Development Review Board Town of Stowe November 14, 2006 The regular meeting of the Stowe Development Review Board was held Tuesday, November 14, 2006 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M. Members present: Ted Teffner, Vice Chair; Susan Brittin, Dean Pineles and Ed Izzo. Absent: Larry Jones. There are presently two vacancies on the Board. Also present: Rich Baker, Zoning Administrator and those listed in the minute’s book. Mr. Teffner Chaired the meeting in the absence of Larry Jones, Chairman. 5:00 P.M.Thefirst fifteen minutes of themeeting were spent with the Board discussing what they would like to have available for review to address an RHOD application in order to classify the project as being minor or major in the RHOD zone. Mr. Baker’s recommendations: (1) site plan showing project details and natural site features including cleared area; (2) elevations; photographs from the site looking towards the view area in question; photos towards the site from any possible vantage point (identified by looking towards the view area in question from the site); location map showing site on the town road map; aerial photograph showing general area; lighting and cut sheets for all exterior lights ofr the entire project and note any interior lights the may create a glow from the building; documentation of roof and siding colors; site review by the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Izzo reiterated the sensitivity of the issue and felt the Board needs to have a clear idea of what is happening in the RHOD; and felt the RHOD section in the bylaws is very detailed, i.e. lighting, slope area, specific house location on the slope etc. Mr. Baker stated he felt the RHOD should be addressed on the conservative side. Members agreed. Mr. Izzo said he would like to see “no cut” limitations on the plot plan which should preclude cutting after the fact and specific house location on the slope. Mrs Brittin said she liked the proposal and said the bylaws suggest what vantage points are. Mr. Izzo suggested that each applicant receive a copy of the RHOD prior to the to filing his/her application. Mr. Pineles agreed with the proposal, as did Mr. Teffner. Mr. Baker said he would continue with the site review. 5:15 P.M. Project #: 3175 Owner: Midas Enterprises, Inc: RECESSED from 10/24/06 at the applicant’s request, as there were only 4 Board members present. Tax Parcel #: 6-087.000 Location: 1677 Mountain Road Project: Construct a temporary yurt for existing Adventure Program in 2007. Zone: MRV Mr. Izzo moved to RECESS at the applicant’s written request (as there are only 4 Board members present) to NOVEMBER 28, 2006. Mrs Brittin seconded the motion with all members in favor. Project #: 3169 Owner: Barnes, Robert RECESSED from 10/24/06 at the applicant’s request as there were only 4 Board members present. Tax Parcel #: 11-060.000 Location: 551 Edson Hill Road Project: Request to allow weddings/receptions on property Zone: RR 2 Mrs Brittin moved to RECESS to NOVEMBER 28, 2006 (at the applicant’s request as there are only 4 Board members present), seconded by Mr. Izzo with all in favor. 5:20 Project #: 3205 Owner: Genung, Alexander and Elizabeth Tax Parcel #: 2-179.160 Location: Upper Hollow Hill Road, Lot #16 Project: Construct a single family dwelling in the RHOD Recessed from 10/24 for additional information Zone: RR 5/RHOD Mr. Genung present as were Mr. and Mrs John Elkins and Dick Johannesson. Mr. Teffner said he had visited the site as did Mrs. Brittin. Mr. Teffner said he saw the existing storage shed and asked if certain trees in the front (and in the pictures) were going to stay and if they are, he felt there would not be an issue. Mr. Genung said yes and presented pictures for the record. The building height will be less than 25’, stated Mr.Baker. There will be two lights on the garage and any other lights will be recessed. Mr. Elkins, owner of Lot #15 was present and questioned the existing storage barn. The answer was that the barn is not in the RHOD district and Mr. Elkins commented the barn is in violation of the covenants but realized it was not an issue before the Board. The barn was built with a permit. Mr. Johanssen was present with Mr. Elkins and that his concerns were the same. Mr. Genung stated there are two existing maples (one of which may have to be cut), located near the driveway and stated he has no interest in cutting one more tree than he has to. There are some smaller trees (not on the site plan), which will need to be cut, stated Mr. Genung. Mr. Genung asked if the Board has control over trees on the property, which are below the RHOD line, and Mr. Teffner said that it is the existing trees in the foreground, whether in the RHOD or not, that make it possible for the Board to approve the house, which is in the RHOD. Mrs Brittin moved that the Board find the application to be a minor in the RHOD district 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) There shall be a no-cut zone east of the existing driveway, excepting the area where the septic system is to be installed and where there are dying trees. Mr. Pineles seconded the motion with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Teffner, Izzo and Pineles voting in favor. Mr. Jones not present. There are two vacancies on the Board. 5:40 Project #: 3238 Owner: Grimes Properties, LLC Tax Parcel #: 11-166.000 Location: 434 Edson Hill Road- Stowehof Inn Project: Updating approval of a six (6) lot subdivision (S-05-30) Zone: RR 2/RR 5 Mr. Baker told members the original application was approved 11/7/05, which expired, and the plat, which was submitted for recording within the required 180 days, did not get recorded within the 180 days due to an error by the town. Mr. Baker said there is also an issue that two curb cuts are not allowed within 600’ of each other (which showed on the preliminary plans). Mr. Baker stated the curb cut for Lot # 4 could now come off Lot #6, the shared driveway, and the second curb cut for Lot #3 could come off Houston Road for more than one curb cut within 600’ (which would require specific approval of the Board). Mr. Baker stated it is a very short stretch of public road. The subdivision requirements allow for the board to waive the distance (600’ for Lot #3) and require Lot #4 to be served by the shared easement that serves Lots #5 & 6. Lots 1 and 2 have a shared access. Mr. Grimes arrived and explained the situation and why he was present. tape 1 side 2 Mr. Pineles moved to ratify the decision of application # S-05-30,previously approved November 7, 2005 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) Lot # 3 shall have an access within 600’ of the access serving Lots #1 and 2 on Houston Road. Lot # 4 shall access from the existing driveway serving Lots 5 & 6. (3) All applicable conditions imposed in the approval of S-05-30 dated 11/7/05 shall remain in force. Mr. Izzo seconded the motion. Ability to Serve letter was discussed. Mr. Baker stated no permit would be issued until the applicant comes back with an unlimited Ability to Serve letter or a new one-year letter. Mr. Baker suggested a temporary meter could be put in prior to the development, which a letter could then be obtained. Mr. Teffner stated in the past the Board has had difficulty approving a subdivision without the letter. He did not feel the Electric Department would be going out and putting in meters until one is ready to develop. Mr. Grimes agreed his letter has expired and will need to obtain a new one. It was agreed infrastructure work that does not require electric service can take place prior to receipt of the letter. Voting in favor of the motion were: Mrs Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Pineles and Teffner. Absent: Mr. Jones and there are two vacancies on the Board. 6:10 Project #: 3185 Owner: Trapp Family Lodge, Inc. Tax Parcel #: 6-121.000 Location: 700 Trapp Hill Road Project: Amend affidavit of SKI PUD to reflect sale of existing 35-acre parcel (POSTPONED from 10/24/06) Zone: RR 5/SKI PUD Present were Johannes von Trapp and Attorney Averill Loundon. Mr. Baker stated the Town Attorney responded saying that only Trapp’s had to be the applicant. The actual survey states there is 34.1 acres, which will be subdivided from the PUD. The 34 acres was never designated or approved for any specific development , nor was it ever a part of any plan. Mr. Loundon stated there are no private covenants or conditions imposed on the acres. A copy of the affidavit dated 10/23/06 was submitted and makes reference to the new survey of 34.1 acres. Mrs Brittin moved to recommend to the Selectboard that theacreage available for development in the PUD be reduced by 34.1 acres 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 decision if an amendment shall be required. [[[We don’t get to require that the Selectboard review or approve.]]]Mr. Izzo seconded the motion with Mrs Brittin, Mr. Teffner, Izzo and Pineles voting in favor. Mr. Jones not present. MEADOW VIEW:- Located off Houston Rte and Rte 108, near the Land Mark Meadow. Mr. Baker asked members to look at what he felt could be considered a minor change. If the proposed garages have a room on the second floor, the building has to be sprinkled. The applicant does not wish to do this so the proposal is to reduce the height of the buildings, reduce the large window and the length will shorten by 4’. Mr. Teffner stated that it is not simply a reduction in size, but that it does change the looks of the garages. He also commented that if the garages had been presented originally as shown now, they very likely would have been approved. Mr. Baker stated they would like to do the same to all the proposed garages. Question by Mr. Baker: Since he was not here at the time of the hearings , do the changes need to come back to the Board. Mrs Brittin stated since she was at all the hearings she would not have a problem with the reduction/changes. Mr. Teffner stated that the new buildings are not better looking than the ones originally approved. Mr. Izzo agreed he could approve the changes. [[[I think that the Board did not make a decision in this matter. They simply did not raise a red flag to Rich approving the change. The statement by Rich below was not specific solely to the Meadows issue.]]] Mr. Baker said the Town Attorney has told him the Board cannot approve anything (i.e an amendment etc) without it being warned. It was agreed to have the Town Attorney come before the Board in January if possible. Future Board meetings: November 28th, December 5th (in the auditorium) and December 19th. Tape 2 side 1: MOUNTAIN ROAD RESORT: Discussion re: the demolition of the buildings and reconstruct into a hotel and condominiums. One issue will be lot coverage (interpretation issue). The front portion or the property is zoned HT, with a requirement of maximum coverage of 8% and the rear portion is RR2, which has no coverage limit. Mr. Baker asked the definition of lot coverage, does it mean 8% of the whole lot or 8% of the zoning district. The applicant would like to cluster the project in the front and leave the rear wooded. Lot coverage talks about the parcel but does not address split zones. The applicant does not wish to have plans drawn up until this is resolved. Issue 2: the applicant would like to come before the Board, discuss what they have, get a determination from the Board and then ask for a recess. An application has been filed. Mr. Izzo stated the Board always did preliminary hearings. Mr. Baker stated the Board cannot discuss things that are not warned. Mr.Teffner argued that the Board has done preliminary hearings for many years giving the applicant some guidance prior to their warning. Mr. Teffner suggested that the application is incomplete (Mr. Baker agreed) Mr. Baker suggested going ahead with the hearing to have the density discussion. Mr. Teffner said the application could be ruled incomplete and have a discussion etc. Mr. Baker did not feel there was a legal right to do that. Mr. Baker said he has 30 days to act on completed applications (this one is not complete). Mr. Baker stated agendas are not warnings. The Board agreed to have a preliminary discussion after being warned. Mr. Teffner said it is very useful to the Board and the applicant. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 7:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Barbara S. Allaire
Development Review Board Town of Stowe November 28, 2006 The regular meeting of the Stowe Development Review Board was held Tuesday, November 28, 2006 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M. Members present: Larry Jones, Chair; Susan Brittin, Ted Teffner and Ed Izzo. Absent: Dean Pineles. There are presently two vacancies on the Board. 5:00 P.M. Project #: 3175 Owner: Midas Enterprises, Inc Tax Parcel #: 6-087.000 Location: 1677 Mountain Road Project: Temporary construction of a yurt for Mud City Adventures Program (RECESSED 11/14/06) Zone: MRV Present were: Christine Colangeli and Jesse Goldfine. Mr. Jones stated at the last substantive meeting there was a discussion re: the status of the application and the Board concluded that this is a renewal of the temporary permit BA 6-087.3.01 and not a reopening of project # 3088. A site plan was proposed showing the exact location and dimensions of the yurt as well as the proposed landscaping. The applicant had staked out the proposed location of the landscaping and asked members to view. Mr. Goldfine requested a recess but Mr. Teffner suggested waiting until evidence had been presented re: the landscaping. Ms. Colangeli stated the yurt is 30’ in diameter, green with a tan roof. Mr. Ms. Colangeli stated she was seeking a one (1) year approval. Mr. Teffner stated with the proposed landscaping, he would be willing to give a one-year approval and stated the one-year would run from the day the approval is signed. (Ms. Colangeli was seeking to get approval from 5/1/07 to 5/1/08). Ms. Colangeli stated the house would be used for registration, bathroom facilities and other purposes related to the Mud City Adventures. No restaurant will be in the building. Sec. 4.7 reviewed: Traffic: Ms. Colangeli stated drop-off’s are about 8:30-9:00 A.M. and pick –up around 4:30 P.M. No municipal services are required. Mr. Jones, as well as the rest of the members felt that the proposed landscaping mitigates the “character of the area”. Mr. Jones read the parking agreement between Mud City Adventures and the Farmer’s Market re: parking for 2007 which states there will be 10 spaces available at all times for MUA and 48 spaces available on Sunday’s for the Farmer’s Market. Driveway access exists so there will be no new curb cut. It was felt there would not be undue noise involved. The landscaping plan includes filling in an area near Rte 108 (as soon as possible) with additional plantings, which will help to mitigate the view off the property. No proposed lighting planned. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: project 3175 with the following CONDITIONS: (1) Any change in plans or the proposed use of the property shall be brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, prior to its implementation, for a determination if an amendment shall be required. (2) All landscaping shall be in place prior to the yurt being installed. (3) The applicant shall provide for the record, a revised lease which removes the use of the small building as a restaurant. (4) Mud City Adventures, or those responsible, shall not leave materials or debris Associated with the operation along or near the riverbank. Mrs. Brittin seconded the motion with Mr. Teffner, Jones, Izzo and Mrs. Brittin voting in favor. Mr. Pineles was absent and there are two (2) vacancies on the Board. 5:30 Project #: 3169 Owner: Barnes, Robert Tax Parcel #: 11-060.000 Location: 551 Edson Hill Road Project: Request to allow weddings/reception on property (RECESSED 11/14/06) Zone: RR-2 Present for the applicant was Carrie MacMillan, wedding manager. There were others in the audience who wished to give testimony and Mr. Jones swore them in. Mr. Jones noted that the Zoning Office has received 12 letters in opposition, with one in favor of the project. A letter submitted 11/17 from MJ Shaw was read aloud. Mr. Fisher stated there are several people, seconded homeowners, who are not aware this is being proposed as they are out of town. He referred to MJ Shaw’s letter and felt it was a well-regarded statement from a profound resident of Stowe. Mr. Fisher stated the area is zoned RR –2 and he did not want tents, busses and throng of people 200 yards in front of his kitchen window. He stated the tent would go up 4-5 days previous to the event, the noise level with other distractions do not fit the area. Mr. Teffner read a letter from Meghan Reichelt, who brought up the concern of never ending construction with trucks all day long during week days and then the week end comes, there are tourists, bikers etc and then to add traffic and noise from weddings, is not a recipe for a nice week end. She also questioned where the buses would be parked during a wedding and if a large wedding, and people are brought in, where do they park unless on Edson Hill. Mr. Jones stated this is a residential area and the application is not for a variance but for an approval of an Accessory Use to a Conditional Use, which is a riding stable on the property. Mr. Jones stated the question before the Board is “would what is being proposed, i.e. weddings on the property, an Accessory Use to a Conditional Use which has been approved?” Mr. Teffner’s response was no. Mrs. Britton stated she could see where it could be allowed, but under very limited and a small basis for those who wished to use the horses as part of the ceremony, however, 200-300 people has nothing to do with the stable/horses. She felt it is an accessory use but under limited conditions. Mr. Izzo stated that in 12-04 there was a limited permit given which there were issues with and he stated he could n ot consider it an accessory use. Mr. Izzo said it has been given a try and it didn’t work. He was very sensitive to the comments of all the neighbors. Mr. Jones stated he truly likes the idea of Stowe being a wedding destination, but the input of letters and comments reminds the Board the area is residential. Mr. Jones read Sec. II, definition 2, which defines an accessory use. He had researched the matter and stated two cases saying the example most often given is a garage, which is considered an accessory use. An advantage of a temporary permit was given and therefore gives the Board the opportunity to look at the circumstances. He felt the stable was being used as a prop in support of the weddings and not the weddings supporting the stable. The weddings are being put forth as a commercial adventure, stated Mr. Jones and that is clearly not approvable in the regulations. He stated he could not support as an accessory use. Ms. MacMillan she was representing Mr. Barnes and asked the Board to proceed and move forward. Mr. Teffner moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law in support of denying Project # 3169 finding that the activity being proposed is not an Accessory Use to a Conditional Use on the property. Mr. Izzo seconded the motion. Discussion followed with the Town Attorney’s office recommending the vote should be in the affirmative. tape 1 side 2 Mr. Teffner disagreed with that procedure but withdrew his motion, as did Mr. Izzo. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law in support of Project # 3169 as presented, with the condition that any change shall be brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, prior to its implementation , for a determination if an amendment shall be required, finding it an Accessory Use to a Conditional Use. Mrs. Brittin seconded the motion. Voting in favor: Mrs Brittin. Voting no: Mr. Teffner, Izzo and Jones. Mr. Pineles absent. Two (2) vacancies. The motion failed and the project denied. Mr. Baker explained the projects below remain under review by the Stowe Historic Preservation Commission and asked they be postponed. Project #: 3241 Owner: Palmer, Mark and Heather Tax Parcel #: 7-312.100 Location: 996 South Main Street Project: Request for height waiver in SHOD (POSTPONED to 12-5-06) for SHPC Review. Zone: RR-1/RR-2/SHOD Project: 3256 Owner: Mansfield, Darrow Tax Parcel: 7-312.100 Location: 996 South Main Street Project: Conversion of office space to retail (Laughing Moon) and a one bedroom apt; convert basement to office. (POSTPONED to 12.5.06) Project #: 3243 Owner: Mansfield, Darrow and Margaret Tax Parcel#: 7-312.100 Location: 996 South Main Street Project: Reconstruct and convert a portion of building to additional office space (POSTPONED to 12.5.06) Mrs. Brittin moved to POSTPONE projects: 3242; 3256 and 3243 until December 5, 2006. Mr. Teffner seconded the motion with Mrs Brittin, Mr. Teffner, Izzo and Jones voting to postpone. The Board discussed at length the issue of the mural at the Bauman office located on Rte 100 South Main street and lighting. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 7:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Barbara S. Allaire Development Review Board Town of Stowe November 28, 2006 The regular meeting of the Stowe Development Review Board was held Tuesday, November 28, 2006 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M. Members present: Larry Jones, Chair; Susan Brittin, Ted Teffner and Ed Izzo. Absent: Dean Pineles. There are presently two vacancies on the Board. 5:00 P.M. Project #: 3175 Owner: Midas Enterprises, Inc Tax Parcel #: 6-087.000 Location: 1677 Mountain Road Project: Temporary construction of a yurt for Mud City Adventures Program (RECESSED 11/14/06) Zone: MRV Present were: Christine Colangeli and Jesse Goldfine. Mr. Jones stated at the last substantive meeting there was a discussion re: the status of the application and the Board concluded that this is a renewal of the temporary permit BA 6-087.3.01 and not a reopening of project # 3088. A site plan was proposed showing the exact location and dimensions of the yurt as well as the proposed landscaping. The applicant had staked out the proposed location of the landscaping and asked members to view. Mr. Goldfine requested a recess but Mr. Teffner suggested waiting until evidence had been presented re: the landscaping. Ms. Colangeli stated the yurt is 30’ in diameter, green with a tan roof. Mr. Ms. Colangeli stated she was seeking a one (1) year approval. Mr. Teffner stated with the proposed landscaping, he would be willing to give a one-year approval and stated the one-year would run from the day the approval is signed. (Ms. Colangeli was seeking to get approval from 5/1/07 to 5/1/08). Ms. Colangeli stated the house would be used for registration, bathroom facilities and other purposes related to the Mud City Adventures. No restaurant will be in the building. Sec. 4.7 reviewed: Traffic: Ms. Colangeli stated drop-off’s are about 8:30-9:00 A.M. and pick –up around 4:30 P.M. No municipal services are required. Mr. Jones, as well as the rest of the members felt that the proposed landscaping mitigates the “character of the area”. Mr. Jones read the parking agreement between Mud City Adventures and the Farmer’s Market re: parking for 2007 which states there will be 10 spaces available at all times for MUA and 48 spaces available on Sunday’s for the Farmer’s Market. Driveway access exists so there will be no new curb cut. It was felt there would not be undue noise involved. The landscaping plan includes filling in an area near Rte 108 (as soon as possible) with additional plantings, which will help to mitigate the view off the property. No proposed lighting planned. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: project 3175 with the following CONDITIONS: (1) Any change in plans or the proposed use of the property shall be brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, prior to its implementation, for a determination if an amendment shall be required. (2) All landscaping shall be in place prior to the yurt being installed. (3) The applicant shall provide for the record, a revised lease which removes the use of the small building as a restaurant. (4) Mud City Adventures, or those responsible, shall not leave materials or debris Associated with the operation along or near the riverbank. Mrs. Brittin seconded the motion with Mr. Teffner, Jones, Izzo and Mrs. Brittin voting in favor. Mr. Pineles was absent and there are two (2) vacancies on the Board. 5:30 Project #: 3169 Owner: Barnes, Robert Tax Parcel #: 11-060.000 Location: 551 Edson Hill Road Project: Request to allow weddings/reception on property (RECESSED 11/14/06) Zone: RR-2 Present for the applicant was Carrie MacMillan, wedding manager. There were others in the audience who wished to give testimony and Mr. Jones swore them in. Mr. Jones noted that the Zoning Office has received 12 letters in opposition, with one in favor of the project. A letter submitted 11/17 from MJ Shaw was read aloud. Mr. Fisher stated there are several people, seconded homeowners, who are not aware this is being proposed as they are out of town. He referred to MJ Shaw’s letter and felt it was a well-regarded statement from a profound resident of Stowe. Mr. Fisher stated the area is zoned RR –2 and he did not want tents, busses and throng of people 200 yards in front of his kitchen window. He stated the tent would go up 4-5 days previous to the event, the noise level with other distractions do not fit the area. Mr. Teffner read a letter from Meghan Reichelt, who brought up the concern of never ending construction with trucks all day long during week days and then the week end comes, there are tourists, bikers etc and then to add traffic and noise from weddings, is not a recipe for a nice week end. She also questioned where the buses would be parked during a wedding and if a large wedding, and people are brought in, where do they park unless on Edson Hill. Mr. Jones stated this is a residential area and the application is not for a variance but for an approval of an Accessory Use to a Conditional Use, which is a riding stable on the property. Mr. Jones stated the question before the Board is “would what is being proposed, i.e. weddings on the property, an Accessory Use to a Conditional Use which has been approved?” Mr. Teffner’s response was no. Mrs. Britton stated she could see where it could be allowed, but under very limited and a small basis for those who wished to use the horses as part of the ceremony, however, 200-300 people has nothing to do with the stable/horses. She felt it is an accessory use but under limited conditions. Mr. Izzo stated that in 12-04 there was a limited permit given which there were issues with and he stated he could n ot consider it an accessory use. Mr. Izzo said it has been given a try and it didn’t work. He was very sensitive to the comments of all the neighbors. Mr. Jones stated he truly likes the idea of Stowe being a wedding destination, but the input of letters and comments reminds the Board the area is residential. Mr. Jones read Sec. II, definition 2, which defines an accessory use. He had researched the matter and stated two cases saying the example most often given is a garage, which is considered an accessory use. An advantage of a temporary permit was given and therefore gives the Board the opportunity to look at the circumstances. He felt the stable was being used as a prop in support of the weddings and not the weddings supporting the stable. The weddings are being put forth as a commercial adventure, stated Mr. Jones and that is clearly not approvable in the regulations. He stated he could not support as an accessory use. Ms. MacMillan she was representing Mr. Barnes and asked the Board to proceed and move forward. Mr. Teffner moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law in support of denying Project # 3169 finding that the activity being proposed is not an Accessory Use to a Conditional Use on the property. Mr. Izzo seconded the motion. Discussion followed with the Town Attorney’s office recommending the vote should be in the affirmative. tape 1 side 2 Mr. Teffner disagreed with that procedure but withdrew his motion, as did Mr. Izzo. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law in support of Project # 3169 as presented, with the condition that any change shall be brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, prior to its implementation , for a determination if an amendment shall be required, finding it an Accessory Use to a Conditional Use. Mrs. Brittin seconded the motion. Voting in favor: Mrs Brittin. Voting no: Mr. Teffner, Izzo and Jones. Mr. Pineles absent. Two (2) vacancies. The motion failed and the project denied. Mr. Baker explained the projects below remain under review by the Stowe Historic Preservation Commission and asked they be postponed. Project #: 3241 Owner: Palmer, Mark and Heather Tax Parcel #: 7-312.100 Location: 996 South Main Street Project: Request for height waiver in SHOD (POSTPONED to 12-5-06) for SHPC Review. Zone: RR-1/RR-2/SHOD Project: 3256 Owner: Mansfield, Darrow Tax Parcel: 7-312.100 Location: 996 South Main Street Project: Conversion of office space to retail (Laughing Moon) and a one bedroom apt; convert basement to office. (POSTPONED to 12.5.06) Project #: 3243 Owner: Mansfield, Darrow and Margaret Tax Parcel#: 7-312.100 Location: 996 South Main Street Project: Reconstruct and convert a portion of building to additional office space (POSTPONED to 12.5.06) Mrs. Brittin moved to POSTPONE projects: 3242; 3256 and 3243 until December 5, 2006. Mr. Teffner seconded the motion with Mrs Brittin, Mr. Teffner, Izzo and Jones voting to postpone. The Board discussed at length the issue of the mural at the Bauman office located on Rte 100 South Main street and lighting. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 7:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Barbara S. Allaire
|
