The Stowe Planning Commission held a meeting on Monday, April 30, 2007, in the Town Manager’s Office of the Akeley Memorial Building, starting at 5:30 p.m.

 

Members present: Lynn Altadonna, Chair

                                 Chuck Baraw

                                 Bob Evans

         Paul Percy

         Barbara Pfitzenmayer

         Scott Noble

        

Others present: Rich Baker, Zoning Administrator; Tom Jackman, Director of Planning; Jennifer Hezel, Zoning Assistant; Kari Dolan; Gretchen Alexander; Barry Cahoon

 

The minutes of the April 16, 2007 meeting were approved on a motion by Ms. Pfitzenmayer, seconded by Mr. Noble.

 

Mr. Jackman suggested rather than providing a Planning Director’s report, the Planning Commission take the opportunity to learn more about what it would mean to create a Fluvial Erosion Hazard District as presented by guests from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) State Rivers Program branch.

 

Members from the Department of the Environmental Conservation River Management Program presented information and data concerning what sort of regulations could be put in place, both regulatory and non-regulatory, on the West Branch River to avoid erosion damage and flooding. Furthermore, DEC River Management Program members advised the Planning Commission and Mr. Baker and Mr. Jackman that it costs taxpayers and the town money to continuously attempt to put rip-rap on the banks of and acting as armor for the West Branch River riverbeds and to channel streams to slow down what they believe and reported scientifically as inevitable erosion. Therefore, they advise to implement the Fluvial Erosion Hazard District to prevent new construction from happening in what would be this designated area.

The Planning Commission continued a discussion about Section 3 of the Zoning Regulations to address adding a section on split lots (lots lying within more than one zoning district) to clearly define how these types of lots could be developed in compliance with the Zoning Regulations going forward. Mr. Baker discussed statutes and case law with regard to this topic with the town’s attorney. While the commission appears to be leaning toward defining these regulations, as suggested by Mr. Noble, according to the number of lots rather than according to density, the Commission will revisit this discussion at a future meeting.

 

Mr. Percy drew to the attention of Mr. Baker and Mr. Jackman that front yard treatment as defined on pages 3-8 and 3-9 of the regulations as they are currently being updated is unclear and not consistent and therefore could perhaps be updated.

 

A discussion about Section 3.9 on page 3-11 of the regulations as they are currently being proposed began at this meeting. Mr. Baker and Mr. Jackman turned to the Planning Commission for guidance with regard to defining and creating a definition of aggregates of non-conforming structures and non-conforming uses by 50%.

 

The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:15 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Jennifer Hezel, Zoning Assistant