Development Review Board

                                                        May 1, 2007

 

The regular meeting of the Stowe Development Review Board was held Tuesday, May 1, 2007 in the Banquet Room of the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M.

 

Members in attendance were: Larry Jones, Ed Izzo, Don Ramos, Dean Pineles, Lynn Altadonna, alternate and Ted Teffner at 5:45. Absent: Susan Brittin. 

Also present: Rich Baker, Zoning Director and those listed in the minute’s book.

 

Project:          Install a temporary outdoor events tent (requesting to recess to 5/15/07 due to scheduling conflicts)

Mr. Izzo moved to RECESS to MAY 15, 2007 at the applicant’s request, seconded by Mr. Altadonna with all members in favor. Absent were: Susan Brittin and Ted Teffner.

 

Project:          Change roof design on Historic building (requesting to postpone to 5/15/07 due to medical reasons)

Mr. Pineles moved to POSTPONE to May 15, 2007at the applicant’s request. Mr. Ramos seconded the motion with all in favor except Mrs. Brittin and Ted Teffner who were not present.

 

Project:            Requesting approval to operate a landscaping business (postponed 4/3) (Requesting to postpone to 6/19/07)

Mr. Izzo moved to POSTPONE to JUNE 19, 2007 seconded by Mr. Ramos with all in favor except Mrs. Britton and Ted Seffner who were not present.

Project:            Requesting approval to construct a barn (shed) (Seeking to postpone to 5/15 due to the applicant error regarding notice requirement)

Zone:                RR-1/SHOD

Mr. Izzo moved to POSTPONE to May 15, 2007, seconded by Mr. Ramos with all in favor expect Mrs. Brittin and Mr. Teffner who were not present.

 

Project:             Request is to allow wedding ceremonies as previously approved under BA 11-060.02 (requesting to postpone to 6/5/07 to allow for the attendance of the applicant)     

Mr. Izzo moved to POSTPONE to JUNE 5, 2007 at the applicant’s request, seconded by Mr. Pineles with all in favor. Mrs.Brittin and Mr. Teffner were not present to vote.

 

Brian Leven, who was appointed by the Selectboard on Monday, April 30 as a member of the Board, was in the audience. Mr. Jones welcomed him as a new member. Appointment becomes effective May 15, 2007.

 

Project:           Convert existing dorm rooms to 19 multi-family dwelling units (recessed from 4/17/07)

This was delayed until later in the meeting as neither Gary Bourne or Darrow Mansfield were present.

 

Project:          Reconstruct 4 non-conforming single-family dwellings 

Present were Mr. Masson and Mr. Cone. Project is in the RR 2 district on 3 acres with 4 separate dwelling units existing totaling 6,285 s.f.. Plans are to condomize the property by replacing the existing buildings with 4 carriage homes, each 2,317 s.f. each and each with a 1 car garage, keeping the expansion within the allowed 50% (Sec. 5.1). Septic has been designed for 12 bedrooms and each unit will share the same well. Units will remain fairly close to where they are now, with the entrance to 3 of the units using the main driveway and the other unit using the second existing drive. Setback of the tennis cottage to the river will remain; setback of the garage building will be slightly improved from the road with the side remaining the same. 6 parking spaces for the 3 buildings and 2 for the 4^th building. In an RR 2 zone, 1 house would be allowed on the 3 acres. Mr. Baker stated the uses are allowed in the district, the lot is not complying. Because the lot is not large enough, the other units are not complying but all pre-existing. In Sec. 5.1 the question is, can one reconstruct under 5.1 (3)? Is it 50% of the aggregate or 50% of each building? The bylaws are not clear. The required construction is all within the required setbacks, stated Mr. Masson, making it less non-complying. Is one allowed to reconstruct a non-conforming use is the first questions, stated Mr. Baker. Mr. Altadonna asked if there is a precedent here in Stowe for that. Mr. Ramos asked how reconstruction is defined and stated he did not feel these are being reconstructed but being torn down and putting up new structures. Mr. Baker asked if the owners are not using the same foundation, is it reconstruction and Mr. Ramos felt it was not. Mr. Altadonna stated the issue is, because there are 4 structures and to tear them down and replace with 4 new condos, does the square footage fit the 50% additional space under the non-conforming use rules? Mr. Izzo felt the Board has normally addressed a non-conforming building which will remain and then apply the 50% rule-these are being torn down and replaced. Mr. Jones stated the property as it exists is grandfathered, so the footprint has been established but he questioned if the status of being grandfathered is lost when there is a material change. How much of a material change is there in this situation, asked Mr. Jones. Mr.Pineles stated some of the terms in the bylaws are inconsistent but Sec. 5.2 (4) says enlargement of non-complying buildings--- and goes on to state replacements. Building #4 is being moved completely off the existing footprint. Mr. Jones stated Sec. 5.1.(1) allows for the approval by the DRB of a change to another non-conforming use. Mr. Jones stated what is being proposed is consistent with the Town Plan. tape 1 side 2  Mr. Pineles stated the Board is not certain whether the proposed project is a non-conforming use or a non-complying buildings (could be both) but in any event, the Board has the authority to permit the expansion up to 50% whether it be reconstruction or replacement. Mr. Jones stated he was comfortable with that. Mr. Izzo stated he was not aware of the Board ever allowing tearing something down and reconstruct and then add the 50% rule. Mr. Jones referred to Sec. 5.1 (3) (d) Discussion took place re: the 50% rule and its interpretation. Mr. Altadonna stated he did not have an issue with the 50% but felt an issue exists with the consequences of having 4 grandfathered structures and is it correct to allow for the removal of the 4 structures and replace with 4 structures on 3 acres and continue the grandfathered condition. Mr. Jones stated he keeps going back to that – once something is torn down, has the grandfathered status been lost. After little more discussion, and because there were unanswered questions re: reconstruction and material change, Mr. Izzo moved to RECESS to JUNE 5, 2007, seconded by Mr. Teffner with Mr. Izzo, Teffner, Pineles, Ramos, Altadonna and Jones voting in favor. Mrs. Brittin was not present. 

 

Present were Darrow Mansfield and Gary Bourne. Some members drove past the area to take a look at the parking lot. Mr. Bourne explained the landscaping plan being proposed and stated the trees and shrubs along the parking lot and Rte 108 (on the original plan and destroyed by the plowing) will be replaced with 3” caliper sugar maples (Mr. Bourne agreed to use the size of 3” caliper sugar maples along the road after Mr. Teffner stated 2” is a sapling and is not large enough) along the parking lot edge and 2” caliper balsams 8’ high will be used at the end of the lot. Lighting:  Plans are for recessed lighting under the porch cover; 2 poles will be removed, 4 poles towards the woods 8’ high will be installed and on timers; wall mount fixtures on photocells as well as the staircase lights Mr. Ramos asked if arrangements are being made for storage of boats etc on the property. Mr. Bourne stated arrangements would have to be made to have storage in the rear of the property – he did not want them in the parking lot.

Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: project # 3360 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)   No materials shall be stored in the stairways, no materials shall be stored on decks                                                                 including bicycles and barbecues, except seasonal furniture, and no clothing, banners or other items shall be hung on or from the stairs or decks.   

(3)   The landscaping will be restored in accordance with the approved plan presented on 5/1/07, including the 3” caliper trees.

(4)   The lighting plans shall be in accordance with the plans submitted 5/1/07 and as testified to.

Mr. Pineles seconded the motion with Mr. Izzo, Pineles, Jones, Ramos and Teffner voting in favor. Mr. Asltadonna abstained, as he was not present for the Conditional Use Review.

Mrs. Brittin was not present at this meeting. 

 

Project:          Applying for a 3-lot subdivision

Present was Darrow Mansfield who described the property as being 6.9 acres (formerly the Ed Mercier property and located across from Nichols field and the last house before Salvas Construction). There is an existing house and pond on the property. There is presently an existing curb cut which will be used and a common drive will be established up the side of the property and around to the rear of the pond which has an existing buffer. Lot # 1 has the existing house and will be 2.35 acres. The proposed subdivision creates Lot # 2 of 2.2 acres and Lot # 3 of 2.43 acres. Each lot will have a drilled well, and the 2 new homes will share a wastewater disposal system. Building zones were outlined on the plan and are more restrictive than required by the Zoning regulations. Thinning of the trees will be done but no clear cutting, stated Mr. Mansfield. The existing lot lies in two zoning districts, with the line between the two zones is being located approximately 500’ back from Rte 100. The line between the two districts passes through the two new lots. tape 2 side 1 Mr. Mansfield stated that both building sites for Lot #2 and Lot #3 are within the RR 2 zoning district. Sec. 4.1(3) of the Zoning regulations provides that in the case of lots lying in more than one district, the provisions of any district may be applied for the distance of not over thirty (30) feet into any other adjacent district. Accordingly, the provisions of the RR 2 zoning district should apply to this project. The proposed lots will be clustered around an existing pond, which is an existing natural feature. Mr. Altadonna stated when someone purchases a lot they will be aware there is an existing pond on the property. Sec. 5 of the subdivision regulations reviewed: there currently exists a natural buffer zone which is beyond the pond and between lots 1 & 2; building envelopes are shown; no historical features on the property; in character with other properties along Rte 100; lot configurations comply; no screening or landscaping are being proposed at this time; no significant increase in traffic so as to create unsafe conditions; (even though Mr. Jones stated the entire stretch of road is hazardous); standard one year letter from Stowe Electric has been received for the file; Fire Department wants to explore the possibility of a dry hydrant (Mr. Mansfield stated there is a pond which has a dry hydrant) and will review with the Department; full density of the property will be met when the subdivision is approved being 3 lots; RR 2 allows for the use and all setbacks are being met. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: project # 3376 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 thinning of the buffer area between Lot #1 and Lot #2 shall be limited to 50% of the existing trees.

   (3) A letter from the Stowe Fire Department shall be received for the record stating    

         they are satisfied with the plans submitted to them by Mr. Mansfield

   (4) The covenants for the property shall include language dealing with the use and maintenance of the pond by all lot owners.  

 

Mr. Ramos seconded the motion with Mr. Izzo, Ramos, Teffner, Jones and Pineles voting in favor. Mrs. Brittin was absent. No one voted no.

 

 BREAK: 7:15

 

Project:           5 Lot subdivision for Preliminary Approval (Recessed from 4/3/07)

Present were Paul Reed, Don Post , Milford Cushman, Architect and Brian (Tom) Sweet, Hunger Mountain Forestry, Inc. Mr. Cushman stated the plan dated 4/25/07 outlined a small area on lot #4 that was originally designed to protect the view shed. Further analysis caused him to conclude that this is not necessary. Mr. Reed stated the lot line between lots #3 and #4 has been adjusted, taking a small area out of lot # 4 (lower portion below the road) and adding it to lot #3 (10.1 acres) and making a total acreage for lots 1,2 & 3 of 32 acres. This adjustment has no impact to the building sites previously identified. All 4 state and federal permits have been received . A letter dated 4/17/07 from the Stowe Fire Department states they reviewed the plans dated 12/22/06 and took no exceptions and found the plans to be in conformance with the FD ‘s recommended guidelines. Mr. Reed stated there are 2 possible proposed locations for a fire pond, a hydrant in the Carpenter family pond or one on the property of the applicant. The applicant does not have a letter from the Stowe Electric Department as of this date. Forestry Management Plan review: Mr. Sweet was present to describe to the Board the methodology he is using for cutting, trimming and thinning, and the determination of what the area will look like. Mr. Sweet stated he has 30 clients in Stowe managing 3300 acres. Mr. Sweet described the method in which he arrived at the proposal outlined in his brief dated March 29, 2007 and April 17, 2007, indicating the steps to apply controls (these documents are in the records). Plans are to provide screening for the development, protect existing developments and provide longer views. tape 2 side 2 Changes to document 3/29/07 are: Area # 1 contains an estimated 85 trees per acre; plans to remove 30% resulting in removing 25 trees/acre and retaining 60 trees/acre. Area # 2 contains 94 trees per acre; plans to remove 40% resulting in removing 38 trees/acre and leaving 56 tree/acre. Area # 3 contains an estimated 58 trees per acre; plans to remove 90% resulting in removing 52 trees/acre and leaving 6 trees/acre. The method is : (1) will identify the initial trees to be removed by flagging on the ground using a distinctive color; (2) a field review of the selected trees to be removed will be done by Mr. Reed, Cushman and Sweet. Changes can then take place. After changes are made (3) do re-flagging and identify the individual trees to be removed by a stump mark, below the cutting line of the tree and at ground height. There will be periodic inspections done by Mr. Sweet, stated Mr. Reed. Mr. Reed stated it is their hope to undercut and the integrity of the management is on the line. Mr. Cushman stated there will be a couple of cuts, thereby proceeding very slowly. He stated in any event, the cutting will result in an unbroken canopy as viewed from off-site. Mr. Reed reiterated the objective is to maintain a view with a continuous canopy to protect the site by minimizing the cutting. Mr. Izzo stated if this new concept doesn’t work, it won’t happen again and it may not work throughout this project. Mr. Jones stated the concept is very different from the Board’s traditional application of the guidelines under the RHOD. Mr. Reed stated the cutting will be done by his crew. Mr. Sweet described the existing regeneration on the property with strong trees growing within the proposed building sites, so only a few will be removed in order to construct a house. Mr. Pineles asked if there will be any impact on wildlife under the plan and Mr. Sweet stated yes, and it will all be positive. Diversity makes good wildlife habitat, stated Mr. Sweet, i.e. small openings, mixtures of soft and hard woods, classes and size, dense regeneration etc. Mr. Jones stated the concept is forcing the Board to redefine its traditional interpretation of “limits of clearing”. Mr. Teffner stated the Board has to be comfortable with the gentlemen presenting the concept and he did not feel there was any reason not to accept the management plan. Alan Thorndike, stated he has been working with the applicant and is happy with the plan, but suggested an Engineers Certification (from Hunger Mountain Forestry) when the clearing is done for the record. Mr. Reed stated he would be satisfied with Mr. Thorndike’s suggestion. Mr. Reed stated Lot #4 will not be cut until the road is built, possibly late summer. Mr. Pineles moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: Preliminary Approval under Sec. 3.1(3) of the Subdivision Regs 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)   An “ ability to serve” letter from the Stowe Electric Department shall be received for the record.

(3)   A “Certification of Cut Status” shall be provided by Hunger Mountain Forestry.

(4)   Before recording the plan a copy of the Protective Covenants shall be submitted to the Zoning Office.

(5)   Any proposed fire pond shall be located on the final plan.        

Mr. Altadonna seconded the motion with Mr. Jones, Izzo, Ramos, Pineles, Teffner and 

Altadonna voting in favor. Mrs. Brittin was absent. 

 

 

(1) Darrow Mansfield re: Changes to his property on South Main Street located on the L-portion, and including a change in design of the front door, a bathroom in the basement and lights in the parking lot be the same as the proposed development next to his. Board felt these changes to be minor.

 

(2) Laughing Moon: requesting to pull the existing landscaping closer to the street which will allow for a terrace area with 2 tables/4 chairs. There is approval for 9 indoor seats (not as a restaurant but as retail), which would make approval of 13 seats necessary. Board felt this to be minor.  

 

(3) TN Associates re: Stowe Electric letter. Mr. Baker stated at the Act 250 hearings, it was testified by representatives from SED that there will be adequate power available for their proposed project. The question was, can the Board accept the Findings of Fact in the Act 250 hearing as satisfying the DRB’s condition that the applicant receive an unconditional ability to serve letter from SED. Members felt That TN should have its own letter from SED stating they can provide service for the entire project or return to the Board. 

 

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Barbara S. Alllaire

                                                  Development Review Board

                                                           Town of Stowe

                                                             May 15, 2007

 

The regular meeting of the Stowe Development Review Board was held Tuesday, May 15, 2007 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:15 P.M.

 

Members present: Larry Jones, Ed Izzo, Susan Brittin, Don Ramos, Dean Pineles and newly appointed member Brian Leven. Absent: Ted Teffner.

Also present: Rich Baker, Zoning Director as well was those listed in the minute’s book.

 

 

5:00 Ken Strong present to discuss a parking issue with the members, stating he did not feel that handicap parking spaces are being provided and if they are a condition of a permit, the requirements are not being followed up on. He asked that follow up be done at the time of construction, saying there is no need to have Rules and Regs if they are not followed through. He did not feel it has been done in the past years. 

 

Project:           Preliminary Review of Redevelopment of the Mountain Road Resort (requesting to postpone to 7/24/07)

Mr. Baker stated he will be rewarning this and notifying the abutters as there has been a long time frame since the conceptual plans were reviewed. Mr. Izzo moved to POSTPONE to July 24, 2007 at the request of the applicant, seconded by Mrs. Brittin with all in favor except Mr. Teffner who was not present. This meeting will be limited to this proposal and possibly small issues.

Project:          Proposing to construct a 24’ x 70’ and a 60’ x 100’ building with site changes. Seeking postponement to 6/5/07 for SHPC review.

Mr. Pineles moved to POSTPONE to June19, 2007 for SHPC review, seconded by Mrs. Brittin with all in favor except Mr. Teffner who was not present.

 

Project:              Seeking to change roof design on a historic building (requesting to postpone to 6/5/07 for SHPC review with possible modifications)

Mr. Pineles moved to POSTPONE to JUNE 5, 2007at the applicant’s request. Mr. Ramos seconded the motion with all in favor except Mr. Teffner who was not present.

 

Project:           Expansion of parking and installation of a deck with 18 seats. (RECESSED from 4/17/07 for a site walk 5/15 at 4:00 P.M).

Present at the sitewalk were: Don Ramos, Dean Pineles, Susan Brittin, Larry Jones, Ed Izzo. Mr. Rovetto and Kim Brown were present as well. Mr. Rovetto and Mr. Brown were present at the hearing. Mr. Brown described a minor change to the spaces near the trash container. Enclosure for the container will be built at an angle. Mr. Izzo asked the applicant to consider moving the lot back toward the river as far as possible and felt there should be additional landscaping along the road. Mr. Pineles felt the landscaping could be adequate if the Board got to the point of approving the parking, but he expressed a concern that moving the parking lot closer to the Mt. Road would eliminate some of the existing green space. He questioned modifying the regulations in order to eliminate green space. Mr. Brown stated the proposed landscaping would screen a vast majority of the parking lot, although there would be less green space. The plan requires 64 spaces and will have 65. Presently there are 121 seats and requesting to add 18 on the deck, for a total of 139 on the property. Under Sec. 22.3 the Board has certain discretionary authority to modify parking requirements, which could eliminate the center aisle in the lot.

Mr. Rovetto stated when the parking lot is full it becomes a nightmare and did not want to eliminate the aisle. Mr. Pineles asked about using the Gale Farm Ctr. Parking lot, but members felt that could be a hazardous situation. Mr. Rovetto stated some of the stores are open in the evening at the Gale Farm Ctr. Mr. Jones indicated some members would like to see additional landscaping along Rte 108 and keep the existing green space. Mr. Brown stated they could plant more spruce trees in place of the deciduous ones, which would create more screening. Mr. Rovetto stated he is willing to pave and stripe the lot, including 3 handicap spaces. A 10’ green belt was submitted on the plan. Mr. Brown stated there is a significant swale, which will allow for run off. Mr. Pineles again voiced his concern about eliminating green space, stating it may not seem like a big deal, but eliminating a little here and there, soon the Mt. Road will be a parking lot and he said, “I have concerns about that”. He suggested alternatives. Mr. Rovetto said he has exhausted his resources in looking for alternatives, saying the medical center parking lot is out of the question. Mr. Izzo stated the board has to be sensitive to the integrity of the area. Mr. Pineles said part of the application is for an additional 18 seats outside and that is what is driving the review of the parking requirements. Mr. Rovetto sated he is trying to do what is best for his business. Mr. Jones stated the Board has constraints and has to live within the regulations. The request is for an additional 18 seats, which requires 6 spaces. tape 1 side 2 Mr. Ramos suggested the possible elimination of the middle aisle and moving the parking back from Rte. 108 still presents a need for managing the traffic flow. Mr. Baker said a small island could be created for the flow. Mr. Pineles suggested the Board approve the deck, require the existing lot be paved and striped and require that the landscaping plan be applied to the existing green space (perhaps not in the configuration but to preserve the pines). This would require reducing the number of spaces required. Mr. Rovetto stated the parking is already congested, and adding another 18 seats makes it even more difficult. Mr. Izzo stated one couldn’t just add if the situation is already bad. Mr. Jones at this point asked members if they would be willing to have a special meeting in order to come to a conclusion regarding the application. Jed Lipsky in the audience suggested allowing parking on the green space for the 3 months a year (summer) for the employees. Mrs. Bartlett (in the audience and abutter) stated she is satisfied with the noise arrangements re: memo dated May 19, 2007 and for the record. Mr. Strong stated there is a ditch (drain) in the rear corner of the parking lot in which water flows and drains the Shed parking lot and asked as a condition of any approval that the ditch be maintained and cleaned. Mr. Izzo moved to RECESS to TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2007 starting at 6:00 P.M. seconded by Mrs. Brittin with all in favor except Mr. Teffner who was not present.

 

Project:           Install a temporary outdoor event tent (RECESSED 5/1/07)

Present were: Jed Lipsky, Mike Goldfield, Steve Berson and Steve Lichetnstein  

Mr. Lichenstein stated the tent will be seasonal with music ending no later than 11:00 P.M. Village Green representative wrote a letter stating they have no problem with the

Tent as long as the music ends at 11 P.M. Mr. Izzo stated for the record, the tent was never approved as part of the application, even though it may have been on the plans. Mr. Lichenstein stated they are residents of the Stowe community and very sensitive to the noise issue and felt that most of the activities will not be in the evenings. Mr. Lipsky stated most of the life cycle events are quiet events. Mr. Izzo stated that noise travels and there are residences in the area, even up to the Stowe Club area, and noise will be a problem, even though he had no objections to the tent. Mr.Lipsky stated the group has no interest in any of their activities being objectionable to any neighbors. He suggested a possible seasonal approval, try it and if the uses are a problem the applicant would return to the Board. (tent will go up Memorial Day and come down Columbus Day). Mr. Jones stated one of the issues is that the Town of Stowe has no way to measure noise and suggested a 3-step approach to dealing with noise complaints, i.e. 1^st complaint to Mr. Baker etc. It was asked if alcohol will be served and the answer was yes, as events will be hosted and catered. Mr. Lichenstein did not agree with the suggestion of Mr. Lipsky as noise is different to different people. Mrs. Brittin suggested stipulating a certain number of evening events allowed. Mr. Ramos suggested a 10:00 P.M. limit on the music. Mr. Lichenstein stated Friday use of the tent would not be allowed. Mr.Baker said the nature of complaints is based on how late, how many a year and the day of the week. Mr. Lipsky stated the Jewish Community of Greater Stowe is not-for-profit and not meant to be a business, but to accommodate the people of Stowe. Mr. Pineles asked if there will be weddings and the answer was “there could be”. Mr. Izzo stated music does travel and that is a concern and if there are complaints, it is possible the issue would have to come back to the Board. It was suggested that the approval be given for the time period of May 15-November 1^st. This was agreed to by the applicant, provided that music on Sundays through Thursday would be turned off at 10:00 P.M., Friday there will be nothing planned and Saturday’s music will cease no later than 11:00 P.M. No abutters have expressed any concerns, which allow the members to have some assurance. Mr. Jacobs, Vice President asked that the concern is noise and not the fact that the tent will be put up and members agreed. The proposed tent is an accessory use to a conditional use; Sec. 4.7 reviewed (with limited review): MRV zone; noise has been addressed and agreed to limited hours under a seasonal permit; traffic would have no impact; lighting will exist inside the tent supplied by the rental company and there is presently an approved lighting plan for the parking area. There will be no lights shining out of the tent, stated Mr. Lichenstein. tape 2 side 1 The tent will not be air-conditioned and there will be no generators. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: project # 3356 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)   Amplified music will end by 10:00 P.M. Sunday through Thursday and by 11:00 P.M. Saturday.

(3)   The tent will not be used on Friday after sundown.

(4)   The permit for the tent shall expire November 1, 2007.

Mr. Pineles seconded the motion with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Ramos, Leven, Pineles and Jones voting in favor. Mr. Teffner was not present.  

 If the use is to continue after November 1, 2007, the applicant will reapply to the Board.

Project: Requesting approval for the construction of a barn

Mr. Jones suggested review of the barn as an accessory to a conditional use (Brass Lantern Inn). Joe Beres presented the project, explaining his proposal as a 30’ x 30’ x 20’ high storage barn with clapboard siding, painted the color of the Inn. The building will be located on the southwest corner of the lot. SHOD recommended approval dated April 12, 2007. The only lighting will be a recessed light over the end door, which will be on a switch. 3 existing parking spaces will be removed, leaving 16. The Inn has 9 rooms. Mr. Beres stated that no trees will be removed for the project. Sec. 4.7 Review: RR 1 zone. The Board determined there will be no impact under conditional use review. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: project # 3362 and incorporating the recommendations of the SHOD, with the following CONDITION:

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

Mr. Raamos seconded the motion with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Ramos, Pineles, Jones and Leven voting in favor. Mr. Teffner was not in attendance.

 

Project:        Modification to Villa 28 façade (RHOD approval)

Present were Johannes von Trapp, Tom Bodell, Architect, Bob Burley of Burley Partnership, and Hans vanWees. Mr. Burley stated that the south elevation of villa # 28 faces Trapp Road. Villa # 28 has one owner (stated Mr. von Trapp) and this is a modification of a previous approval dated July 11, 2006. The owner would like to use the basement level as a family room, including doors out to grade and a patio, powder room, storage space. Mr. Jones indicated the review before the Board is not internal but how it affects the exterior. Only the south elevation of Villa # 28 is visible from any public vantage point. Proposed changes to the south elevation include the extension of the roof, elimination of a window, and the creation of a walk-out basement with a small patio and retaining wall, resulting is a smaller balcony. The landscaping and lighting will remain as previously approved, stated Mr. Burley. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: project # 3388 classifying it as a minor and 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 the implementation for a determination if an amendment shall be required.    

(2)   All previous conditions of the approval dated 7/11/06 shall remain in force.

Mr. Izzo seconded the motion with Mrs.Brittin, Mr. Ramos, Leven, Pineles, Jones and Izzo voting in favor. Mr. Teffner was not present.

 

Project:           Requesting to demolish a Historic House (Postponed from 3/20/07)         

Louse Sparks presented the application and outlined the history of this request. On 11/29/06 the SHPC denied the demolition of the original Sears Kit house of 570 s.f. and built in the 1920’s (3 rooms) based on evidence presented at that time, but could demolish the additions which had been made to the home. Ms. Sparks then obtained additional information with respect to the cost of restoration and presented the request again to the SHPC. The SHPC by letter dated 5/10/07 recommended the demolition of the historic property because the condition of the structure has deteriorated to such a degree that rehabilitation and use of the building is not feasible. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law approving the demolition of the Sears Kit building, based on the recommendations of the SHPC. Mr. Ramos seconded the motion with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Pinles, Jones, Izzo, Leven and Izzo voting in favor. Mr. Teffner not present.

 

Project:            Proposing a three-lot subdivision

Present were Bill Chesbrough , Jerry Ranges (abutter) and Steven Nachman. Mr. Ranges stated for the record he is concerned with the integrity of the neighborhood, he is presently building his own residence in the area and has built 8-10 houses in the neighborhood. There are currently 19.4 acre with an existing house. tape 2 side 2 Proposing a 3-lot subdivision with access off Lower Sanborn Road. Lot # 2 will be 5.2 acres; lot # 3 will be 6.92 acres, and the remaining lot # 1 (with the existing house) will be 7.01 acres. The only possible locations to build are on the upper portion of the land. A proposed road will go through lot 2 to lot 3. Plans are for on site water and septic. There is an existing pond on the property line between lots 1 and 2, built approximately 15 years ago. Lot # 1 is completely within the UMR and Lot # 3 is in both UMR & RR5. The building envelope in lot # 2 is in the UMR zone. It was stated that the disturbed area for lots 2 & 3 totals less than ½ acre and only for the roadway. Sec. 5 of the subdivision regs reviewed. Mr. Chesbrough stated the reason behind creating the panhandle on lot # 2 is to give it access a stream and wetlands as well as provide protection for the stream/wetlands. There will be no reserved strips. Limits of clearing are shown on the plat. It was determined setbacks will be met within the building limits. Mr. Jones stated this project within itself will not create a traffic problem , his concern continues with the additional subdivisions being proposed and creating more cars on the road. A proposed single lane bridge with steel beams etc. is to be built going over a span of 58-60’ to lot # 3. It will need to be reviewed by the Fire Department. This will require an Alteration Permit from the state. It was stated no further development would take place within the proposed lots. Easements will be required. Road to be 12’ wide. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: project # 3382 with the following CONDITIONS:

   

 

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

(2)   A copy of the covenants re: easements shall be provided for the record. 

(3)   A letter from the Stowe Fire Department shall be provided for the Board’s review indicating they are satisfied with the proposed bridge construction.

(4)   An “ability to serve” letter shall be obtained for the record from the Stowe Electric Department.   

Mr. Pineles seconded the motion with Mrs.Brittin, Mr. Jones, Izzo, Leven, Ramos and Pineles voting in favor. Mr.Teffner not present.

 

Project:            Re-subdivision of Lot # 10 & 11 into 4 lots

Don Swain and Bill Henchey from Mansfield Landscaping present. Attorney William Kelk was present representing Robinson Springs Assoc. and three of the abutters. Mr. Swain stated the existing lots 10 & 11 were approved on May 26, 2005 and then modified to establish new building envelopes. Mr. Henchey stated the landscaping (trees which were to be planted because of the stripping of the area without approval) have not been put in because of the wetness of the area. He wants to do a spring planting. He stated he plans to do the reforestation right away and will have a new plan with types, sizes, and species. tape 3 side 1 RR-5 zone. Lots will be as follows: Lot # 10 will be 27 acres; lot # 11 will be 14 acres with access from Mill Lane; lot 14 will be 10+ acres with sewer by easement onto Lot # 10; and Lot 15 will be 9.1 acres with on site sewer. View Shed analysis shows there will be a horizontal view across Worcester Mt. Range to Taber Hill from lot # 14 at elevation of 1507’ and Lot # 15 will not be seen from any public vantage point. Mr. Kelk, representing RS Owners Assoc. as well as two abutters, stated Lot 11 has its access from Mill Road and asked as a condition that the driveway ( a r.o.w. by deed) that leads from Mill Road into Lot 11 not become a through road so that no one can drive into Edson Hill Road. It was agreed the parcel could be merged. The abutters (3 next to Lot 11) would like to have some restriction on construction activities, i.e none on Sundays and possibly not starting until 8:00 A.M. Mr. Swain agreed to make a restriction by deed that there will be no driveway through to Edson Hill and no construction on Sundays. A letter from Michael Mandigo from the Stowe Water Department expresses concern that any well drilled on the lots be drilled to public standards and that the Town have the right to review the plans. Mr. Swain stated the applicant has no objection to that. Sec. 5 reviewed. Mr. Jones suggested the Board see a reforestation plan of the areas of the 4 lots, of which there are two huge areas and how it will be cultivated back into its natural state. Mr. Henchey agreed to produce a new plan for all 4 lots. RHOD: testimony was that Lots 10,11 14 & 15 will not be seen from any public vantage points. Access to lots 10, 14 and 15 are by way of a private drive, which also serves other lots. Mr. Pineles moved to RECESS to June 19, 2007 so that the applicant can respond to the following issues with Mr. Ramos seconding and all in favor. 

No cut zones shown on plat

New landscaping/reforestation plan for all 4 lots, including phasing

Details of the septic systems on Lot # 14

Stowe Electric Dept letter

Wells addressed to satisfy the Water Dept.

Wetlands/clearing limits

Address access to Lot 11 off Mill Road

Fire Dept approval

                         

Remember VT/Katies Restaurant: They would like the option of having either office or retail space as Spruce Peak Realty may wish to put an office there for 6 months instead of the restaurant. Same parking requirements. Mr. Izzo stated he felt it needs to be known what will be done, i.e. what will be in the windows, will the lights be on all night, store front and Mr. Pineles agreed. Mr. Baker said they wanted to put a gondola outside and he said no. Treat as a minor.

 

Barr Law Office has a water problem in the rear of the building and need to do a 10’ bump-out which will not be seen from the public view. Treat as a minor.

 

 

Charkalis did an illegal removal of a dormer but is nevertheless returning the building to its original roofline. Going to the SHPC. Members felt it could be treated as a minor.

 

Partridge Inn did an illegal construction by removing a door/window. Going to SHPC.

 

Mr. Baker brought up the issue of solar panels in the RHOD and Historic zones.

He said they will be coming to the Board and there are no regulations in place at this time.

 

Elections to take place at the June 19, 2007 meeting.

 

Meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Barbara S. Allaire

                                           Development Review Board

                                                   May 22, 2007

                                                 Special Meeting

 

A special meeting of the Development Review Board was held Tuesday, May 22, 2007 starting at 6:00 P.M. in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building.

 

Members present: Larry Jones, Susan Brittin, Ed Izzo, Dean Pineles, Don Ramos and Brian Leven. Absent: Ted Teffner.

 

Also present: Rich Baker, Zoning Director, Ed Rovetto, Kim Brown, Julian Bartlett, Quinto Rovetto and Scott Monroe, Stowe Reporter.

 

Project:          Requesting approval to expand parking lot and installation of deck with seating for 18. (Recessed from 5/15/07)

Zone:                MRV

Kim Brown was present and described the changes to the revised parking plan. The site plan includes a parking needs tabulation that indicates 64 spaces are required. The proposed parking will have 60 spaces. This allows for the retention of the two large white pines which would have been cut under the earlier proposal. Additionally, three of the parking spaces in the center section and one on the west side are eliminated from the earlier proposal. Mr. Brown stated they are sacrificing the 4 spaces in order to leave an additional 10’ of space in the green belt. The traveled way will be reduced from 22’ to 21’. The lot will be paved and striped as formerly agreed to. Mr. Izzo referred to Sec. 22.1 D, which states, “Parking facilities shall be designed to minimize the visibility of parked vehicles from off-site through location, landscaping and screening. Parking shall generally be located to the rear of interior side (side not fronting on public road) of buildings and large, uninterrupted expanses of parking should be avoided.” Mr. Izzo felt the Board would be increasing the area on non-compliance and the number of seats could be reduced. Every time an applicant comes to the Board with a new application, Mr. Izzo felt they have to comply with the bylaws. Mr. Pineles stated he was one who had concerns about losing the green space and felt the proposal was a reasonable compromise, in that the proposal leaves a lot more green space and includes additional screening which will help minimize the visual impact while preserving 10’ more of green space. Mr. Izzo continued to argue the bylaws couldn’t be changed to accommodate an applicant. Mr. Ramos read sections of the Town Plan, specifically page 49, referring to the creation of the MRV, which proposes that growth, and high-density development should be encouraged in the MRV. Mr. Ramos stated he did share the concerns of others about reducing the green space, but felt the plan addresses the district, and consequently he was more comfortable with the present plan. Mr. Rovetto sated he has tried to comply after coming to the board 7 times and is trying to run a business. Mr. Izzo stated the Board couldn’t take economics in to consideration. Mr. Leven felt the plan as presented goes further than the bylaw requires, however he did agree with not losing green space. Mr. Izzo stated what presently existing is grand fathered; the Board cannot increase non-compliance and cannot adjust the bylaws to meet the needs of the applicant. Mr. Jones stated he did not see the parking lot as non-conforming or non-complying. Mr. Brown stated it has always been the intent to screen and landscape the parking lot and this will be a better environment, which he feels will address the Board’s concerns. Mrs. Brittin agreed the proposed plan is better than the original plan and represents a good faith effort to address the concerns expressed by Board members. Mr. Jones felt either proposal falls within the bylaws but the question is, is the Board willing to accept the revised proposal which calls for the elimination of 4 parking spaces. Mr. Jones did note Mr. Izzo’s objections. Mr. Izzo stated he felt to adjust the bylaws would be a huge mistake. Mr. Pineles made mention that the two pine trees will be saved which is a plus and felt the proposal would be an enhancement. Mr. Leven said he felt the concerns of Mr. Izzo and felt the green space and traffic flow have been addressed. The proposed landscaping plan calls for a screening hedge between this property and the Riverside Inn. The 48’ long hedge consists of 7’ tall northern which cedars planted at 18” on center. This hedge will be located approximately 9’ from the edge of the parking area parallel to the Inn driveway and will be approximately 21’ from the boundary line. Staircase: The proposal consists of a covered staircase being constructed on the north elevation, which will not come out further than the existing landing. A window 36” x 62” is being replaced with a door 36” x 78” and will be locked with a deadbolt in which the key will be under the management’s control. In addition, a sound panel will be installed in the door in order to mitigate noise during music events. The deck was approved in 2006 for 18 seats. Sec. 4.7 Review: the need for additional sewage flow will have to be confirmed; it was found that traffic will have no additional impact as it was purchased as a 139 seat restaurant and now will have fewer seats; an agreement has been reached with the owners of Riverside Inn. Mr. Izzo felt the agreement was only for Riverside Inn and music and noise could affect others in the area. Members felt noise has been somewhat mitigated by having all patrons off the deck at 10 P.M. and the panel in the door and windows. Mr. Ramos felt the procedures being proposed would help the noise issue. Mr. Izzo questioned using a dead bolt in a public building, as everyone needs to be able to get out and use it as an exit. Mr. Brown stated he deals with Labor & Industry and they would approve it. A discussion followed re: the dead bolt with questions as to the use. Members agreed that a condition of approval should be the submission of documentation from the Vermont Department of Public Safety to the Zoning Administrator approving locking the new deck door during certain hours of operation. Mr. Bartlett (owner of Riverside Inn and in the audience) stated he liked the new parking plan with the trees assuming all the conditions of their understanding are met, i.e. no more than 18 people on the deck and no people on the deck after 10 P.M. Project compatible with the Municipal Plan. Storm Water Management: tape 1 side 2 Ken Strong’s concerns at the last meeting about the ditch in the rear, which drains onto the Shed property, were addressed. Mr. Brown stated the construction, which they will be doing, would not affect the natural swale. Mr. Rovetto said he had it cleaned out after a storm. Lighting: Lights are shown on the existing plan, shielded down lights with 175 watt bulbs. Deck lighting was approved when the deck was approved. Mr. Brown stated two of the light posts in the parking area might have to be moved. There will not be any lighting over the stairwell on the west elevation as it only provides access to a space used as workshop and storage. Mrs.Brittin referred to storm water management under Sec. 4.15(1)(B) and asked if there does not need to be a plan in place. Mr. Jones felt it would only come into play with the parking lot. Mr. Baker stated that section of the bylaws pertains to any construction and will be addressed by the Town. Mr. Bartlett stated his concern is that the deck accommodates no more than 18 patrons and that it does not become an extension of the bar. Mr. Izzo reiterated that in recent years there is a lot of sensitivity in Town with respect to noise. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: Project # 3364 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 water and sewer capacity to serve letter from the Town shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator.

   (3) Documentation from the Vermont Department of Public Safety shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator approving locking the new deck door during certain hours of operation.

   (4) The applicant shall submit an elevation of the easterly side indicating the proposed lighting.

   (5) A revised site plan based upon a survey shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator that more accurately reflects the proposed changes.

   (6) There shall be no occupancy of the deck after 10 P.M.

   (7) Not more than 18 persons will use the deck at any one time.

   (8) Music played on the deck shall not be audible at the Riverside Inn property boundary.

   (9) The cedar hedge along the Riverside Inn property boundary shall be trimmed to maintain it at a height no greater than 10 feet.

 (10) Deck lighting will be turned off when the deck is not in use.

 (11) The parking lot shall be paved and striped and indicate the handicap spaces. 

 

Mr. Pineles seconded the motion with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Ramos, Leven, Pineles, Jones and Izzo voting in favor. No one voted no. Mr. Teffner was not present at the meeting.

 

Stowe Club Highlands will be returning to the Board June 19^th with revised declarations. The Board suggested it be put on the July 10 agenda. A copy of the new declarations has been sent to the Town Attorney.

 

There have been applications filed for a solar panel in the RHOD and one on a Historic building.

 

Topnotch: It has been brought to Mr. Baker’s attention that a tent has been put up where the wedding tent was standing. 

 

Topnotch re: Tennis Event: The question is, do they need to come before the Board. They need to submit an application for a temporary structure. Plan is to locate down at the end of the field where the Craft Show as well as other events has been in the past.

Found a 1978 approval for a previous tennis tournament, which went to the BOA and was approved. Topnotch claims they have an ongoing use of the field so a permit is not needed. Mr. Baker has asked for a submission of documents. Mr. Baker stated he has to make a decision and asked for the Board’s comments. Mr. Izzo stated he did not buy using the logic of a permit in 1978. There will be vendors involved etc and the Board needs to know what is being planned. The Selectboard reviews essentially the same criteria as the DRB in conditional use review when it issues a Special Event permit. Mr. Izzo stated this is a private event and there has to be some sort of conditions and what would prevent the Mt. Company from coming in for something similar. There are procedures which have to be followed, stated Mr. Izzo. Need to know what the impacts will be, especially traffic plan control etc. Mr. Baker said the question is, because it will be in an area that has had events, does that require acquiring a new permit. Mr. Pineles asked what the Board would address in its review that the Selectboard does not. Mr. Baker has asked for information so he can make a determination. Mr. Leven stated the Board needs to be cautious not to set a precedent. Mr. Jones stated the Board couldn’t satisfy the time frame for the procedures, which need to be followed. There is a huge infrastructure that needs to be in place, stated Mr. Pineles. The Board came to no consensus, although some felt it needed to come before the Board, and Mr. Baker stated it is his decision to make. 

 

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 P.M.  

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Barbara S. Allaire