Development Review Board Town of Stowe October 3, 2006 The Development Review Board held their regular meeting Tuesday, October 3, 2006 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M. Members present: Newly elected Chairman Larry Jones, Ed Izzo, Dean Pineles, Susan Brittin and Ted Teffner. Absent: Allan Coppock. It was noted for the record that Chris Walton has officially resigned from the Development Review Board, creating a vacancy. 5:00 Project #: 3115 Owner: Falker, Robert Tax Parcel #:7A-064.000 Location: 250 Maple Street Project: Addition of condominiums and renovation of building located in SHOD (Recessed 9/19) Zone: VR_20/SHOD Present for the resumption of the hearing were Robert Falker and Attorney Dunkiel. Mr. Jones stated the review at the previous hearing was left at the parking issue. The applicant is creating 3 spaces in the garages, and 5 on the exterior (total of 8). Mr. Falker stated he could not control that any resident would be required to park further away from the road and members agreed there would be fewer cars on the property when completed than there are now and it will be screened. Sec. 22.5 (6) re: handicap parking. Mr. Falker agreed to provide a designated handicap parking space. The submission dated 9/20/06 shows the parking plan agreed upon, minus the handicap space. Mr. Teffner indicated a sign along the designated space would be required. Sec. 4.7 Conditional Use Review: The 9/19/06 hearing covered the character of the area. The Historic Preservation letter was previously addressed and the Board agreed with their recommendations. Pre-existing driveway, which is adequate. The applicant has agreed to remove one cedar bush on each end of the hedgerow which was discussed re: visibility issue with the hedge, which is in the r.o.w. The property line goes through the hedge on the northerly end. Mr. Dunkiel stated the hedge is further away from the road than the telephone pole. Mr. Baker stated the survey submitted shows the hedge in the r.o.w, which is an issue if there is a concern with sight visibility. Mr. Izzo felt the hedge does restrict the sight. Mr. Pineles asked who’s sight does it impede, the next door owner of the occupants of Mr. Falker’s property. Mrs. Brittin said she felt the Board has to look at the safety. Mr. Teffner said the driveway on this property is what the Board is addressing and not the one on the abutting property. Mr. Falker said he had told Mr. Bourgeois he would agree to trim the hedge in front of the property and give him the right to do it also and he would pay for it. Cliff Johnson had told Mr. Baker that the procedure for Mr Bourgeois would be to go to the Selectboard if he had a problem with the hedgerow. The landscaping plan shows shrubs in the triangular piece in front of the property and the planting along the outside parking lot. The Board agreed the configuration would improve the storm water, run-off issue. Lighting: Mr. Falker submitted cut sheets showing the types of lights, with shields, to be on the barn. Mr. Izzo stated they absolutely cannot show the source of light and must be shielded. Mr. Falker stated the lights on the barn will be shielded and the source will not be seen from off site. The carriage lamps on the entrance to each unit will need to have translucent glass. The covenants will remain as they were originally presented. Mr. Izzo asked if the cupola was going to have lights and Mr. Falker responded saying if the Board says no lights, there will be none. Mr. Pineles moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law approving project # 3115 with the following CONDITIONS: (1) Any change to the property 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. (2) The standard Stowe Electric Department “ability to serve” letter shall be in force. (3) The Board shall maintain jurisdiction over landscaping and lighting, which shall be shielded so they will not be seen from the roadway, for a period of one (1) year after the Certificate of Occupancy, is issued. (4) A handicap parking space shall be provided and appropriately marked. (5) There will be no lighting in the cupola (6) The Board shall retain jurisdiction over the storm water run-off for a period of one (1) year after the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Mrs. Brittin seconded the motion with Mr. Teffner, Izzo, Pineles, Jones and Mrs. Brittin voting yes. Mr. Coppock was absent. One vacancy on the Board. 5:35 Project #: 3170 Owner(s) The Moscow Group Tax Parcel #: 3-064.000 Location: 266 Adams Mill Road Project: Demolition of the “Tenant” Historical house Zone: Moscow Commercial Present for the hearing were Steve Riley, partner in the development and Darrow Mansfield, Land Planner. Mr. Mansfield stated there are 15 approved lots in the development, which is located along the Little River and Adams Mill Road. Lot # 3 has a very small tenant house, which has had several additions and is currently in disrepair, having mold and rot. The Stowe Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed the plan, and by letter dated 9/27/06 (Sec. 17.7) approved the demolition of the building finding it has no architectural significance and historic value is only related to the Adams Mill complex. Mr. Riley said they have been to the State Historic Commission who has recognized it is significant to the property so need to amend their Act 250 permit. Mr. Riley stated they do not wish to take down, but landscaping is in and the building has no architectural lines, would have to modify it to fit in the Moscow Historic District to make it fit. Donna Adams, in the audience, one of the Adams family members, stated she likes the little house, lives in the area and says it is a good example of what it is supposed to be, a tenant house. She disagreed with the Historic Preservation Commission’s determination. Ms. Adams stated this is happening with other buildings, which were on the property, i.e. the saw bin, the tenant house. She said she was worried about the farmhouse and carriage house and the domino affect, which is taking place and is also happening in town. She suggested people should take responsibility to save old buildings, not only in this development but throughout town. Mrs. Brittin suggested to Mrs. Adams that she write a letter to the Stowe Historic Preservation Commission stating her concerns with old buildings be torn down, some because of neglect. Mr. Mansfield referred to the large house, as the Queen Anne house and the adjacent barn are significant pieces of architecture. They will be remaining. Ms. Adams asked Mr. Riley to keep closed the windows in the basement of the large house, as animals will get in. Mr. Pineles said historic significance is in the eyes of the beholder, and understood Mrs. Adams emotional relationship but felt the tenant house is in very bad shape. Mr. Riley said it has taken them 3 years to get to where they are, they have anguished over everything that has been taken down and feels very much the way Donna (Adams) does. (tape 1 side 2) Mr. Riley said they recognize the farmhouse as being significant and will do all they can do, including keeping the house. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law approving project 3170 based upon the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission in the letter dated 9/27/06 of the demolition of the “tenant house”. Mr. Teffner seconded the motion with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Jones, Pineles and Teffner voting in favor. Mr. Coppock absent. One vacancy on the Board. 6:00 P.M. Project #: 3116 Owner: Two Little Beres Tax Parcel #: 7-051.000 Location: 717 Maple Street Project: Requesting approval to construct an accessory building in the SHOD (Postponed 9/19 and postponement requested until 10/24 to allow for further SHC review). Zone: RR-1/SHOD It was noted the application has been postponed several times ; i.e. 7/18 – 8/1 because of an incomplete application according to Mr. Baker; 8/1-8/15; 8/15- 9/19; 9/19-10/3. Mr. Baker reported that the applicant has been to the SHPC and has not yet received written recommendations. Mr. Jones referred to the Board’s internal procedures which suggest granting only 3 postponements. Mr. Jones felt the process is working since the Board asks the SHPC to look at projects like this. Mr. Teffner said since the application was received the hearing has not been opened. Mr. Pineles moved to POSTPONE to October 24, 2006 which will be the Board’s next meeting after the applicant returns on 10/11th to SHPC, and that the applicant be instructed the Board will not look favorably upon further requests for a postponement. Mr. Teffner seconded the motion with all members present in favor. Mr. Coppock not present. 6:05 Project #: 3110 Owner(s) Doyle, John and Bernadette Tax Parcel #: 7A-152.000 Location: 94 Park Street Project: Request to construct a single family residence in the SHOD (Postponed 9/5) Zone: VC-10/SHOD Present were Mr. & Mrs Doyle. Mr. Doyle explained there are presently a 2-½-story house and a 2-bedroom carriage house on the property. Proposal is for a 3-bedroom dwelling Mr. Jones stated the reason the matter is before the Board is because it is in the SHOD, not Conditional Use Review. Mr. Doyle has been before the Stowe Historic Preservation Commission on 9/7/06 which adopted Findings of Fact under Sec. 17.5 & 17.10. The Board reviewed the criteria. SHPC imposed conditions. (Mr. Baker stated the plans have been revised based on the conditions). Mrs. Brittin asked if the dimensional requirements apply and Mr. Baker said yes, and the setbacks will be met. Mrs. Brittin commented the lot is not very big. A letter from abutting property owner Louisa Drury dated 8/28/06 stating her reasons for opposing the dwelling (read aloud by Mr. Jones). Mr. Pineles stated he looked at the area and his comment was it is hard to argue with some of Mrs. Drury’s comments and said “it will take a shoe horn to get a building on that lot- a very small lot”. He asked if the Board has some oversight over the aesthetics. It will be forcing a substantial building on a very small piece of property and will necessarily impact the surroundings. Mr. Pineles suggested a sight walk. Mr. Baker said they need to meet the setbacks, lot coverage and 2500 s.f. per unit. He said the zoning is designed to accommodate very dense development in that area. Mr. Jones said the Board asks for input of the SHPC , but it is the Board’s Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law that apply here. Mr. Pineles noted Sec. 17.11 (3) (new building shall fit into the context of the surrounding area) Mrs. Brittin said even though it is not Conditional Use Review, asked about Sec. 4.5(1) under general regulations. Mr. Baker explained the criteria in that section re: the proposed building. Mrs Doyle spoke saying she had never spoken to Mrs Drury (as was indicated in the letter) about the building. Mr. Doyle stated the Kid’s School will be going from the property and the area will be turned into a 3-bedroom apartment. The dwelling will be 17-30’ from the play area. Mr. Teffner did not think a site walk was necessary since it would be a part of getting into review which we are not required or authorized to do. Historic Preservation Commission has agreed that it meets the requirements. Mr. Pineles read Sec. 17.11(3) again. Mrs. Brittin said the Board’s review includes all aspects of Sec. 17.11 (3) and the Board does not have all the information, i.e. building materials etc. Mr. Teffner disagreed. Mr. Pineles said the SHPC reviews do not review for context, but for design. Mr. Pineles moved to RECESS to 10-24-06 in order that the Board can do a site visit. Mr. Izzo seconded the motion with Mrs. Brittin, Pineles and Izzo voting in favor. Mr. Jones and Teffner voted no. Mr. Coppock was not present. Motion did not pass. The Board continued to consider the matter. Mr. Pineles said the SHPC made a recommendation and the Board can accept or reject it and he felt the Board could possibly make a better decision by going to the site. After little more discussion, Mr. Teffner then moved to RECESS to 10-24-06 with a site walk at 4:30 P.M. Mrs. Brittin seconded the motion with ALL members voting in favor. 6:30 BREAK 6:45 Project #: 3169 Owner: Barnes, Robert Tax Parcel #: 11-060.000 Location: 551 Edson Hill Road Project: Request is to allow weddings on property Zone: RR-2 Mr. Barnes was present as was Carrie MacMillan, Wedding Manager. BA 11-060.02 Petersen Brook Farm permit decision expired12-8-05 (with a 1 wedding extension given) which allowed weddings from 6/1-10/15 with no amplified music, no alcoholic beverage and limited to 100 people. Mr. Barnes gave some historical background of the property and the weddings which have taken place, noting that everything ended at 10:00 P.M., parking took place on site and off site by using busses. He stated all surrounding properties have weddings. He said that Stowe is becoming a venue for weddings-some with receptions and some not. Seeking permanent approval to have weddings (application stated a temporary tent). He stated they have commercial trail rides, sleigh rides etc that the Board approved and this use he felt is still an accessory to that, even though the riding aspect has been scaled back. tape 2 side 1 Mr. Barnes said beverages need to be included. Tents are brought in on Friday and removed by Monday. Asking to allow weddings, put tents up, allow food and beverages to be served with low volume amplified music with everything ending at 10:00 P.M. – nothing beyond that. Ms. MacMillan stated the contract with the wedding party will impose any conditions that the Board should impose, including everything over by 10:00 P.M. Mr. Barnes said he would insist that Stowe Police Dept be present if allowed to serve alcohol. Mr. Jones asked what Mr. Barnes felt low amplified music is. Mr. Barnes said it is a matter of judgement, quality and trust. He stated he would be in control at all times with on site people. Mr. Teffner stated it is the question of, if you force your neighbor to listen to your music until 10P.M., it is not so much a matter of how many decibels, the point is he has to listen to it. If that is unfair, we do not need a meter, we need to be able to understand we have decided (or not) to allow one landowner to force his neighbor to listen to his music. That is the issue for me, stated Mr. Teffner. Mr. Barnes said they are surrounded by these events and we will be the least offensive, we have done it with 300 people. Mr. Teffner asked if the surrounding properties are staging weddings with the approval of the Board. Mr. Barnes could not answer definitively. Mr. Teffner said if they don’t have approval, other than being grandfathered, they should and because they are doing it doesn’t give me much reason to approve another one. Mr. Pineles stated noise is a difficult issue to deal with, a troublesome issue with very little guidance. It is difficult to strike a balance since there is no ordinance. He felt it a good thing for the economy for Stowe, but any condition that says the music will stop at 10, isn’t going to happen. Mr. Barnes says it should be uniform for all and would be willing to say, 8,9 or 10 o’clock. Mr. Izzo said every area in Stowe is different and amplified music upsets people. It will come back to the Board if it disturbs people. Mr. Teffner said to approve 10, 11 o’clock doesn’t matter, the decision the Board has to make is “it is OK to force that music on the neighbors. We would be telling the neighbors what they would be doing for the evening” Mr. Fisher, abutting property owner, said he bought 42 acres in a residential neighborhood. He said when Bob started having weddings he was very disappointed. His concern was how many weddings will there be and someday he may wish to sell some of his land and for any future buyer this would be invasive. The tent is 300-400 yards from his house, in his face. Concerned with the noise level . He said he does not hear noise from Trapps, Edson Hill or TN. He commented that he did not think the type of neighborhood they are in deserves to have that kind of thing going on. Mr. Fisher felt it is the wrong place for receptions. Mr. Jones read into the record a letter from abutting neighbors George and Cindy Jackman who felt the noise would be a disturbance and unacceptable, particularly the amplified music and traffic. Mr. Izzo stated the reason the permit was originally approved as an accessory use- it was low key, but this one will not be. Mr. Jones stated in the RR zone, weddings are neither permitted or conditional uses , so the only way it could be allowed would be as an accessory. Mr. Jones said the concerns are with noise generated by these kinds of events, serving alcoholic beverages and traffic (the possibility of 350 separate vehicles going in and out). After little more discussion, Mr. Pineles asked “how are we going to get there?” Mr. Teffner said by looking at the bylaws, he couldn’t get there and said he didn’t see how you get weddings, alcoholic beverages with amplified bands to be an accessory use to a horse stable. Mr. Jones asked if it is an acceptable use? Mr. Teffner said he could go along with the previous approval of 2 years ago and asked Mr. Barnes if he could accept that. Mr. Barnes said they need to serve alcoholic beverages/food, could live with 200 people, close at 11:00 and have string music. He said he didn’t want to have to come before the Board with every wedding but does expect limitations. He stated in every wedding, the horses have been involved. Mrs. Brittin asked if the Board could review under the Conditional Use criteria. Mr. Jones said there is nothing close to that in an RR district. Mr. Jones suggested recessing in order that members could get their thoughts together re: the issues. tape 2 side 2 Mr. Baker suggested looking at Sec.4.7 (2)(a)(4) Mr. Barnes stated he will live with whatever the Board’s decision is. Ms. MacMillan stated 100 people would not work. Mr. Jones said it is the applicant’s project and it is up to you (Mr. Barnes) to come in with what you want). After Mr. Barnes had referred to the TN situation, Mr. Izzo reminded him that the TN’s permit expires this month. Mr. Teffner stated what the board did for TN will not happen again. Mr. Barnes then said he would like to have 200 people and end at 9:00 (8:00 if the Board requires) with a limited amount of beverage. Mrs. Brittin moved to RECESS to OCTOBER 24, 2006 in order that the applicant can return to the Board with specifics of what he is requesting. Mr. Teffner seconded with ALL in favor. Mr. Pineles moved that the Board file a letter with the Planning Commission outlining the difficulties the Board has dealing with weddings. The Board needs some guidance. Mr. Izzo seconded the motion with all in favor. 8:05 Project #: 3175 Owner: Midas Enterprises Tax Parcel: 6-087.000 Location: 551 Edson Hill Road Project: Temporary construction of a yurt for existing Adventure Program in 2007. Zone: MRV Present was Christine Colangeli, Jesse Goldfine, Mixchael Deinder, abutting property owner and a gentleman from the Farmer’Market Board. Mr. Jones expressed his concern, prior to opening the hearing, asking how this project is different than the one denied? Under Rules & Procedure, page 6, Mr. Jones read aloud which says the Board may reject an application for a rehearing ……………………. Mr. Jones asked if there has been substantial change. Mr. Teffner said they could review the landscaping plan. Mr. Jones said the previous decision was rendered based on a certain set of facts. Mr. Jones said to the applicant, you got the decision you asked for. Ms. Colangeli explained the changes as: there is a formal agreement with the landlord and the Farmers Market; detailed landscaping plan and new site plan to scale. Mr. Izzo said in essence the applicant is looking for the same thing only for one year. Mr. Jones said in his mind when is a decision final, and are we being asked to act on the same thing simply because the applicant was not willing to take a recess. Mr. Jones asked why the Board did not recess the previous application. Mrs. Brittin told Ms.Colangli that it was spelled out at her previous hearing what the Board needed for information; she was offered the opportunity to recess and said no. Mr. Teffner stated she was asked several times, she said no, and she needed a decision that night. The new application is for a temporary permit for one (1) year, which would be constructed as soon as possible, if not in the spring. Mr. Pineles said the Board previously granted a temporary permit. Jesse Goldfine was present and said Christine was about to sign a lease and he felt there were substantial changes in this application. Mr. Baker read from Chapt 117 re: opening a hearing, appeals etc. The decision in Project Number 3088, dated September 17, 2006, denied the permanent construction of a yurt. The Board noted that the decision in BA 06-087.3.01, dated June 21, 2006, approved the temporary construction of a yurt, expires October 30, 2006, and instructs “if the applicant wishes to continue the use a new application and hearing will be required. The Board concluded that this is an application to extend the temporary use granted in that decision. Mr.Pineles, after discussion, moved to open the hearing and allow the applicant to present her evidence by way of new materials. tape 3 side 1. All members were in favor of the motion. Ms. Colangeli stated the landscaping plan would block the line of site from the Mt. Road by putting in 14 trees, 8-10’ tall as soon as possible, or in the spring (spruce and pine). The yurt is 30’ x 30’ which she would like to erect as soon as possible on a circular new deck. The canvas exterior is evergreen in color with a forest green roof. Ms. Colangeli described the site and said they would be bringing in 14 dump truck loads of fill and some trees will be on the road and some down the slope. Mr. Teffner was concerned that the yurt was going to be located so that the trees would not help the sight line. Mr. Diender felt the existing area would be filled in and Mr. Baker felt the area is quite dense. Mr. Pineles asked if the landlord knows that the applicant will be doing the site work and she answered yes. There will be no restaurant in the building (this needs to come out of the 2 year lease). The existing building is on town water and sewer. Mr. Baker stated that the Farmer’s Market approval was not for the entire parking area but for the two lower parking lots. Mr. Diender said his concerns were (1) the landscaping along the road and (2) where the yurt is located, there not be any type of structures allowed to stay there overnight (along the riverbank). Mr. Diender said he was under the impression that the yurt was for a gathering place in the morning and the children would be moved off the property for the day. Mr. Teffner asked Ms. Colangeli if she could agree not to leave any materials, or stuff along the riverbank. She did not answer except to say she was sorry if it had caused Mr. Diender concern, she thought it was part of the property. Because of the lateness of the hour, Mr. Izzo moved to RECESS to OCTOBER 24, 2006. Mr. Jones asked members to look at the area prior to the next meeting, which will start with Conditional Use Review. Mr. Teffner seconded the motion with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Jones, Teffner and Pineles all in favor. Zoning Administrator’s Report: Mr. Baker asked the members if they would be interested in doing a site visit when TN submits their application for the wedding tent. The situation would have amplified music at the wedding tent site and be able to listen. It was agreed it would be difficult to replicate. The unanimous consensus of the Board was no. Mr. Baker told members there was going to be a new training program for the entire Board on any single topic, grants available. Mr.Baker suggested if there is interest, contact him. Discussion will follow at the next meeting. 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 October 24, 2006 The regular meeting of the Development Review Board was held Tuesday, October 24, 2006 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M. Members present: Ted Teffner, Vice-Chairman; Susan Brittin, Ed Izzo and Dean Pineles. Absent: Larry Jones. Two vacancies remain on the Board. Also present: Rich Baker, Zoning Administrator, Scott Monroe, Stowe Reporter and those listed in the minutes book. Mr. Teffner chaired the meeting in the absence of Larry Jones, Chairman 5:00 P.M. Project #: 3110 Owner: Doyle, John and Bernadette Tax Parcel #: 7A-152.000 Location: 94 Park Street Project: Construct single family residence in SHOD (RECESSED from 10/3 with site walk 10/24 at 4:30 P.M.) Zone: VC-10/SHOD Present at the site walker were: Ted Teffner, Susan Brittin, Ed Izzo, dean Pineles, Rich Baker and John Doyle. The application was before the Board because it is in the SHOD district, thus review is restricted to Sec. 17.11.3 to insure that the building is designed to fit into the context of the surrounding buildings and streetscapes. Mr. Pineles stated the Board now knows where the footprint will go, what the building will look like and agreed the Board’s review is limited but continued to believe it will be a “tight squeeze”. For the record, the letter from Louisa Drury dated 8/28/06, abutting property owner, was considered. Mr. Baker stated that 50% lot coverage is allowed in the district, a miximum which this project will not exceed. There will be 3 buildings (4 units) on the lot when finished. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law er: project # 3110 with the following CONDITIONS: (1) Any change to the plans or the use of the property shall be brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator , prior to it’s implementation, for a determination if an amendment shall be required. (2) The Stowe Historic Preservation Commission recommendations dated shall be a part of this approval. 5:15 Project #: 3175 Owner: Midas Enterprises, Inc Tax Parcel #: 6-087.000 Location: 1677 Mountain Road Project: Temporary construction of a yurt for existing Adventure Program in 2007. (RECESSED from 10/3/06) Zone: MRV Mrs. Brittin moved to RECESS to NOVEMBER 14, 2006 at the applicant’s request. Mr. Pineles seconded the motion with all in favor. Mr. Jones was not present. Project #: 3116 Owner: Two Little Beres LLC Tax Parcel #: 7-051.000 Location: 717 Maple Street Project: New accessory building in SHOD (POSTPONED 10/3/06) Zone: RR-1/SHOD Mr. Baker told the Board that no additional materials have been received, the applicant has not returned to the SHPC but they have been contacted and were not certain when they could respond. Mr. Izzo moved to DENY based on an incomplete application and that the hearing had been postponed 3 times . Mrs Brittin seconded the motion with Mr. Teffner, Izzo, Pineles and Mrs Brittin voting in favor to deny. Mr. Jones was not present and there are 2 vacancies on the Board. [[[Actually, there is only one vacancy. Allan has not resigned as of this meeting]]] 5:20 Project #: 3205 Owner: Genung, Alexander and Elizabeth Tax Parcel #: 2-179.160 Location: Upper Hollow Hill Rd.Lot # 16 Project: Requesting approval to construct a new dwelling in the RHOD Zone: RR-5/RHOD Mr. Genung present and sworn in. Mr. Baker had visited the site. The garage exists as shown on the site plan. Mr. Baker stated that because of the curve in the road , the contour of the land and the trees in front (which Mr.Genung stated are 50’ tall) the house will not be seen. Mr. Izzo asked that the members have a map showing where the house is to be located and what the view shed might be. Mr.Genung that stated a very narrow view of the very top of Mt. Mansfield is the only view and the lot is not visible from any road nor can any road be seen. He said the land at the rear of the house goes uphill, ascending toward the Worcester Range. Mr. Baker stated that the Board needs to decide whether the application is minor or not. Cedar shingles will be used on the gable ends of the house, green siding and black asphalt shingles. Plans are to have carriage lamps on either side of the garage doors. Mr. Izzo was concerned that there was not enough information to go on re: views and felt there should be more information. He referred to Sec. 16.4.C. as to whether or not it is a minor application. Mr.Genung stated he would have brought in pictures but the area is not visible from anywhere. Mr. Izzo said the Board needs to know how much clearing will be done, where lights will be located, vantage points etc. Mrs Brittin moved to RECESS to NOVEMBER 14, 2006 in order that the applicant can bring in additional information and so that members can do their own site walk. Mr.Izzo seconded the motion with Mr. Teffner, Izzo, Pineles (reluctantly) and Mrs. Brittin voting in favor. 5:55 Owner: Barnes, Robert Tax Parcel #: 11-060.000 Location: 551 Edson Hill Road Project: Request to allow weddings on the property (RECESSED from 10/3/06) Zoning: RR-2 Present were Robert Barnes and Carrie MacMillan, Event Planner, Mr. & Mrs. Peter Fisher, and Nancy Jeffries Dwyer. Mr.Teffner read into the record the statement written by Ms. MacMillan, including procedures proposed. Mr. Izzo asked Ms. MacMillian if there are bookings and she replied Mr. Barnes has taken a deposit. A letter from Mr. Ramerize [[[check spelling]]], objecting to the application, was read into the record. A letter from Peggy Smith was also read. Mr. Fisher read his letter into the record stating his objection to allowing weddings and stating his concerns. Nancy Jeffries Dwyer , Event Planner, said she was present in support of being able to continue having events on private properties. She was concerned that the Board was contemplating eliminating the possibility of her continuing her position throughout town which is 70% of her business. She said this affects the economics of the town. Mr. Teffner said what the Board was doing only involved Bob Barnes’ property and that was the only issue before them. Mr. Izzo stated impacts are a huge issue and have to be taken into consideration, not just economics. Mr. Teffner stated economics are not a part of the DRB process. Mr. Baker said he had spoken with the Dept of Agriculture and was told they do not consider weddings an agricultural activity. Mr. Pineles stated the that only way the applicant got a previous approval was that the Board found it to be ancillary to a horse stable. Mr.Izzo stated that was on a very limited basis with considerable conditions which were specific. The previous permit was dated 12-04 and expired in 1 year. Mr.Teffner stated that he did not see how he could approve, in an RR district, an activity that on any given evening dictates to the neighbors what they will or will not hear or listen to. He continued, saying that the list of conditions offered by the applicant do not correct all the issues for him. Ms. MacMillan said if someone wants the ceremony we would use reasonable amplified music (classical, guitar etc). Mrs. Brittin stated she found a contradiction in the bylaws re: conditional uses allowed in RR districts. She read the sections and found some things allowed to be obtrusive. Mr. Pineles said he felt the first issue for the Board was to determine if the present proposal is an accessory use (and read from the bylaws). He said: “this application is for a much more elaborate type of wedding (than the previous approval) and if the Board is going to be true to the bylaws, it has to be denied”. Mr. Teffner said Dean is right, if the Board cannot find it an accessory use, the Board cannot go further. Mrs. Brittin felt she could consider it an accessory use. Kim Levering Fisher, wedding coordinator for the previous wedding, asked why it is an issue when the previous wedding went so well with no complaints, no impact on the neighbors every week end etc. tape 2 side 1 Mr. Barnes stated he did not wish to disturb his neighbors, but he felt it a great idea, supports the economy and the State of Vt. People do this whether they are asked or not, it is the serene nature of where we live. Ms. MacMillan said 3 or 4 couples are calling each week wanting to have their wedding there and are requesting to do under certain guidelines. Mr.Pineles said that the question is, not whether weddings are a good thing or whether they affect the economy, but whether it is an accessory to a horse stable and “I think that is a stretch. I think we have to support the bylaws. Mr. Teffner told the applicant there were only 4 members present and gave the applicant the opportunity to recess to a hearing when there will be 5 members. Ms. MacMillan said there are horses involved in each wedding. Mr. Izzo reiterated it is the impact of the use. Mrs. Fisher stated the previous wedding didn’t follow the conditions, tents remain up for days and there are other commercial sites. Ms. MacMillan asked to recess. Ms. Brittin moved to RECESS to NOVEMBER 14, 2006, seconded by Mr. Izzo with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Teffner, and Mr. Pineles (reluctantly) voted in favor. Mr. Jones not present. BREAK 7:00 7:10 Project #: 3209 Owner: Vermont Dept of Forest & Parks & Recreation Tax Parcel : 14-001.000 Location: Mt.MansfieldStateForest Project: Construct composting toilet facility Zone: RR-5 (not in RHOD) Present were Bill Rossmassler from LCPC and Mike ????.[[[Rich?]]] Approval was previously given (6/2/03) for this project but the permit expired. Mr. Rossmassler said the location is at the picnic area, past Barnes Camp in the Notch. As one goes into the parking area, there will be a pathway to the project. The footprint (256 s.f.) of this building has been reduced from the prior permit. Exterior will be a brown stained wood. Unit to have 2 stalls. Mr. Rossmassler stated the existing vegetative buffer would remain. There are plans for a solar panel located on a pole 50’ tall near the corner of the building and back 150’ within the trees (according to Mr. Teffner who had visited the site and did not feel it would be visible because it will be located in the woods). There will be no signage. Sec. 4.7 reviewed. No town services are required and no lights proposed. Mike ?? stated it will only be open in the summer. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of fact and Conclusion of Law re: project # 3209 finding it to be an accessory use to the picnic area with the following CONDITION (and any conditions imposed in permit BA 14-002-21: [[[[I believe these conditions were going to be included here so that we could be sure they are still appropriate.]]] (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. Pineles seconded the motion with all in favor. Mr. Jones not present. Project #: 3185 Owner: Trapp Family Lodge Tax Parcel #: 6-121.000 Location: 700 Trapp Hill Road Project: Amend affidavit of Ski-PUD to reflect sale of existing 35-acre parcel Zone: RR-5/SKI-PUD Mr. Izzo moved to POSTPONE to NOVEMBER 14, 2006, at the applicant’s request, seconded by Mrs. Brittin with all in favor. 7:45 Project #: 3208 Tax Parcel#: 14-002.000 Location: 6101 Mountain Road Project: Request dimensional waiver to replace existing directional signs Zone: RR-5/SKI-PUD Present were Rob Apple and Bob Cook from the Mt. Company. Mr. Apple stated there are currently 3 signs. tape 2 side 2. Proposing to relocate 2 of the signs south of the exit i.e. : a one faced sign with a total of 32.26 s.f. ; one- two-faced sign with a total of 23.82 s.f. and a one faced sign with an area of 30.35 s.f. Mr. Apple stated the existing signs are too small when one is driving 50 m.p.h. and need the differentiation between the Mt. Manfield area and the Spruce Peak area. One will be located 1/3 mile up the road toward Mt. Mansfield. Before the Spruce Peak area there will be a sign in which some of the panels will be changed from summer to winter. Mr. Cook that stated the MMC owns all the property 2 miles south of the signs. He said there is the 50m.p.h. issue as well as the readability. Proposing 5-6.5” on the headline text and 3-3.5” letters on the secondary text. Mr. Baker referred to Sec. 19.1 PUD General Requirements which states the “DRB may modify applicable area and dimensional requirements of the underlying zoning districts ….:which could include dimensional requirements for signs, therefore it is a modification request. Mrs. Brittin then moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law finding that the requested modification accomplishes the purpose of Sec. 19 of the bylaw. Mr. Pineles seconded the motion with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Pineles, and Teffner voting in favor. Mr. Jones absent. Members agreed to start the November 14th meeting at 5:00 P.M. with a discussion re: the RHOD district and criteria for review. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M. Respectively Submitted, Barbara S. Allaire
|
