Development Review Board

                                                      January 9, 2007

 

 

The regular meeting of the Stowe Development Review Board was held Tuesday, January 9, 2007 in the Banquet Room of the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:10 P.M.

 

Members present: Larry Jones, Chair; Ted Teffner, Susan Brittin, Ed Izzo and Dean Pineles. Tow vacancies remain on the Board.

 

Project:          RHOD Review of deck addition

Present was the contractor, Brian Cote. The applicant is requesting approval to remodel an existing front deck and add approximately 300 square feet of new deck. Elevations of the proposed deck, pictures of existing house, and pictures from Mountain Road were submitted. Material to be used will be cedar, rail top to be cedar. Stairs, which are on the rear, will be relocated to the main door of the existing deck. Mr. Cote stated that possibly in the winter the additions would be seen on Big Spruce. Mr. Teffner stated he is familiar with the house and there is no way it will be seen. Mr. Baker went to the house and felt it will not be seen. Mr. Pineles moved to consider the addition to be minor in the RHOD, seconded by Mr. Teffner with Ms. Brittin, Mr. Teffner, Jones, Izzo and Pinles in favor of the motion. None opposed.

 

Project:          Updating approval for Final Subdivision Plan (S-06-4)

Attorney William Kelk present representing the applicant who said the subdivision was approved on 5/17/06 but the map was not recorded within the required 180 day time period. Two-lot subdivision with one lot accessing off Pinnacle Meadow Road and the other from Warren Road. Mr. Kelk stated there have been no changes from the original approval. Mr. Izzo moved to approve S-06-4 with the same conditions imposed in the original approval of 5/17/06. Mrs. Brittin questioned the Stowe Electric Department letter (5/9/06). It was agreed the letter will be in effect until 5/9/07. Mr. Teffner seconded the motion with the original conditions imposed being in effect, Ms. Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Teffner, Pineles and Jones voting in favor. No one opposed.

 

Project:           Modifications to previously approved SHOD Review

At this time, the applicant or representative had not arrived and the Board moved to the next hearing.

 

Project #:       Three-lot subdivision

Present was Darrow Mansfield for the owners who stated land is owned on both sides of Robinson Springs Road, 22 acres on the north, applying to subdivide into 3 lots, 2 lots of 6.5 acres each off R.S. Road and an interior lot of 11 acres with a r.o.w. The property looks uphill from the highway. One access to two lots and will split to the interior lot, with limited clearing. Don Marsh, project engineer has done soil testing. Lot 1 will have off site septic system by easement on lot 3, lot 2 will have replacement mound system on lot 3 and lot 3 will have its own on site mound system. Each lot will have its own well. Each proposed house site is located within the RHOD district. Mr. Mansfield stated one would be able to see the skyline only and see no buildings and no roads. There has been significant clearing already done. Mr. Mansfield stated portions of lots 1 & 2 are in a significant wetland area. Mr. Izzo stated it was very difficult, because of the clearing done, to find the proposed house sites when visiting the site and Mr. Jones and Mr. Pineles agreed. Mr. Mansfield stated the house sites are between 450-500’ from R.S. Road within 25’ of the property line to lot #3 (Mr. Mansfield stated the gravel drive will be 14’ wide and will require approval from the abutting property owner and will require more clearing). Mr. Teffner said he did not find the location of the house site for lot #2 and did not get a sense of where the property lines are. Mr. Izzo stated the area is extremely wet and Mr. Mansfield agreed. Mr. Mansfield stated it is important to maintain the buffer from R.S. Road. There will be no additional clearing on lot #3. Members wanted the building envelope on the plan. All development has to stay 25’ away from the wetlands area except for 2 crossings, stated Mr. Mansfield. After more discussion, it was apparent members were not certain of the property lines, the amount of clearing, and proposed tape 1 side 2 house sites so agreed that a site walk will be held on TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2007 at 3:00 P.M. (prior to the scheduled training session- meeting at the driveway entrance). Mr. Teffner moved to RECESS to FEBRUARY 20, 2007, seconded by Mrs. Brittin with all in favor.  Mr.Charles Lee, whose property is southwest of the site asked if there are any projected impacts southwest of RS Road in respect to drainage. Mr. Mansfield stated no, but the project will require a storm water management plan. Mr. Lee asked how he could stay in touch. He was invited to join in the site walk and was told the agenda will be in the paper and it was suggested Mr. Lee call the office.

 

6:00 Brede, Kendrick & Debra: Members returned to Project # 3284. Present was Billy Adams, Contractor and representing the Brede’s. Mr. Adams explained there is a 12’ x 27’ yellow cottage in the rear of the property (95 School St. & Pleasant St.) which previously was permitted to include a deck (patio) 12’ out from the building (3/21/06).Proposal is to build a deck out 10’ with lattice work (instead of stone work). Permitted was a trellis type roof but the applicant would like to build a porch roof, which would match the existing house roof. Requesting not to build the permitted chimney. Mr. Baker stated he became aware that the terrace was not covered in lot coverage (which is currently at 19%). If a covered porch is allowed, it will be included in building coverage, which would be over the 20% allowed. There is a provision, which would require dimensional waiver (Sec. 17.9). VR-20/SHOD. Present were Rose-Marie Matalonis and Don & Linda Post, abutters. Mr. Teffner stated the coverage is very close and there should be an accurate figure. Ms. Matalonis as the closest neighbor (1860 House), asked members not to approve any additional coverage until such time as there is an accurate survey (being done by Charles Grenier and is not completed) so there could be an issue of what the actual lot size is. She stated there is an ongoing dispute over the closest property line which has not been resolved. Ms. Matalonis felt the additional coverage would have a visual impact from her house by making the building look huge. Mr. Post stated when using the lot size, the fence on their side of the property was included by 2’. Mr. Baker stated the survey of the property does not agree with what the Post’s survey of record says the property line is and there is no other survey. Mr.Grenier is doing another survey. Ms. Matalonis has asked another surveyor to look at the original survey for an opinion. Mr. Jones stated the location of the property lines is critical to lot coverage and any waiver of dimensional requirements is contingent on it being a historic building which it is not as well as the land use in a historic area. Mr. Teffner felt it would not be in the sprit of the bylaws to modify the dimensional requirements and that he needed to be convinced otherwise. Mr. Jones stated he would be reluctant to approve any waiver based on the testimony to date. Mr. Pineles felt the burden is on the applicant to convince members the proposal does not exceed the dimensional requirements or to request a waiver and give the reasons why it should be granted. Mr. Adams asked if the trellis were to be put on (instead of a roof), the terrace would be 2’ narrower (10’ instead of 12’ permitted), no chimney and lattice work instead of stone, would that be allowed as it has already been permitted. Mrs. Post asked if a roof were allowed, what would prevent the applicant from closing in the entire section and making a room. Mr. Jones stated the coverage comes into play when the roof goes on. tape 2 side 1 After little more discussion, Mr. Pineles moved to modify the previous approval dated 3/21/06 by shortening the deck 2’ (from 12’ to 10’); substitute lattice work instead of stone work and not build the chimney, seconded by Mr. Teffner with Ms. Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Teffner, and Jones voting in favor. It was agreed if the lot size is resolved and the applicant can prove there is coverage to allow for a roof, the applicant could return to the Board. CONDITIONS remain as in the original approval dated 3/21/06. 

 

Project:           Extension of Alpine Mart store hours to 24/7

Present was Erik Filaowski representing the owners. The applicant has applied for approval to increase store hours to 24-hours, seven days a week. The store is currently approved to operate from 5 a.m. to midnight, seven days a week (see decision BA 7-020-12). There will be no change in the operation of the business at this time. Mr. Filaowski stated they will be paying close attention to security and plans are to put additional procedures in place. Written testimony submitted dated 12/6/06 states the applicant has contacted operators at Grey Fox, Town and Country Resort and Mountain Road Resort who had stated there would be no negative impact. The impact questionnaire was returned with no one stating there will be an impact on services.

Sec. 4.7 reviewed. There will be no change to the exterior lighting. Ms. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law approving project # 3279 which will extend the hours of operation to 24/7 and subject to all previous conditions. Mr. Pineles seconded the motion with Ms. Brittin, Mr. Teffner, Izzo, Pineles and Jones voting in favor. Two vacancies on the Board.

Project:          Preliminary Review of redevelopment of Mountain Road Resort

Present were Darrow Mansfield, Mansfield Ventures, Ltd. and David Sellers, Architect.

Mr. Mansfield had submitted Pre-Filed Testimony for the Board’s information dated 1/2/07 using site plan A-5. Mr. Sellers that there are presently 2 separate lots, which will need to be combined in some fashion. Total acreage is 16.4; 7.1 acres in HT and 9.3 in RR-3. Existing on the lot is a 30-room hotel with dining room, indoor and outdoor pools, tennis court, storage building, owner’s quarters and a single-family dwelling. Mr. Jones stated the project as proposed exceeds the density in the HT zone and the two parcels cannot be combined for density purposes. Mr. Mansfield stated in phase I they plan only to include the main structure of 33 hotel rooms plus a 99-seat restaurant and 6 cabins. Mr. Mansfield stated they would like to consider the cabins as a “club”, having a central clubhouse. Guests staying at the hotel would have the option of joining the cabin club and would be entitled to club privileges.    

Mr. Mansfield stated he was not certain if the rooms will be sold as whole ownership or time-share but will be sold in a condominium ownership. Discussion took place re: the cabins and if they would be allowed as they cannot be an accessory use in an RR district since they have to be on the same lot. Mr. Jones referred to Sec. 4.1(3)—the provisions of any district may be applied for a distance of not more than 30’ into an adjacent district. Mr. Sellers stated there is an option of having a large house located on the hillside but he prefesr the cabin concept. Mr. Pineles asked about considering the cabins as a private club and the bylaws state it could be a private club but not carried on as a business in RR. tape 2 side 2 Plans are to have mostly underground parking and Mr. Mansfield asked if it will be considered as building coverage. Mr. Mansfield stated the buildings would be moved back from the existing one. Mr. Jones felt underground parking would not be counted as building coverage. Mr. Teffner asked if the buildings will skyline and Mr. Sellers stated they will be back 100’ from the existing structure and the height of the ridgeline will be approximately 35-40’ above highway. This will be determined. Mr. Sellers stated that in the main gallery they may wish to have a peak higher than allowed. Mr. Mansfield stated the hotel rooms will be large, 4 occupants per room with no lock offs. Mr. McManus in the audience, who owns property on Birch Hill Road (closest to the project) asked about the height relative to the existing structure and the answer was about 10’ higher. He asked about the underground garages and expressed concern about any blasting, which will be done. Are there precautions to be taken? Mr. Sellers said he did not anticipate blasting, but if there is ledge, he felt the stream protected Mr. McManus, and if not, Mr. Sellers said he didn’t know how they would protect the McManus property. Mr. Mansfield said it is regulated. Mr. McManus asked if there would be lighting on the trails to the cabins. Mr. Sellers said they may use small ground lighting along the path, but the plan is to use guides and flashlights. There will be no overhead lights.  There will be a spa within the center of the main structure, not open to the public. Mrs. Brittin moved to RECESS to FEBRUARY 20, 2007, seconded by Mr. Teffner with all members in favor. Mr. Mansfield will return with proposals as to how to characterize the proposed cabins for purposes of the existing zoning regulations.

 

Proejct:            Reconstruct and convert portion of building to additional office space. RECESSED 12/5/06- Requesting a recess to allow fir additional SHOD review.

Mr. Izzo moved to RECESS to JANUARY 23, 2007, seconded by Mr. Teffner with all in favor.

Project:         Convert office space to retail and one bedroom apartment. Convert basement to office space. APPLICATION WITHDRAWN.

Garage in RHOD which was built on Ayers Farm Road. Owner is in Florida and doesn’t have anyone to represent him. Mr. Baker said there was a communication error. Members agreed it could be postponed until the owner is here in the summer.

Scotford House on Cemetery Road: 2 windows on the southerly elevation have been installed which were not on the plans. They will return to the Historic Preservation Commission. Members felt it could be considered as a minor amendment.

The applicant (contractor) needs to be informed that any change needs to be brought to the Zoning Administrator’s attention.

 

Brackenbury House on Rte 100 Several changes have been made or porposed, some of which are required by Labor & Industry. Members did not like the glass doors the applicant wishes to use, feeling they do not fit into the historic building. It was agreed there should be a warned hearing.

Former Adams Kennel aka Stowe Kennel Care: Approval did not speak of dog grooming and they have contracted it out and are advertising. Grooming could be an accessory to a conditional use. After discussion, it was agreed that Mr. Baker could approve as an amendment to the conditional use of the kennel, a one-person operation with no separate sign.

 

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 P.M.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Barbara S. Allaire

                                              Development Review Board

                                                      January 23, 2007

 

The regular meeting of the Development Review Board was held Tuesday, January 23, 2007 in the Banquet Room of the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M.

 

Members present: Susan Brittin, Larry Jones, Ted Teffner, Ed Izzo, Dean Pineles and Lynn Altadonna as alternate. Two vacancies remain on the Board.

 

Project:            Façade changes to replace windows with doors (request postponement to 2/6 for SHOD review.

Mr. Teffner moved to POSTPONE to February 6, 2007 at the applicant’s request. Mrs. Brittin seconded the motion with all in favor.

Project:              Continuation of Farmer’s Market. (requesting to postpone to February 6, 2007)

Mr. Teffner moved to POSTPONE to February 6, 2007 at the applicant’s request seconded by Mrs. Brittin with all in favor.

                             Applicant was not present so Chairman put discussion to end of the meeting.

 

Project:                Demolish Historic House (Postponed from 12/5/06)

No one was present for the applicant, as she had asked that the hearing be postponed to allow for further SHPC review and to obtain figures for the restoration of the “Sears” house as recommended by the Historic Preservation Commission. Mrs. Brittin asked if there is grant money/resources available for the remodeling of historic buildings and Mr. Baker stated that Tom Jackman would have a list of possibilities. Mr. Pineles visited the site but because the driveway had not been plowed, did not get to the house and said the house is barely visible from the road. It was suggested individual site visits take place prior to the hearing. Mr. Altadonna suggested a notebook of the kit house be put in place for historic purposes if the building is allowed to be demolished. Mr. Pineles moved to POSTPONE to the 2^nd meeting in March, 2007 (determined later to be 3-20-07), seconded by Mr. Teffner with all in favor.         

Project:           Relocate Historic School House (St. John’s In The Mountains Church) and construct an addition.  

Present for the hearing was Barbara Baraw, President of the Stowe Historical Society and Chris Carey, Architect as well as Dick Johannesen, President of the Stowe Free Library. Ms. Baraw stated the building being discussed is an 1878 schoolhouse, formerly St. Johns In the Mountain church and has been obtained by the Historical Society to be moved to the village. The first proposal went in front of the Selectboard in June, 06 with a site visit, went back to the Selectboard in October when they gave conceptual approval, provided the society take on the financial obligation of moving the building to a site etc. A wing has been removed, and when moved, will reconstruct the wing with a handicap accessible restroom, stairwell for storage and in the future a workroom. The SHPC recommended the walkway be put between the two buildings (Bloody Brook) with the southwest side of the building being towards School Street. None of the current windows on the School Street side will be changed. When funds allow, the existing vinyl will be removed. The proposed setback from School Street is 10’ and a waiver is being requested. The distance between the 2 buildings (Bloody Brook and the church) will be 11.5’. Mr. Altadonna asked if there is a sidewalk on School Street and the answer was it is graveled. A discussion took place re: the lot size and dimensions, setback to the property line, highway r.o.w. etc. especially on the School Street side. Mr. Teffner stated in years past, in many of the older roads, they were only r.o.w. as the town did not own the land; since then developers have deeded the road to the town. Ms. Baraw stated the dimensional figures were taken from a 1979 survey map and she felt the land was deeded to the town. Mr. Baker indicated to the members that DRB review is limited under T.24 Sec. 4413 where the project is “state-or community owned and operated institutions and facilities.” If the Board decided not to use this section, review will come under Sec. 4.7 of the bylaws. In this project, the town owns the land but not the building. Mr. Teffner stated if the building is deeded to the town, it will be a town building but the Stowe Historical Society is in no way part of the town so that does not fit with the idea it is community owned and operated. Mr. Altadonna stated Conditional Use Review would be a more thorough review, which will be in the better interest of the town and the Society rather than use the short version and be subject to second-guessing. Mr. Jones felt that this project as proposed is not a state- or community-owned and operated institution or facility. Ms. Baraw stated the building will be turned over to the town at some future time and the Society will become the agent. This was presented to the Selectboard. The current situation is the town owns the land and the Historical Society owns the building. Mr. Teffner stated it is clear it is not owned and operated by a municipality and the Board was comfortable in that interpretation. The foundation will be exposed with some windows, stated Ms.Baraw and ideally the facade will be faced. Mr. Johannesen stated that members of the Library Board of Trustees have various concerns, among them the appearance of the building as it is approached, especially in its relationship to the other buildings on the site, parking, when the building will be open, and hours of operation now and into the future. Mr. Johannesen stated they did wish to work with the Society. Linda Post asked where is the cross walk from the Elementary School and will it be visible when children are coming and going. Ms. Baraw was not certain where the cross walk is located. Mrs. Post asked if any of the trees will need to be cut and Ms. Baraw said, “I don’t think so.” There are three (3) letters for the record, Kaufmann, Kendrick Brede (in opposition) and Mr. Johannesen representing the Library. Mr. Altadonna asked if the cross walk goes to the end of the street and if there are cars parked there? Mr. Pineles stated there are currently 4-5 trees on the lawn and it appeared that if a cellar hole were to be dug, the trees would have to be removed. Ms. Baraw stated that is not their intention. Mr. Pineles asked if there are other possible locations for the building and Ms. Baraw stated the only one in the village became unattainable (corner of Rte 100 & Sunset) and concern was parking. Mr.Jones asked the basic question, is there anything in writing, which says the Town of Stowe is willing to accept the building, and Ms. Baraw said no. Pursuant to the conditional use review under Sec. 4.7, there is a capacity to serve letter from the Sewer Dept and the one (1) year letter from the Stowe Electric Dept. With regard to traffic on the roads, the Members felt this would be minimal. Hours of operation: Presently the building would be open on Tuesdays and Fridays from 10:00 – 12:00 but it is hoped in the future to expand the hours, possibly to 4 maximum of days a week (this will take 4-5 years). Character of the Area: Ms. Baraw said the intent to locate in the village is to have greater accessibility and to be close to two other schoolhouses. The height and width of this building are approximately 2’ larger than Bloody Brook. Mr. Jones asked about the suggestion of a “Cultural Campus” and asked if a business plan has been developed and the answer was no. Ms. Baraw stated they are currently working on projects with the Library and will continue to do so. The Historic Society also wishes to offer programs attractive to the community. They would like to have Bloody Brook open as well. Mr.Altadonna referred to a letter to the DRB submitted from the SHPC dated 1/17/07 addressing the character of the area and recommending approval. This area is zoned VR-20 and libraries and museums are allowed as a conditional use. The minimum side yard of 10’ is an issue, stated Mr. Jones. The overall size of the lot is 14 acres. The Bloody Brook school lot was deeded to the town in 1975. The larger parcel was deeded in 1979. Mr. Teffner asked if the parcels are still in individual lots and if in separate deeds, noting that the lots will need to be merged to mitigate issues with setbacks and coverage. Ms. Baraw stated the map of 1991 shows the land as one (1) lot. Mr. Jones stated he had to have clarification that the town is willing to buy into the project and do things required to make the project work, i.e. merge parcels if necessary etc. Mr. Pineles asked if the building could be deeded to the town immediately? Answer was no. In order to waive the setback requirement it has to be reviewed under the SHOD.      

This is a corner lot with two front yards. The provisions of Sec. 4.5(3) would force the building to be 55’ from the centerline (this can be adjusted under the SHOD). Chris Carey, Architect, stated the overall height to the ridge is 23’. Parking: Ms. Baraw stated there are 12 spaces along School Street, which are never filled, and that parking is available in the school property (near ice rink), as well as in the Union Bank lot. The project is within walking distance of the village. Mr. Johannesen stated that since 2003, the library use has gone up by 50%, which may create issues with available parking spaces. Sec. 22.2 refers to required parking in every district. Mr. Altadonna (member of the PC) stated a parking study has been done and it showed a lot of available parking in the downtown area and PC has revised and relaxed the parking requirements in the village. A ramp will be required with a handicap parking space. Ms. Baraw stated the ramp would be off the side of the building in order to mitigate its impact. Fritz Momsen said the handicap spaces in the front and rear of the library are dedicated to the library. Ms. Baraw understood that to be unenforceable. Mr. Teffner stated the DRB has in the past granted approval based on making things happens, i.e. placing a handicap space at the end of School Street. Mr. Jones said this is one of the things the town could do. Sec. 17 SHOD reviewed. The wing, which was removed, was larger than the one being proposed. tape 2 side 1 No ancillary structures are associated with the plan. The building is historic (Sec. 17.8). Members felt the project as proposed complies with Sec. 17.8 of the bylaws dealing with the relocation of buildings. It appears the SHPC agrees the project complies with the provisions of Sec. 17.11.2 dealing with additions to buildings. SHOD agreed the setback will not meet the requirements of the underlying zoning district (as required in Sec. 17.10), but noted the historic pattern of the existing neighborhood and felt the proposed position of the building should qualify for a dimensional waiver as provided in Sec. 17.9. Mr. Momsen stated the positioning of the building will subordinate the Bloody Brook and will be affected by over shadowing. He felt the entrance should face more toward the gazebo. Mr. Johanessen stated their concern is it will look like the building is “just stuck there”. Mr. Carey acknowledged and said he understood the concern and the building would be dominant because it will be brought forward. Mr. Carey stated the Bloody Brook school has to have a new foundation soon, so it could possibly be moved. Ms. Baraw was asked to have the area staked out for individual site visits as soon as possible. After little more discussion re: the orientation of the buildings, Mrs. Brittin moved to RECESS to MARCH 13, 2007, in order that Ms. Baraw obtain more information from the town and Mr. Teffner asked for a rendering from the front of the 3 buildings. Motion seconded by Mr. Teffner with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Teffner, Jones and Pineles voting in favor. 

Project:            Amend a previous conditional use approval to allow removal of six trees.

Present were Paul Reed and Ken Biedermann. Mr. Reed stated they have been very cautious about tree cutting, especially for buildings 13 & 14. Now addressing building #12 and requesting to remove 6 trees, the last impact with the Town for the remaining 21 units. This is all about visual impact and showed photos to the members showing the view corridor going south on the Mt. Road. Mr. Reed stated there is a cluster of vegetation that will not be cut on the east side of building #1. The proposed plan is to take down 4 mature hemlocks plus 2 others. Mr. Teffner stated after looking at the map, if those trees are removed, the buildings will skyline, which is strongly discouraged by the RHOD regulations. Mr. Reed stated this removal makes a huge difference to them and argued the buildings will not be seen, they will be a long ways away. Mr. Izzo stated the RHOD is getting out of hand and if these trees are taken down, the building will skyline. Mr. Reed asked the Board if they could limb the trees, visibility is OK, but to skyline isn’t. Mr. Jones stated the regulations are not designed to make buildings invisible, but the dominant feature of the regs is to preserve the ridgeline. Members agreed removing the trees would affect the ridgeline. Mr. Pineles said the trees are not attractive, but in another situation he would allow them to be removed and asked if something else could be done to accomplish the goal. Roof is white in the winter and in the summer grey/brown. Mr. Reed stated Mr. Teffner is right, as there is a 50’ strip on the site, which a building could be seen. Mr. Jones stated if the trees are removed, the visual impact will be totally different. tape 2 side 2 Mr. Reed encouraged members to incorporate visibility in any plan. Mr. Izzo stated visibility is not the issue, it’s the impact. Mr. Izzo moved to RECESS project 3297 to FEBRUARY 6, 2007 in order that the applicant can return with a different plan. Mr. Teffner seconded the motion with all in favor.

 

Project:              Establish new clearing and building zone on Lot #84

Paul Reed and Stu Baraw present. Mr. Reed stated Lot #84, Phase III in Robinson Springs was created on a plan and approved 9/93. Parcel is 14 acres, a single deed of record and no longer includes a #85. A Mr. Ford purchased the property in 2003 which had improvements, and Mr. Reed said he then became involved by clearing a home site, repositioning the driveway, with a house that will face south/southeast, enlarging the pond, and clearing for the septic system. He said they did not follow the permit trail which RS had developed and which did not match the plan that had been approved, i.e. cutting limits did not comply, conservation zone not acknowledged. Mr. Reed stated they are trying to correct all deficiencies so the lot can be sold. The lot is located in the RHOD. Mr. Reed stated the lot is visible, noting that 85% of the clearing was done by RS (approx. 5 acres) when Mr Ford purchased. He cleared for the leach field and a few dead trees when enlarging the pond. The vantage points are from the Spear meadow, Ten Acres on Barrows Road and from Four Winds there is a small view shed (the site is the highest place one can get to in RS). Mr. Reed showed on the plan the building envelope, leaving the meadow out of the envelope. Most of the trees are high enough to filter out the house, stated Mr. Reed and not unlike other approvals. The land is quite flat. Mr. Jones suggested Mr. Reed was asking for a subdivision amendment—Mr. Reed said the lot doesn’t fit what Mr. Ford bought; the clearing doesn’t conform since there is now one lot etc. and are they trying to make the lot comply and eliminate the other deficiencies so the lot can be marketed. Subdivisions Regs Sec. #5 reviewed: the Board felt a new plat was being presented and continued to review the regs. Mr. Reed stated the project would not involve any additional clearing within the building zone (with the exception of a small area); a brook in the wooded area runs through the entire property; 

2.5 acres will be added to the existing conservation zone shown on the drawing and 0.8 acres will be removed; no reserved strips in the project; lot complies with the dimensional requirements in RR 5 zone; pond/hydrant on site. Mr. Reed stated there will be no further subdivision of the lot. Mr. Reed stated the lot remains remarkably invisible from the outside (Mr. Reed stated the house will be way below the lowest ridgeline); because of the topography and the pond, the house site is limited; driveway off a private road with a 10’setback (previously approved) tape 3 side 1 Board members felt that the following items need to be added to the drawing to be approved: contours, streams, limits of clearing, building envelope, conservation area, location of driveway, septic area and well protection area. There will be a final plat submitted for approval. Mr. Pineles voiced a concern, bothered by the fact the Board is trying to correct mistakes made 17 years ago and did not feel the Board should be in that business so that someone can get a marketable lot but stated he had no problem with what Mr. Reed was doing but was not happy in “bailing someone out that intentionally violated a previous approval”. Mr. Izzo said he totally agreed and said it puts the board in an uncomfortable position. Mr. Pineles moved to RECESS to February 20, 2007 in order that the applicant can return with the completed plat. Mr. Teffner seconded with all in favor. 

 

Project:              Five-Lot subdivision-Preliminary Approval

Present representing the applicant were Paul Reed and Don Peet. Mr. Reed explained the location of the proposed subdivision and stated it is a 75-acre parcel, which previously had one house (which was torn down and recycled). There is a portion of the property located to the east, which is not buildable because of the steepness. The primary home will be built very near the original house and create a 30 acre parcel to develop a “family compound.” Property has substantial privacy. Mr. Reed stated there is a stream through the property. 4 lots will be outside the RHOD and 1 within. Mr. Reed stated lots 3,4 and 5 do not have access to Taber Hill but will be served by a small roadway (driveway), which will service at least 2 lots. Three lots will be put on the market, of which one has the potential to subdivide. (lots 2 & 3). They are trying to keep the stream corridor un-impacted and thereby preserve the wetlands. The proposed driveway has an average of 10% slope. Barri Dreissigacker asked what time construction would take place and Mr. Reed stated they have agreed to never deliver equipment before 7:00 A.M. Mr. Reed reviewed the views from different locations for those in the audience as well as members. Mr. Reed showed the limits of clearing with an easement of 50’ but the intent is not to clear cut everything within the 50’ and he stated the intent is to preserve large trees in the sugar bush but nowhere will they be cut in mass. The view shed is very limited and horizontal to the Chin, Camel’s Hump, Taber Ridge (which will not be cleared to the right). Mr. Reed told the neighbors “we do not want to see your house and you do not want to see ours”. Lot #5 is protected from the south; Lot 4 (RHOD) is in the sugar bush portion and will have a very limited view shed with limited clearing. Lots 4 and 5 will not be seen from the South stated Mr. Reed. Lots 1,4 & 5 each have a guesthouse sites. Mr. Reed stated the project is all about privacy, quality and doing it right, fitting in with the Taber Ridge. Mr. Jones invited neighbors to attend a scheduled site walk. Mr. Teffner moved to go on a site visit as a group on February 4, 2007 at 1:00 P.M. meeting at Lot # 1 and RECESS the hearing to FEBRUARY 20, 2007. Mrs. Brittin seconded with all in favor.            

Project:               Reconstruct and convert portion of building to additional office space (RECESSED 1/9/07).

Mrs. Brittin moved to RECESS to FEBRUARY 20, 2007 as the applicant did not appear for the hearing on this date, seconded by Mr. Teffner with all in favor

 

 

Lang/Feldman driveway has been shifted slightly. They have also constructed a turnaround. The Fire Department approved the change. No lot line changes. Board agreed it is a minor. 

 

Mountainside Resort: They wish to put on the same siding and a small roof over a stairway, as was previously approved by the Board for a different building. The Board agreed the changes could be considered a minor as long as there are no exterior lighting changes. 

 

 

Mr. Baker stated there is a lot split between two zoning districts, with the rear in RR-5 (1 acre) and front RR-2 (6 acres). The owner would like to subdivide the lot. Mr.Baker asked if it had ever come up and the question is what is the lot size. This type situation does not appear to be addressed in the subdivision regs. Mr. Jones referred to Sec. 4.1(3). Mr. Pineles suggested an Attorney’s opinion.  

 

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 P.M.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Barbara S. Allaire