tri