Development Review Board

                                                Town of Stowe

                                                  April 3, 2007 

 

The regular meeting of the Development Review Board was held Tuesday, April 3, 2007 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M.

                                      

Members present: Larry Jones, Susan Brittin, Ted Teffner, Ed Izzo and Dean Pineles. Absent: Alternate member Lynn Altadonna. There remain two vacancies on the Board.

 

Project:            Addition of a porch to Stowe Inn. (Requesting to postpone to 4/17/07 for SHPC review.)

Mr. Pineles moved to POSTPONE to APRIL 17, 2007 at the applicant’s request, seconded by Mrs. Brittin with all present in favor. 

Project:           Operation of a landscaping business (Requesting to postpone to 5/1/07 for further plan development.)

Mrs. Brittin moved to POSTPONE to May 1, 2007 at the applicant’s request. Mr. Teffner seconded the motion with all in favor.

 

Project:           Revision of building design for project 3242 & 3155 –Recessed from 3/20/07

Present were Darrow Mansfield and Heather Palmer. Mr. Mansfield explained the proposed changes, the most significant of which is a smaller building footprint, reducing the depth of the building from 47’ to 42’, looking from the rear with the front remaining the same. The number of 6 over 6 windows has been reduced with shutters on the street side. Detailed columns as shown on the east and west elevations will be added at the request of the SHPC to match the corner boards. The height of the building to remain at 26’ as approved by the waiver. The front door will be moved slightly from the middle. Four lampposts have been added, each using 26-watt fluorescent bulbs. The porch lighting is recessed. The landscaping plan will remain as approved. Roofing material to be either charcoal or black asphalt shingles. Mrs. Brittin moved to AMEND the previous approval and instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: 3309 to include the changes described and recommended by the SHPC in a letter dated 3/20/07, with the following CONDITIONS:

(1)   All previous conditions imposed with the original approval shall remain in force.  

    (2) The application shall be amended to reflect the correct building height.

Mr. Teffner seconded the motion with all in favor, except Mr. Altadonna, alternate, was not present.

 

Project:            Seeking to construct a pergola in the RHOD

Present for the applicant was Cindy Knauff, Landscape Architect who stated the only changes to the plan are on the west side of the house with no changes to the front yard, tennis court area, architecture of the house or the lighting plan. Ms. Knauff stated there will be no additional tree cutting. The proposed changes include steps off the upper main level going down to a 15’ x 21’ dining deck, adding a pergola 18’long x 9’ wide x 7’ high, and the addition of another deck at the other end of the house with a hot tub. Lot size is 3.93 acres with the west elevation facing the mountain. Mr. Pineles moved to approve the changes as a MINOR to a prior approval in the RHOD, seconded by Mr. Teffner with all in favor except Mr. Altadonna, alternate, who was not present. CONDITION:

   (1) All previous conditions of approval shall remain in force. 

 

Project:           Requesting a change in the building zone

Charles Grenier, Engineer, present and stated the lot is 13.7 acres. Mr. Grenier stated a subdivision has been granted with a building zone identified as Lot 1 on the plat. Earlier the applicant applied for and received a building permit for a barn/stable with a caretaker’s apartment. The owner now wishes to build a separate building for the caretaker’s use outside the approved building zone. The proposed location is over 400’ off the Brownsville Road and 165’ from the stable/barn. The abutting parcel is 53 acres. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the final subdivision extending the building zone of Lot 1 in accordance with the site plan shown dated 3/26/07. CONDITION:

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

Mr. Izzo seconded the motion with all in favor. Mr. Altadonna was not present.

 

Project:           Relocation of historic school house and construct a small addition (RECESSED from 1/23/07 & 3/13/07).

Barbara Baraw present. Mr. Jones stated to the members that because the Town of Stowe will own the building, the Board’s review is quite limited under Title 24, Sec. 4413. Mrs. Baraw stated there are no changes to plans that were shown to the Board earlier; i.e. the architect felt the ramp cannot be put in the rear of the building because the building would have to be brought forward 15’ which would not be feasible and two historic windows would have to be eliminated. Mr. Izzo questioned why the building would have to be moved forward that much for the ramp and Mrs.Baraw explained it would be more than the ramp, it would be the addition as well and the walkway. Mr. Pineles asked where the closest handicap parking space is located and Mrs. Baraw stated they have requested to have it on School Street. tape 1 side 2 Mr. Izzo suggested two windows on the side of the addition but Mr. Jones reminded the members that design is not within the Board’s jurisdiction to review and that the only things they could address were location, size, height, building bulk, yards, courts, setbacks, density of buildings, off-street parking, loading facilities, traffic, noise, lighting, landscaping, screening and only to the extent that regulations do not have an effect of interfering with the intended functional use. Under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, this application was reviewed as a conditional use within the limitations of V.S.A. 24, Section 4413. The proposed development will create an insignificant amount of additional traffic. The Board concluded that there will be no undue noise pollution resulting from this proposed project. Museums are conditional uses permitted within the VR 20 district. Under Section 4.5 (6), municipal uses in the village are subject to the least restrictive zoning district requirements which would be the Village Commercial (VC) 10 District. The proposed use meets the requirements for VC 10, in that the setback is 10 feet. The applicant provided information regarding the proposed parking needs based upon anticipated use of the building. Parking exists on the parcel and additional town-owned public parking is available in the vicinity. No new parking areas are proposed. Multiple uses on the property share the existing parking on the parcel. Section 22.3 (C) allows the Board to reduce parking needs for multiple uses on a parcel. For assembly halls and public recreation, Section 22.2 requires one space for every three seats or participants plus one space for each person employed at peak hours. Furthermore, this requirement is reduced in half in the Village zones. The applicant testified that not more than three visitors are expected at any one time. The proposed use will primarily be operated during the daytime. Since the proposed use will generally operate during the daytime and require only one space and since other uses on the property have parking needs during evenings and weekends, the Board concluded there is adequate parking to meet the anticipated needs. There is an existing shared access with the school, which will not be changing. There may be one (1) tree, which may need to be cut in the rear, stated Mrs. Baraw. A letter from Stowe Electric was submitted 1/17/07 as was a capacity to serve letter from Justin Rabidoux, Public Works Director dated 1/5/07. Mr. Teffner questioned if the Board does not have any jurisdiction over aesthetics or how it will look? It doesn’t matter how large it will be, asked Mr. Teffner and said he did not believe for a minute that the photo simulation was accurately scaled. Mr. Pineles asked how location is determined and Mr. Jones responded it was his opinion where the building is located on the property. The lighting plan submitted proposes three sidewalk post lamps with translucent panes. The Bloody Brook building is 29’ 8” x 29’ 9” and the building being relocated is 36’2” x 25’ 2” (6-7’ longer than Bloody Brook). Mrs. Baraw said the building would probably be at the Baumrind property 4 months. Mr. Baker stated the Selectboard is not obligated to accept the building, as there is no agreement as yet. Mr. Pineles asked if the Town can be the applicant without being the owner and Mr. Baker said yes. Mr. Pineles asked if the reason the Board is doing a less stringent review is because the Town is the applicant and that the Town is the applicant because it owns the property? Mr. Baker said they own the property and they made the motion that “if the building is put on the property it will be a municipally owned and operated facility”. Mr. Teffner questioned the word “operated” saying the Historical Society is not an entity of the town and is puzzled why the motion said owned and operated, saying he seriously doubted the Town is going to operate the building. Mrs. Baraw stated the intent is that the Historical Society will be the agent of the Town and operate the building. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: project # 3298 with the following CONDITION:

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

Mr. Pineles thanked Barbara Baraw for going the extra mile answering the questions the Board had. He felt the Society has done the best they can under difficult circumstances.

Mr. Teffner seconded the motion with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Teffner, Pineles and Jones voting in favor. Mr. Altadonna was absent.

 

 

Location:       Upper portion of Taber Hill Road

Present were Milford Cushman, Architect and Raul Reed representing the owner. There was a site walk 2/4/07 attended by all members except Mrs. Brittin. Mr. Cushman gave a very detailed description of the project, proceeding through and addressing each applicable section of the Zoning Bylaws and referencing drawings dated 3/29/07. Mr. Cushman had prepared analyses from different view points, indicating the cut lines of each section with the trees varying in height from 70-110’ tall. Sec. 5 Reviewed in detail with Mr. Cushman responding to each section with the details submitted dated 1/12/07 and on record per document. He stated there could be several lots within the 75-acre parcel and the owner has opted to develop 5 at this time. Two of the lots will be restricted to single family dwellings and three (3) large lots will allow for a guest house along with a primary residence. Lot # 1 is 6 acres of open space having a previous home removed and also has a large pond. The remaining portion of the 75 acres is entirely wooded and the easterly portions of Lots #4 and #5 are within the RHOD. The eastern most 20 + acres of the parcel is a steep high ridge which will remain undeveloped. Only the house site within Lot #4 is within the RHOD with the house site for Lot # 5 being outside the RHOD. There is a stream flowing in a north-south direction through Lot #3 and along the easterly boundary of Lots #1 and #2 which will be protected and crossed only once by the common driveway which serves lots 3, 4 & 5. Mr. Cushman stated Lot #3 meets the dimensional requirements of 5.1(9). Building zones on Lots 2, 3 4, and 5 will have significant trees remaining. The applicant testified that clearing will be done in such a manner as to preserve specific tree cover near the home sites so as to continue to create a sense of harmony with the surrounding tree cover while minimizing visibility from offsite. Submitted plans show areas with percentage limits of cutting for the five lots (Sheet A2.1) tape 2 side 1 19 acres of the 75 will remain in perpetuity in a conservation zone, stated Paul Reed. Tom Sweet, County Forester, has prepared the cutting plan. He visited the site and based his decision on the status of the health, nature of the trees, size and crown of the trees (letter on file dated 3/29/07). Larger trees provide screening in the summer as well as solar protection. Storm Water discharge permit has been submitted. A curb cut has been issued using one driveway. Stowe Electric has been approached for power approval. The applicant will meet with the Fire Department to satisfy their condition by possibly putting in a fire pond to lots 3,4 & 5. Mr. Reed said he prefers to put in a dry hydrant from the Carpenter pond, which would accommodate the entire neighborhood. Mr. Reed stated this is the entire project at this time (5 lots). Lot 1 is 30 acres with one home site and with two secondary sites. There will be the standard Home Owner’s Association document, stated Mr. Reed. Sec. 5.3. Mr. Baker stated this section does apply, and Mr. Reed referred back to the 19 acres of open space in conservation and the corridor of soft woods has been left in which animals can move with no cutting, having the buildings on both sides. The main development road will service all lots except # 2 and has been designed to town standards. The road will be 1400’ of gravel surface with a 20’ wide surface and driveways of 14’ wide. Sec. 5.5: Engineering plans are for six bedroom houses on lots # 2 & 3 and 6 bedrooms houses with 2 bedroom guesthouses on lots # 1, 4 & 5. There will be no street lighting. Mr. Jones referred to Sec. 5.4(4) which requires only one access road or driveway for every 600’ of frontage on a town road. (The Board can waive the distance in this section). This plan as proposed has less than 600’ of frontage. It was stated that the construction of the road will minimize the impact on the wetlands as evidenced in Mr. Grenier’s plan. Mr. Cushman described the vantage points of sections A,B,C, D, & E on the plan in detail, showing the cut lines and potential view points. He stated Lot # 1 has no analysis done as it will not be visible off site. Mr. Pineles asked if the cutlines on the plan show view corridors and Mr. Cushman responded saying he felt he had addressed the view corridor from every place possible. Lot # 4 and RHOD Sec. 16 review. The Board determined that this development plan is significant under Section 16 of the Zoning Regulations. A Site Development plan, grading plan as well as storm water plan etc were submitted on the Grenier plan. tape 2 side 2 Visibility studies have been done and Mr. Cushman answered questions under the standards. A forest management letter from Tom Sweet has been submitted. As part of the project there will be a forester who will manage the cutting of the trees in accordance with the letter and after cutting is completed, the forester will sign off on the plan. Mr. Teffner commented that it would be difficult to put any trees back and asked if the forester could be on site when the trees are cut. Mr. Reed said it had been discussed and the trees will be marked and the forester will be on site supervising but not all day. Mr. Teffner said the cutting is the critical element and asked why the forester could not be there when the trees are being cut to see the result. Mr. Reed explained they put blue paint on the stump of the trees- there has to be trust. Mr. Teffner said, “I am not 100% certain that he can mark all the trees and say it is going to work, he could come back after the trees are out and say, ’hmmmm, maybe we didn’t get that quite right’.” Mr. Cushman commented that the forester will cut fewer trees at first, starting with 10% and go from there. The building zone does not get cut at all until the surrounding areas are cut. Mr. Reed stated the objective is to have a filtered view, credibility from the outside and he will be on site one hour a day for two weeks and the objective could be reached. Mr. Reed said to members “I could not afford to make a mistake anymore than you can afford to have me”. Mr. Izzo said the issue is thinning out the slope which would make it out of character. Mr. Cushman described the views down slope (hill) where much of the ground will not be seen because of the elevation from each lot. Road grades on the main road are under 12%; lot #4 under 10% and others 10& 12%. Mr. Cushman testified that anyone, given the height of the trees and following the guidelines, provided they use the right colors for the buildings, they will not be seen. Both Mr. Teffner and Izzo stated visibility and cutting are the sensitive issues. Mr. Izzo expressed concern with the winter view. Mr. Jones felt the major concern is the cutting of Lot # 4. Mr. Reed stated they would always err on the side of the Board when cutting. Members were comfortable with the plans, analyses and Mr. Cushman’s presentation. Members addressed the two driveway accesses and agreed they could approve by waiving the standard requirement of only one access road or driveway for each 600’ of frontage on a town road. Members felt they would be more comfortable to have Mr. Sweet attend the next meeting and describe the plan from his perspective. A letter had been submitted for the record from Alan & Ellen Thorndike dated 2/20/07. Mrs. Dreisacker in the audience stated she and other neighbors have looked at the different sections of the plan from each view and found them to be acceptable. Mr. Thorndike said they have been looking at plans dated 2/14 and asked if they were different from this date. The answer was yes and they will be given current plans. tape 3 side 1 Mrs. Brittin moved to RECESS to MAY 1, 2007seconded by Mr. Teffner in order to allow for current material be distributed to neighbors and to ask Mr. Sweet to attend the meeting and be able to address questions the abutting neighbors may have. All in favor of the recess, with the exception of Mr. Altadonna who was absent.          

 

Mr. Baker gave his report, i.e. what will be coming before the Board in the near future.

The Board decided the dates on the upcoming meetings as: May 1 & 15; June 5 & 19; July 10^th & 24; Aug. 7 & 21.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Barbara S. Allaire

                                            Development Review Board

                                                      April 17, 2007

 

The regular meeting of the Stowe Development Review Board was held Tuesday, April 17, 2007 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M.

 

Members present: Larry Jones, Ed Izzo, Susan Brittin, Dean Pineles and newly appointed member Donald Ramos.

 

Absent: Ted Teffner and alternate Lynn Altadonna

Mr. Jones welcomed Mr. Ramos to the Board and wished him well in his deliberations.

 

Mr. Jones addressed an issue of the Piecasso application saying that two of the abutters have not been notified, which is State Law. Town Attorney said if all the abutters received a notice and stated they would waive the requirement for notification, the Board could proceed. However, if that did not happen, it was the attorney’s advice to RECESS.

Mr. Jones did not feel the Board could proceed at this time, as the applicant was not present.

 

Project:          Proposing an addition of a porch to Stowe Inn (Postponed from 4/3/07)

Present was Jed Lipsky, owner, who explained the proposal as replacing the flagstone terrace with a 10’ wrap around porch to accommodate restaurant seating and inn guests. Some of the existing bushes will be preserved. Plans are for 8” round columns (historic) with no new doors. On April 12, 2007 the Board received a memorandum from Richard Baker, Zoning Director, informing the Board that the Stowe Historic Preservation Commission had found that the proposed plans for renovations are in keeping with the historic character of the district and recommended approval of the application with the conditions noted in the Letter of Project Recommendation. During his testimony, Mr. Lipsky noted that the Commission approved a standing seam roof, but he may want to use asphalt shingles. Mr. Jones said any change in the roofing materials would have to return to the SHPC and the Zoning Administrator. There will be no increase in restaurant seating. Plans are for 12 lights, 100 watts each, recessed in the overhang. Sec. 4.7 reviewed. No additional wall lighting planned. Mr. Lipsky stated the area would have limited use so did not feel there would be a noise impact. The porch will have access from the original building at 3 different locations. Landscaping will include new raised flowerbeds, and the retention of the azaleas and the large tree near the deck. The Board agreed the change is compatible with the design of the original building, as did the SHPC. VC-10 zone. Mrs. Britton questioned if the existing terrace is within the setbacks from watercourses as provided in Sec. 4.12. After discussion and measuring the plan, it was agreed that the degree of non-compliance is being reduced 10’, and that the provisions of Sec. 4.12-2 and Sec. 5.2 do not apply. The gazebo located on the plans was never addressed but Mr. Lipsky stated he would like it to remain on the plans. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law based on the recommendation of the SHPC by letter dated 4/12/07 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) If the roofing materials are to change from a standing seam, the applicant shall return to the Zoning Administrator for instructions. 

Mrs. Brittin seconded the motion with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Ramos, Jones and Pineles voting in favor. Mr. Teffner and Mr. Altadonna (alternate) were absent.   

Mr. Rovetto arrived to the meeting and Mr. Jones said the outstanding questions are whether all the abutters were properly noticed. Mr. Rovetto stated they were, even though a little late. There are 4 abutters, Strong, Knapp, Riverside Inn and Stonybrook (it was determined later that Stonybrook is not an abutter as Mr. Strong owns a strip of land in between the two properties). Mr. Baker described the process of sending out a notice. 

Based on Mr. Rovetto’s testimony, Mr. Jones agreed to keep the project on the agenda at this time. Mr. Baker stated it is the responsibility of the applicant to see that abutters are noticed.

 

Project:            Proposing to convert existing dorm rooms to 19 multi-family units plus 4-5 dorm rooms.

Present were Gary Bourne and Darrow Mansfield who gave a brief history of the property, i.e. (1) main building is 7,568 s.f. and has retail, apartments and dorms; (2) Peterson House is 2,133 s.f. and houses retail, office, efficiency suites; tape 1 side 2 (3) Brook House is a 3,000 s.f. residential unit; (4) Skelton House is 1,244 s.f. and office/commercial; (5) Stone House (shed) is 100 s.f.; (6) Robinson House is 2,682 s.f. and residential; (7) Hillside House is 1,742 s.f. and residential. The proposal is to convert the main building (1) into 19 apartments, with the ground floor retail and services (laundry) remaining. New walls, sprinkler system, double hung windows/shutters would be installed and all new siding. A second floor porch, 8’ x 12’ (with roof) will be added on Rte 108 side. A stair tower is proposed for the west elevation, making for additional access. The property now has 117 available parking spaces and the plan calls for 77 required. No plans to improve the site, including no new landscaping. Basement will have 1 retail and 1 apartment; level 1 will be 7 apartments; level 2 will be 6 apartments and 3 studios; level 3 will be 5 apartments and 1 studio. Mr. Pineles asked if the project will be considered affordable. Mr. Bourne stated the intent is to make these units more affordable than many in the area, but he did not know if it would meet the legal criteria as “affordable housing”. Mr. Mansfield described the lighting as being in the stairwells and the current lighting on the exterior will remain. Mr. McKeon (an abutter and in the audience) questioned with the existing parking being in the rear, will the egress and ingress be off Notchbrook Road? Mr. Mansfield stated the tennis court area (parking lot) and parking in the rear currently come off Rte 108. People entering from the rear would use the tennis court area. Mr. McKeon said he would like to see a lighting plan, types, wattage etc. He said the existing ones do shine out off the property. Mr. Bourne stated the lights up around the building do not have to remain but the parking lot will need to be lighted in some manner. Mr. Izzo suggested to Mr. Bourne he look into using post lamps in the parking lot. Mr. McKeon asked about landscaping along Rte 108. Mr. Bourne stated trees are on the plan along the road and due to the salt etc, they were destroyed, but plans are to replace them as shown. The possibility, depending on the numbers, is to hook up to town water and sewer. There exists an on-site sewage system. Sec. 4.7 reviewed and it was noted the applicant submitted pre-filed testimony dated 3/21/07. The Fire Department has reviewed the plans and agreed to the proposal based on a sprinkler system being installed. Members felt traffic on roads will be less intense. Mr. Jones read a conditional use in the UMR district includes multi-family dwellings. Sec. 7.3(1) J would allow for the 4-5 dorm rooms. A parking plan was submitted and the plan calls for 77 spaces. Mr. Ramos asked what would be allowed to be stored on the porches. Mr. Mansfield stated it would be regulated by the on-site management. Mr. Bourne said they did want people to keep the area neat so a possibility is to address the issue in the lease. Mr. Pineles felt the Board needs to be specific about what they want to restrict on the exterior. Mr. Baker suggested allowing what can be stored, i.e. seasonal furniture etc. such as “storage on all porches shall be limited to seasonal furniture” and rather than specifying some restriction in the lease. The Board agreed they would create a condition for storage of whatever they determined. Mr. Bourne said he would agree to that. Mr. Izzo commented that the building is high profile. There will be a less intense use of the property. Mr. Bourne stated there would be a common area for functions within the building. Landscaping & Screening: there is an existing plan. Mr. Izzo suggested additional landscaping near the building to break up the long façade. After discussion re: landscaping and lighting for the parking lot/building. Mr. Jones suggested to members they drive by the property and look at the existing landscaping and the parking lot area. Mr. Mansfield said they will have the area staked. Mr. Pineles moved to RECESS to MAY 1, 2007. Mrs. Brittin seconded the motion with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Ramos, Pineles and Jones voting in favor of the recess. Mr. Teffner and alternate Altadonna were not present. 

Project:             Convert retail space to restaurant seating for Katie’s Kitchen

Mr. Handwerger, owner of Katie’s Kitchen was present and explained they occupy units 1 & 2 of the Carriage House condo complex. Unit 1 is currently retail and they would like to change a portion of it to restaurant area to include 20 additional seats and take out. All changes will be internal. Mr. Jones made the applicant aware that the open land in front of the property belongs to the Town and if it were anticipated to use that in any way, it would have to go before the Selectboard. Mr. Jones asked if there are bylaws that control. Mr. Ring (in the audience) stated there is an association and its members are in agreement with the use. Mr. Baker stated the Town Attorney states one does not have to be a property owner in order to be an applicant, but an applicant mush have some form of rights to the property, unless there is something in the bylaws that says differently. Mr. Handwerger states they have a 10 year lease (8 yrs. remaining), and they are asking to increase restaurant seating to maximum total of 24 seats. Sec. 4.7 review: they will need additional sewer capacity; no impact on traffic. VC-10 zone and Mr. Jones read the general purpose of the village area; it was agreed parking is the main issue. Reviewed Sec. 22.3(6), determining a net increase of 3 spaces required. Mr. Baker pointed out the rear parking area is a community lot so the building has no parking. Mr. King told members that the original owner, John Morton, never intended to not allow for a use because of inadequate parking, which has always been a problem. Mr. Jones referred to Sec. 22.3 (6) which state “the DRB can modify the requirements because of the unique circumstances”. Mr. Jones felt much of the traffic will be by foot, since others will have already found parking within the village. Mr. Pineles stated this is the downtown area with parking in many areas. Members agreed to reduce the parking required under the regulations. There is no exterior lighting proposed. Mrs. Brititn moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: 3339 with the following CONDITION: 

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

Mr. Pineles seconded the motion with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Jones, Pineles, Ramos and Izzo voting in favor. Mr. Teffner and alternate Altadonna were absent.

Project:              Expand parking lot and install deck with seating

Present were Eduardo Rovetto and Kim Brown. Mr. Jones stated the first issue is to resolve the legal issue of notification. Mr. Strong (who appeared to have issues) had been present but left prior to the hearing; property owner Kay Bartlett of Riverside Inn was present; and Dave Slayton who lives in the Knapp house. Mr. Rovetto discussed the project with Mr. Slayton who could not be present but was agreeable to the project. It was agreed by Mr. Baker and based on Dave Ring’s testimony, Stonybrook is not an abutter. Mr. Rovetto stated he was willing to get letters from all abutters within a week. It was brought to the attention of the Board that the Knapp property is in an estate and not owned by Dave Slayton. Mr.Baker advised the members that a way of curing any issue with lack of proper notice would be to rehear the project. Mr. Pineles expressed his concern that the Knapp property, if owned by an estate, could have a problem with the project. Proper notification is not only for the abutters’ protection, but also for the applicant’s protection, stated Mr. Pineles. Mr. Izzo stated there is an issue of precedence setting. After more discussion, the Board agreed to proceed with review provided that if any decision is made, the applicant will submit to the Zoning Administrator a letter from Ken Strong and the Knapp Estate, on or before 4-23, 2007 saying they are aware of the 15 day notice and they are willing to waive such notice. Mr. Brown stated the deck shown was approved last spring with a condition needing a full parking plan. Plans are to rehabilitate the existing stairs and replace the roof over them. The applicant also wants to add a single door where a window was proposed (use of a double door on the deck was denied at the spring hearing because of a possible noise issue).Windows have now been sound proofed. tape 2 side 2 Mr. Rovetto stated the deck will be closed when there is music, band or a DJ on the property. Mr. Izzo argued that the door was denied because of the potential for noise and sound will come out when door is open. Three changes are being proposed: (1) rehabilitation of the existing stairs on the north elevation, (2) addition of stairs, a door and a window on the west elevation, and (3) add a single door leading onto the deck instead of the window. The use of the stairs goes to an upstairs area used for office space/storage at the present time. Parking: presently there are 2 rows of parking which is not adequate. The proposal is to move one row closer to Rte 108 with screening (white spruce) which will allow for a 3^rd row in the middle with a turn around at the end of the lot. There will be 1 handicap parking space in the rear and 2 in the front. In the existing parking area there are 2 large white pines which will be removed (one will remain). Mr. Pineles asked about the surface of the parking lot stating there are some very serious pot holes. Mr. Rovetto has tried to help the situation and is looking into prices for paving. There will be a total of 65 spaces on the property. Mrs. Bartlett expressed concern with cars using a turnaround as the lights will shine into the Inn rooms. The apex of the turnaround will be 10’ from the property line, stated Mr. Brown or 15’ from the edge of the Riverside garage. Mrs.Bartlett was very concerned with the lights with cars turning in the turnaround and also asked where the snow would be put. Mr. Brown stated they are willing to do screening of some sort. Mrs. Bartlett asked how drivers are going to be made to use the turnaround? (Going from 30-40 spaces in the lot). Mr. Brown argued cars are going in now and turning around and they are trying to make a better flow of traffic. He felt screening would help between the parking lot and Riverside Inn. Mr. Rovetto stated snow is pushed this way at the present time, wherever there is room.  Sec. 4.7 reviewed. Additional sewage flow will be required; no change in electric capacity; Mr. Jones felt traffic would be increased but probably not severe enough to have an adverse impact; plans are to add 13 trees between the parking lot and Rte 108.  The testimony was that the distance between the existing edge of parking lot to edge of Rte 108 is 50’. The plan is to move the edge of the lot 14’ closer to Rte 108. Sec. 22 addresses parking. 65 parking spaces would be adequate to include the existing apartment (although it is not currently in use). Mr. Pineles stated he felt the parking lot will be chaos and there will not be adequate room for 65 cars. The previous approval required striping. Mr. Brown did not feel it right to require striping as it doesn’t work in the winter and one cannot enforce it. Center is paved so could be striped, stated Mr. Baker. Mrs. Bartlett stated screening would be helpful but she would need to think about the type because of the turnaround and closeness to her property. Mr. Pineles suggested having cars face each other (nose-to-nose) in the internal lane. There will be a group site visit on MAY 15, 2007 at 4:00 P.M., prior to the meeting. Mrs. Brittin moved to RECESS to 5/15/07 with a site walk at 4:00 P.M. Mr. Izzo seconded the motion with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Ramos, Jones and Pineles voting in favor. Mr. Teffner and alternate Altadonna were not present.       

 

Project:           Requesting approval to install a temporary outdoor event tent

Present were Steve Lichenstein, President of JCOGS and Mike Goldfine. Mr. Baker stated that the original approved plan included the location of a tent pad 40’ x 50’. The pad will be located behind the building with a tent to be used May 15^th thru Oct. 15^th each year, accommodating 200 guests. The tent will be used for weddings, Bar Mitzvahs, Bat Mitzvahs and other celebratory events, which may include music. Events could average once a week and will occur mostly during the day. Mr. Lichtenstein stated if music were to be used in the evening, it would end at 11:00 P.M. Mr. Baraw, abutter, asked that the band be put in the southwest corner inside the tent. Mr. Baker stated Mr. Baraw did not get proper notice but was in agreement with the project. It was agreed, Village Green may not be abutters, but are neighbors. Mr. Lichtenstein stated the area is commercial with no single residences in the area. He did not feel it would compare with a commercial operation. Mr. Izzo stated he was on the Board when the Center was approved and never, never was a tent discussed. Mr. Jones pointed out the project is subject to limited review as a place of worship and read what can be reviewed, one item of which is noise. Mr. Jones felt it would be an accessory use. Ken Biedermann, Ampersand Properties, sent an e-mail and did not have a problem provided it takes place as stated. Mr. Lichtenstein reiterated that a place for a tent was on the original plan. Mr. Jones reminded the applicant that in 7-06, a neighbor, Piecasso, had as a condition of its approval that music end by 10:00 P.M. Mr. Izzo stated there are lodges in the area, as well as a condominium village, so noise could be a huge problem. Mr. Pineles stated when dealing with a noise issue, the Board’s responsibility is to consider how far the noise will travel and the effect it might have on everyone within hearing distance, regardless whether they are abutters. The abutters rule is simply for purposes of giving legal notice, but as a Board we are responsible to address the issue of how noice could affect people who are not abutters. Mr. Lichtenstein stated, except for Saturday nights, perhaps we could have an earlier closing hour. Mr. Pineles stated the Board dealt with the noise issue re: TN, who were having a series of wedding, less frequent than once a week, and the Board had a virtual revolt on their hands as far as noise goes and that is a much less dense area in terms of residential development. He continued by saying that every Saturday night neighbors were uninvited guests at the wedding, which they were angry about. There is no good way to mitigate the sound and this proposal is a much denser configuration and the noise could be a very serious issue. Mr. Izzo stated the Board has to maintain constancy and this could not be in a worse spot. Mrs. Brittin said in the past when the Board has dealt with noise issues, it was usually in response to complaints. Here, because the noise has not yet started, perhaps we could let them start and then return to the Board. Mr. Izzo disagreed and felt it would create a problem. Mr. Jones liked the idea of Stowe being a wedding destination, but he is struggling with the noise issue and it is a problem, as stated by Mr. Pineles. Mr. Lichtenstein stated there are 3 possible scenarios; (1) closing at 11:00 on Sat (2) close 10-10:30 on weeknights; (3) move the music inside. Mr. Baker asked, because the tent area was on the plan, even though it was not addressed, could it be approved with music inside, is that what has already been approved. Mr. Lichtenstein said if they are to serve dinner inside the tent, they can’t have music blocking the way to get inside. They have had parties inside the building with music with no repercussions. Mr. Jones said he heard what the Zoning Administrator asked, but the decision which was drafted for the original approval does not shed any light on the subject. Mr. Izzo stated he had no problem with the use of the tent, but it is the music. Mr. Baker asked if music is indoors, do they have a valid approval for the tent and therefore they could withdraw the application. Mr. Jones stated even if the music were to be inside with the doors closed, the next issue would be that the doors would be propped open and the volume turned up. Mr. Jones said because of the lateness of the hour, he suggested recessing and Mrs. Brittin moved to RECESS to MAY 1, 2007, seconded by Mr. Ramos with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Jones, Pineles and Jones voting in favor to recess. Mr. Teffner and Altadonna were not present.          

 

Mr. Jones stated to the applicant that there is not a lot of guidance in the bylaws, and noise becomes subjective, but the Board has to be consistent.

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 P.M.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Barbara S. Allaire