Development Review Board Town of Stowe February 6, 2007 The regular meeting of the Development Review Board was held Tuesday, February 6, 2007 starting at 5:00 P.M. in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building. Members present: Susan Brittin, Ted Teffner, Larry Jones, Ed Izzo, Dean Pineles and Lynn Altadonna as alternate. 5:00 P.M. Project #: 3299 Owners: TN Associates Tax Parcel #:11-138.000 Location: 4000 Mountain Road Project: Request for Event Tent for 2007 through 2009 Zone: UMR/SKI PUD (Project WITHDRAWN at the request of the applicant). 5:10 Project #: 3288 (Formerly BA 6-086-2) Owner: Banley NN Tax Parcel #: 6-086.000 Location: 1799 Mountain Road Project: Continuation of Farmer’s Market (POSTPONED 1/23) Zone: MRV Mr. Jones explained in 2004 there was approval granted for 1 year, in 2005 renewed to ’06 & 07. Present Helm Nottingham who is on the Board of Directors of the Farmer’s Market. Mr. Nottingham explained status of the Farmer’s Market saying the ratio of agriculture vs Arts & Crafts is 60 (ag) 40 (crafts) with 40 vendors. Open on Sundays with the hours remaining the same as originally approved. Requesting a two (2) year extension. Mr. Pineles stated he has a concern with the safety of the general location, i.e. traffic at the intersection with bicycles, baby carriages, joggers, Rec Path, foot traffic, roller blades etc.and felt there is a serious accident waiting to happen. Mr. Izzo agreed there is a safety issue. It was agreed any approval would carry with it all conditions previously imposed in 2004 & 05. Mr. Teffner felt on Sundays it is so busy, it tends to slow traffic down. Parking on both sides of the road was resolved by putting out the cones along the road. Mr. Altadonna stated Mr. Baraw has said in the past he is happy to have the market there on Sundays with parking in the front of Stoweflake. Mr.Jones read portions of the previous decisions aloud re: Sec. 4.7. PROCEDURALLY: Mr. Jones explained that because TN Associates was noticed to start at 5:00 –and go to 6:00 P.M., others might not be present for the hearings to follow. He suggested proceeding with the hearings, poll the Board and vote at 6:00 P.M. Mr. Altadonna moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law with all previous conditions imposed in the decisions of 2004 and 2005 with an additional CONDITION: Updated parking agreements for the 2008 season shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator before the start of the 2008 season. Mr. Pineles seconded. Mr. Jones polled the members It was agreed approval would be given at 6:00 P.M. At 6:00 P.M. members voted in favor of the motion. 5:25 Project: 3302 Owner: Butternut Common LLC Tax Parcel #: 7-039.000 Location: 626 Mountain Road Project: Change use of second floor to allow an apartment or office use. Zone: HT Present for the hearing was Kathy Dever who stated she would like to be able to change the use at any time from an apartment to an office or vice versa in Building 1A. Mr. Baker stated whichever way it is, 2 parking spaces are required. There will be no changes to the interior or exterior. Mrs. Dever explained that the property is a complex of three mixed-used buildings, combining office space and apartments. Building 1A is currently occupied by a real estate office, and the second floor is the one being addressed. If the space becomes an office, there will be a total of 3 employees. Sec. 4.7 reviewed. A total of 41 parking spaces are available on the lot (the proposed project requires 2 spaces). Discussion took place re: the number needed according to the bylaws with Mr. Baker saying it would be the Board’s interpretation. Mrs.Dever stated there will be no additional exterior lighting. The area is of a mixed use with 575 sq. ft. of space being proposed to change. Driveway access is off Weeks Hill Road and Rte 108. No change to landscaping or screening. Mrs. Dever will need to inquire if a State Permit from Dept of Labor and Industry is required. Mr. Pineles moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: Project # 3302 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. Mrs. Brittin seconded the motion. Mr. Jones polled members who were favorable to approve. Members voted to APPROVE at 6:00 P.M. 5:50 Project 3296 Owner: Ampersand Properties, LLC Tax Parcel #: 7A-034.000 Location: 18 Main Street Project: Façade changes to replace windows with doors (POSTPONED 1/23/) Zone: VIL PUD PUD/SHOD Present Ken Biedermann who stated the location being discussed is above the existing conference room. The proposal is to remove two (2) windows on the second floor on the side of the pool and replace with double doors 5’ wide and a balcony 1’ by 7’ across on the east and west sides of the building. No change of use and no additional capacity. tape 1 side 2 SHPC reviewed and submitted recommendations per letter dated January 30, 2007. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: Project 3296 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) The applicant shall submit for the record an updated plan as delineated by the SHPC recommendations. Mr. Teffner seconded the motion with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Jones, Pineles, Teffner and Altadonna voting in favor. 6:10 Project #: 3294 Owners: Covered Bridge Homeowners Association Tax Parcel #: 11-254.200 Location: 35 McLane Road Project: Amendment of previous conditional use approval to allow removal of 6 trees (RECESSED 1/23/07) Zone: RR-5/RHOD Ken Biedermann present requesting to RECESS for a site visit. Mr. Teffner moved to RECESS Project 3294 to MARCH 20, 2007 with a SITE VISIT to be held FEBRUARY 13, 2007 at 4:00 P. M. meeting at corner of BROOK ROAD. Mrs. Brittin seconded the motion with all in favor. Zoning Administrator’s Report: Training session to be held February 13th at 5:00 P.M. (after the two site visits). RHOD violations: DePiano re: property below his property. DePiano cut trees on the abutting property. Will be coming back to the Board with a revised landscaping plan to evaluate the effect of the cutting. Gristmill: Ayers Farm Road lot next to Johannesen property- Land has been cleared after being told he could not. A violation notice has been issued. Mr. Baker asked the Board to consider crafting a condition in a subdivision approval that there be a process that an engineer submit a report monthly dealing with development in a subdivision, i.e. driveways, storm water etc. There is no one certifying now that the subdivision is being developed as approved. Mr. Baker also suggested some condition in the RHOD re: cutting of trees, perhaps have them tagged so he can do a visit prior to any trees being removed. This will be a topic of conversation at a later date. There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 6:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Barbara S. Allaire
Development Review Board Town of Stowe February 20, 2007 The Development Review Board of the Town of Stowe met for its regular meeting Tuesday, February 20, 2007 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M. Members present: Susan Brittin, Ed Izzo, Dean Pineles, Lynn Altadonna (alternate) and Ted Teffner who Chaired the meeting in the absence of Larry Jones, Chairman. Also present: Richard Baker, Zoning Officer. Others present listed in the minutes book. 5:05 P.M. Project #: 3308 Owner: Hagerty, Lisa Trust Tax Parcel #: 7A-055.000 Location: 181 Maple Street Project: Consider minor modifications to façade in SHOD Zone: VR 20/SHOD Present was Peter Merrill who works for Sisler contractors. He described the changes as moving a window on the west elevation, remove an existing door and replace with a window (true divided lights). East elevation (side opposite Stowe Hardware Store): put in a new slider door which will exit onto a terrace at ground level, reduce the size of the window going over the sink, eliminate a door and install a new window. Plans are to leave the existing flu in place, cap off and install a new one in a different location. Windows are true divided lights with no snap in muntins used. Discussion took place about a window which the owner was not certain whether or not she wanted to leave it as located or not. The Board could not determine if they would approve with the window being removed. Mr. Teffner stated he was not comfortable removing the window and the applicant would have to return to the SHPC. Mr. Merrill suggested the Board approve with the window as shown. Mr. Izzo asked if there is any additional exterior lighting proposed and Mr. Merrill said he did not know. That would be a change in the plans, stated Mr. Izzo. Sec. 17. Mrs. Brittin then moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: #3308 as presented on the plans submitted 2/20/07 and dated 1/14/07, with the following CONDITIONS: (1) Any change to the plans or the proposed use of the property shall return to the Zoning Administrator, prior to its implementation, for a determination if an amendment shall be required. (2) The plans shall be updated and submitted to show the existing flume, which will be retained. Mr. Pineles seconded the motion with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Pineles, Teffner and Altadonna voting in favor. Mr. Jones was absent. 5: 30 Project #: 3305 Owner: Brackenbury Place LLC Tax Parcel #: 7-263.010 Location: 645 South Main Street Project: Requesting approval of changes to previously approved facade Zone: LVC/SHOD Present was Dean Economou who explained the changes which have been made, (some recommendations from the SHPC) as follows: the change to the front porch will have columns (drawings A201 & A202 and dated 2/19/07) Discussion took place re: the drawings which the Board was seeing and the drawings (ASK-1 & ASK-2) the SHPC approved (which did n ot show the double doors) which did not correspond with the letter from the SHPC was dated 1/15/07. It was not clear which plans the SHPC had approved. Mr. Economou stated the plans had hardly changed except he would now like vertical siding on the barn section (which the SHPC had not seen). The windows on the second floor are awning windows instead of double hung (at the recommendation of the SHPC) Mr. Teffner questioned how awning windows fit in with a historic building and stated he would like to hear why the SHPC why the awning windows are more appropriate in this historic building. Mr. Izzo stated he could not believe the SHPC would approve awning windows and agreed with Mr. Teffner. He also wanted to see the original plans. Mrs. Brittin stated there was no mention of the additional door in the SHPC letter. Double doors are glass but were not on the original application, stated Mr. Economou and all the original windows on the house were double hung. Originally there were 3 skylights approved on the rear of the building and now asking to add the 4th light. Mr. Economou stated the only thing the SHPC did not discuss was the vertical siding. Mr. Teffner asked to learn from the SHPC why the awning windows and also the double glass doors were approved. Mr. Pineles stated there seems to be situations where the Board and the SHPC are not “on the same page”, tape 1 side 2, whether each Board is not getting the same information or some other problem. Mr. Izzo moved to RECESS to MARCH 13, 2007 in order that the applicant can return with as built and as proposed plans which have been approved by the SHPC, i.e. the awning windows, the double doors, the door which has been moved, vertical siding and all other issues which were discussed this date, as well as comments from the SHPC as to their thoughts, which went into their approval. Mrs. Brittin seconded with ALL in favor of the recess. Project #: 3309 Owners: Palmer, Heather & Marc Tax Parcel #: 7-312.100 Location: 998 South Main Street Project: Revision of building design for projects 3242 & 3155 Zones: RR 1/RR2/SHOD Requesting to RECESS to MARCH 13, 2007 at the applicant’s request, as they have not received approval for the changes from the SHPC. 6:00 P.M. Project #: 3243 Owners: Mansfield, Darrow & Margaret Tax Parcel #: 7-312.100 Location: 996 South Main Street Project: Reconstruct and convert a portion of the building to additional office space. RECESSED from 1/23/07). Zone: RR 1/RR 2/SHOD Darrow Mansfield was present and stated the plan is to replace the L-shaped section of the existing house with a new section on the exact same footprint and same configuration to be used as office space. Will be installing 3 windows on the ground floor, and one on the second floor (north elevation) and a dormer on the rear. Same clapboard siding, same trim color and the building to be barn red. The Board previously approved the original portion of the building on 12/12/06 as well as the parking facilities. The SHPC approved with recommendations in a letter dated 1/15/07. Sec. 17 reviewed in detail. Mr. Mansfield stated the windows will have divided lights. Sec. 4.7 reviewed. Mr. Mansfield stated he has water and sewer hook up and the current letter from the Stowe Electric Dept. was dated 11/30/06. Plans are for 1 exterior light on the front of the building and a carriage lamp on the side of the door on the west elevation. Air conditioning units not planned. Mr. Mansfield stated there are 2 parking spaces provided for the 600 s.f. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact re: 3243 and based on the recommendation of the SHPC dated 1/15/07 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) Applicant shall provide an updated Stowe Electric Department letter (3) A revised parking calculation shall be submitted for the file. Mr. Pineles seconded the motion with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Teffner, Izzo, Pineles and Altadonna voting in favor. Mr. Jones was absent. 6:25 Project #: 3255 Owner: 162351 Canada Inc. Tax Parcel #: 11-081.000 Location: Robinson Springs Road, north of Sanborn Road on the east side. RECESSED 1/19/07 Project: Three-lot subdivision Zone: RR 5/Portion in RHOD A site visit was held this date with Mr. Teffner, Izzo, Pineles, Altadonna and Jones present. Absent: Mrs Brittin. Present was Darrow Mansfield who stated the driveway has been adjusted to lot #3 to meet the 25’ setback; identified the building zones on each lot. Lot #1: 150’ x 210; lot #2 175 x 140; lot #3 180’ x 250 in rear. Mr. Mansfield stated the intent is to restrict the location of the future houses, more than the underlying district allows which will prevent structures along the road on lots 1 & 2. Lot 3 has a natural house site and will have no cutting/clearing with the exception of the septic area which is 40’ x 40’. Mr. Altadonna asked if the existing stonewalls are protected by the state and Mr. Mansfield he is not aware they are but is the applicants intent to try and keep them. tape 2 side 1-Sec. 5-subdivision regs reviewed. Mr. Pineles asked if the Board should be concerned that the house is clear-cut with no prior approval and should address some form of reforestation. Mr. Mansfield responded there is off site impact at this time and felt it unfair to impose any condition at this time. Mr. Izzo stated there will be similar situations come before the Board and it has to be addressed. Mr. Baker read Standard 3 , page 16-11 that states Forest management activities designed as pre-development site preparation, including road and driveway construction. Mr. Izzo felt the house should be nearer the tree line and there should be a reforestation plan, particularly when the lot is sold. Mr. Mansfield stated there is no off site visibility and argued the Board not impose a reforestation plan in this case. Mr. Teffner stated the Board needs to be able to review reforestation on land that is outside the RHOD. Board reviewed Sec. 5. The Board agreed they would address possible reforestation when the house sites are reviewed. There are no reserved strips involved. Mr. Mansfield suggested there be no further clearing until each lot reviewed. Mr. Altadonna stated the town has to deal with orphan storm water permits after the developer leaves and suggested it be assigned to the Home Owners Association at the conclusion of the development. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: 3255, 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) No additional clearing for any purpose shall be permitted without review and approval by the Board. (3) Before individual certificates of occupancies are issued, a licensed professional engineer shall certify that all erosion and storm water controls have been installed in accordance with all state and local permits. (4) A letter from Stowe Electric shall be submitted for the record. (5) Upon transfer of any lot to a new owner, the state storm water permit shall be assigned to a homeowner’s association consisting of all lot owners. (6) No zoning permits shall be issued until the DRB has approved the final limits of clearing for each lot. The Board may require additional landscaping or reforestation in order to achieve adequate screening and in order to meet RHOD standards. . Izzo seconded with Mrs Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Pinles, Altadonna and Teffner voting in favor . Mr. Jones was not present. 7:15 BREAK 7: 30 Project #: 3266 Owners: Castlestone Mansfield Inn, LLC Tax Parcel #: 7-116.000 Location: 1007 Mountain Road Project: Preliminary Review of redevelopment of the Mountain Road Resort (RECESSED 1/9/07) Zone: HT/RR 3 Present were Darrow Mansfield and Dave Sellers, Architect. Mr. Sellers stated they are specifically before the Board seeking to develop 6 “remote cabins” and 6 tent sites and use the existing house as an office/manager’s apartment as a clubhouse, which will house toilets and showers etc. Mr. Mansfield said they felt under definition of a campground 2-27 states an area that is occupied or intended or designed or improved for occupancy by transients using recreational vehicles, motor homes, mobile trails, cabins, or tents for dwelling lodging or sleeping purposes. ……………………………Sec. 6.2(1)(J) Campsites areas for tents, travel trailers and recreational vehicles with a maximum of (5) five sites/acre. This project proposes a total of 12 sites, which is approximately 1.5 sites/acre. speaks to cabins etc. Mr. Teffner sated the closest in the bylaws is Sec. 6.2(1)(J). Definition 2-28 Camping Unit: any tent, trailer, cabin, lean-to, recreational vehicles or similar structure established or maintained and operated on a campground as temporary living quarters for recreational, educational or vacation purposes. Mr. Mansfield stated it is felt it could be reviewed under Conditional Use as this campground will contain seasonal tent sites and seasonal cabins and will be used by transient guests. Mr. Pineles agreed it should require conditional use review. Mr. Teffner asked if the applicant or the Board would have a problem allowing these cabins or tent sites to be used only by guests of the hotel. If they were going to be permitted on the basis they are all going to be in use, why would the Board care? The answer was because of fire protection could be an issue. Mr. Sellers felt others might wish to use them. tape 2 side 2 Mr. Pineles asked if these camp sites are part of the business plan and Mr. Mansfield stated they are trying to have as an amenity to the hotel with additional options. Mr. Altadonna stated a potential issue could be noise. Mr. Pineles asked what kind of the tents, i.e. Egyptian etc.Mr. Mansfield stated they would accommodate 2 people, and the existing home would be retrofitted as a common area. Mr. Sellers stated they would have a business plan for the Board’s review at the next stage. (which will address those persons who may come off the road to use the tent sites) but want to look at this project as an unusual experience. Mr. Teffner stated it appears there are no red flags as far as the Board construing the campground use idea in RR. Mr. Pineles felt there could be red flags i.e. noise issue which would have to be addressed. Mr. Mansfield asked the question #2, i.e. and stated there is a provision in the ordinance that states when an owner owns two separate parcels one could carry that line back and use the density of the 30’ and put the building in the other zone (Sec. 4.1(3) pg. 4-1. Mr. Mansfield stated it land was acquired in two parcels but the intent is to merge the two lots. Mr. Teffner felt it meant the use but was not clear if it means the 30’ of RR 1 has the density of HT. Lot 600’ x 30’ = 18,000 feet. Could obtain 1. ???? unit. Mr. Teffner asked if the provision means everything, coverage, density etc. and if it doesn’t mean everything, what does it mean? Mr. McManus, Birch Hill property owner, stated there is an easement on the perimeter of their property, a driveway and years ago someone wished to purchase the 9 acres (Dam Synders ’s house) and were restricted to 3 homes on the 9-acre parcel. Mr. McManus was asked to expand the driveway 5’ each side so would become a road and allow for more homes. He did not do that and asked if it is restricted to the 3 parcels. Mr. McManus stated these are all residential houses in the area and felt most people would not like a camp ground, RV’s tents etc on the lot next to ones house and felt his property could depreciate. Can the Board say it is residential property and now campground property? Mr. Pineles stated campsites are allowed as a Conditional Use after review and all issues would be looked at. Mr. Sellers stated looking at the property as 3 house sites could create more issues and high-class cabins and tent sites. Mr. McManus said introducing tents would disturb many property owners, especially in the summer and felt it a red flag. Mr. Teffner reiterated all the issues have to be looked at. Mr. McManus stated he looked at HT as commercial and RR residential, being a distinct difference and would prefer moving any commercial closer to the road as opposed to moving the property line back, especially for the neighbors. Mr. Sellers told Mr. McManus he would be glad to speak with any property owner. Mr. Pineles said even though the Board could be leaning towards approving the concept, there are specific issues that will be thought about very hard. Bob Lansing asked if the property line is moved back 30’, does that mean the building will be moved back? Mr. Sellers stated he could not answer the question as the project has not been designed, but allow for a patio and/or another unit. Mrs. Brittin moved to RECESS to MAY 15, 2007, seconded by Mr. Altadonna with all members in favor. 8:15 Project #: 3297 Owners: Stowe Mountain View LLC Tax Parcel #:15-042.840 Location: Wade Pasture Road Project: Establish new clearing and building zones on Lot #84 (RECESSED from 1/23/07). Zone: RR 5/RHOD Paul Reed present and stated they determined the building envelop which is smaller, increased the conservation zone, driveway is built and remains the same, pond in place and remains the same as does the clearing. Lot created in 1990, amendment in 1993 and driveway house site, driveway and cutting were done out of accordance with the bylaws. 14+ acres. The new plat was being presented as having the accurate material on it, i.e. leach field and water located, streams shown, driveway located etc. The clearing limits are there, 4-4.5 acres, stated Mr. Reed. He stated they have tried to encapsulate the property from the neighbors by putting the conservation zone so there will not be any privacy issues. Conservation area (20-25%) will continue to be brush hogged, stated Mr. Reed. Mr. Reed showed the cleared area and said the home site would be above the pond. tape 3 side 1-After additional discussion re: the clearing and building site, Mr. Pineles moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law approving the plat as amending the original subdivision of Lot #84 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) A notation on the recordable plat stating “No additional cutting on the lot shall take place only as approved as part of the RHOD review.” Mrs. Brittin seconded the motion with Mr. Teffner, Izzo, Pineles, Altadonna and Mrs Brittin voting in favor. Mr. Jones not present. Zoning Administrator’s Report: Project #: 3295 Owner: Manelick De La Parra Vegas Tax Parcel #: 8=044.080 Location: Upper portion of Taber Hill Road Project: Five-Lot subdivision –Preliminary approval (RECESSED from 1/23/07 Zone: RR 5/ RR 2/Part in RHOD Mr. Altadonna moved to RECESS to MARCH 20, 2007 at the applicant’s request. Mr. Izzo seconded the motion with all in favor. FAULKER on Maple Street: An updatedletter from Stowe Electric has been submitted, extending his time period. Owner now has an 8’ wide easement from the abutting property owner and would like to move the same landscaping back. This would widen the driveway. Board agreed to treat as a minor to the original approval. He also wanted to reduce the elevation between the two buildings. This has to go to the SHPC and will come back to the Board for their review. Riverwalk (next to Edelweiss) All permits expired and never recorded a proper plan. Question is, UMR says Zoning Administrator can approve 2 family dwellings and can there be more than 2 on a lot (providing all density etc are sufficient) There are no lots. Sec. 7 (pg. 7-1) Board agreed it should be treated as a PRD. Future Meetings: March 13th & 20 April 3rd and 17th May 1st & 15th There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Barbara S. Allaire
|
