Development Review Board

                                                              Town of Stowe

                                                          September 5, 2006

 

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

 

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

 

Others present: Richard Baker, Zoning Administrator, Scott Monroe, Stowe Reporter and those listed in the minutes book.

 

Project:                   Requesting approval to construct a single-family residence in the SHOD district.

Mr. Izzo moved to POSTPONE at the applicant’s request to October 3, 2006, seconded by Mrs. Brittin with all in favor.

 

Project:                  Proposing to construct a single-family residence in the RHOD district

Present for the hearing was John Schindler. Mr. Baker explained he had done a site visit and observed that the house will be tucked back into the trees with a sloping plateau rising behind it. He stated the site has very limited visibility from any vantage point due to the existing tree coverage and the topography. Mr. Schindler stated that all trees in front of the house (as shown in the pictures provided) would remain. It was stated the exterior will be cedar clapboards, asphalt roof with all natural colors as provided in the covenants, stated Mr. Schindler. It was stated there will be no exterior spotlights on the house. The building height will be 25’ as measured in the bylaws. Mr. Baker stated the house will not be seen from any public road in the vicinity and Putnam Forest Road is private. Mr. Pineles moved to treat as minor and instructed the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law with the following CONDITIONS:

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

(2)    Exterior colors shall be provided for the file referencing the siding, trim and roof.

(3)    An exterior lighting plan shall be provided showing the number of fixtures, wattage and locations             

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

Project:                      4 Lot Subdivision (RECESSED from 8/15)

Darrow Mansfield and Heather Palmer present. Mr.Mansfield stated the property is the former Moody property with 23+/- acres and an existing farmhouse. Mr. Mansfield stated the State of Vt. determined that 2 lots already exist since the property is divided by the Little River, so the previous plans have been changed. Requesting to subdivide into 4 lots, with frontage on Route 100; Ms. Palmer having lot 1A of 9.8 acres; & 1B of 3.5 acres. The Mansfield’s will own Lot 2A (with house) of 4 acres and 2B of 4.9 acres. Each lot will have frontage on either Rte 100 or the River Road. There will be one curb cut along the property line, which will be shared by both building sites. Wastewater and disposal will be on site with a sewer easement zone on Lot 1A for Lot 2A. Permission has been granted to hook onto the Lower Village Water System up to 750 g.p.d. Mr. Mansfield stated there is an existing red maple and blue spruce tree on the south side of the driveway that will remain. One tree (kind not known) will be removed. The new driveway will be split nearer the road in order to save the trees and the existing drive will be grassed over. Mr. Coppock asked what would happen to the lots on the far side of the river. Mr. Mansfield stated there is a fair amount of that land that is in the floodplain and there are no immediate plans for development and that they will remain in agriculture use. Review Sec. 5: RR 1& RR2 zones. Existing house is non-complying and the proposed development will take place in the rear and not compound the degree of non-compliance. Natural feature is the river and the ag land will remain as such as part of the subdivision; building envelopes are shown on both parcels; Lot 1A property line is back 50’ from the top of the bank. The existing house is a historic structure, which has been reviewed by the SHPC. tape 1 side 2 Mr. Mansfield stated the proposed new structures are also in the historic District. No reserved strips; no landscaping proposed as part of the subdivision. VTRANS has given verbal approval for the curb cut, stated Mr. Mansfield. 

Mr. Mansfield stated he did not do a detailed traffic analysis for this property. Ms. Palmer stated she will have no customers visiting the site, 24 employees and a FED-X delivery/pickup each day. Letters have been received from the Fire Dept and the Stowe Village Electric with their usual 1-year approval for power to the subdivision. There were no negative comments on the Municipal Questionnaire, stated Mr. Baker. It was felt sight distances on Rte 100 are adequate with the single access being shared. No street lights are planned. Erosion control will be dealt with at the time of application for the individual structures, stated Mr. Mansfield. Ms. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: project 3080 with the following CONDITIONS: 

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

(2)   A copy of the VTRANS approval letter shall be submitted for the file.

(3)   Building areas shall be shown on the final plat

(4)   All easements, i.e. water, sewer, electric etc shall be shown on the final plot.

(5)   The wellhead protection area shall be removed from the plat.

(6)   Lots 1B & 2 B will have no development unless subsequently applied for and approved by the DRB.

Mr. Teffner seconded the motion with Ms. Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Coppock, Pineles and Teffner voting in favor. Mr. Jones and Walton were absent.

 

Project:                   Proposing to convert existing single family dwelling (Moody House) into 2 business units with renovations. Also plans are to construct a new building. RECESSED from 8/15/06. 

      Project #:               3089

      Project:                  Request to provide live entertainment.

      Mr. Rovetto present as was the abutting property owner, Juilan Bartlett. Mr. Coppock noted that the applicant wants to add live entertainment (including a DJ) to the restaurant use of the building. Reviewed as a Night Club, separable from a restaurant. Previously spoke about noise at the property when reviewing the then proposed deck (which has not been built) with the condition that noise not from the deck would not be audible beyond the property. As a condition of the earlier approval, Mr. Rovetto needs to demonstrate the availability of more parking in order to gain a permit to construct the deck. The noise issue has been discussed with the neighbor and Mr. Bartlett has submitted a letter to the DRB regarding noise from the existing use. Mr. Coppock noted that Piecasso has been offering entertainment at night without benefit of permit for several months and has been the subject of violation action by the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Rovetto stated he has become aware of Mr. Bartlett’s concern and has been to his neighbor’s property at times to see how loud it was. He said that he has sound proofed the windows with removable panels. Mr. Coppock asked why the panels are removable and thus dependent upon someone taking action in order to provide any soundproofing. Mr.Rovetto said they need light in the room and he will take charge to make certain they will be installed when required. Mr. Bartlett, the abutter, said noise was a big, big problem in the past, but in the last month it has been better and noise cannot be heard from the boundary. He suggested sound proofing or just keep the noise down, he didn’t care which. Mr. Rovetto said he did not wish to disturb Mr. Bartlett’s business. Mr. Rovetto said at the beginning of the first song being played, he goes to the edge of the property to listen. Mr. Coppock stated (to Mr. Rovetto) that one of the most fundamental issues in zoning is that your right to enjoy your property and maximize the income from your business should not impinge upon your neighbor’s opportunity to enjoy the use of his property. At that hour of the night you are in the business of selling entertainment and Mr. Bartlett is in the business of selling sleep. There is a substantial potential for conflict between the two uses. Mr. Bartlett stated the parking lot noise could be diminished by smokers using the front (Shed side) of the property, not the entrance towards his property. Mr. Pineles asked Mr. Roveto if he planned to be on the property whenever there is a band. He responded saying he could not guarantee that but his staff knows about the issue. Mr. Coppock said the question for the Board is: is it possible to control the noise such that the operation of the Mr. Rovetto’s business does not impinge on the neighbor’s business. Mr. Coppock stated his concern was that the current proposal requires an unspecified someone to install the soundproofing every time there is entertainment. Trying to limit the noise by way of conditions requires that such conditions be reasonably enforceable. Unless we specifically provide otherwise, any approval goes with the property. Mr. Teffner asked how it worked in Aug. Mr. Bartlett said it was better, and acceptable. Mr. Bartlett stated that it depends on the type of music being played and sometimes the music will actually vibrate his building. Discussion continued. Mr. Baker stated a violation order is not that easy but suggested approval of the DRB expires if there are more than two violations. It is possible to impose a time frame and it t could again be reviewed at a public hearing possibly after 3 months or if there are no complaints, go to Z.A. and return to the Board at the end of one (1) year). Mr. Pineles suggested the possibility of renewing a permit every 3 months. Mr. Coppock said it could be that the Board only approves one year permits for this proposal. Mr. Baker said it sounds like the bylaws are not being met at this time. It was suggested Mr. Baker investigate the possibility of obtaining a decimal meter and determining what would be the appropriate level of noise (with all participants involved). Mr. Bartlett stated music can be disturbing when one is trying to go to sleep and he again encouraged patrons to use the front of the building (not the parking lot closest to his inn) to smoke. Mr. Rovetto said this is difficult as it is the main parking area. He said he would try it, but the door cannot be locked. Mr. Coppock stated the Board could issue a temporary approval and then take the issue up again in 3 months. If the issues remain the same, i.e. noise from the band and noise from the participants on the outside the building, then the Board might decline to renew the approval. Mr. Rovetto stated reggae bands will be present every Thursday night for the next few months. Mr. Coppock asked if the current parking plan supports the current night club operation and Mr. Rovetto said yes. Mr. Baker stated there are the same number of seats for the nightclub use as there are for the restaurant use. After more discussion, Mr. Pineles moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: project # 3089 approving a night club as a new conditional use 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;

 

Mr. Pineles then amended his previous motion to include condition # 2 that the permit shall expire on December 5, 2006 with review taking place on November 14, 2006 and Conditon # 3 that the applicant shall employ all necessary and appropriate measures to make certain the music and associated other noise is not audible off the premises. 

Ms. Brittin seconded the motion with the amendments. Mr. Teffner, Coppock, Izzo and Pineles voted in favor. Mr. Walton and Jones absent.

Mr. Coppock felt that even if the review in November is favorable, the Board should maintain an annual review of this project.

 

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:15 P.M.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Barbara S. Allaire