Development Review Board

                                                        June 5, 2007

 

The regular meeting of the Stowe Development Review Board was held Tuesday, June 5, 2007 starting at 5:00 P.M.

 

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

Also present: Rich Baker, Zoning Director and those listed in the minutes book.

 

Project:           Change roof on Historic Building (postponed 5/15; requesting to postpone to 6/19 for SHPC review).

Mr. Teffner moved to POSTPONE to June 19, 2007 at the applicant’s request, seconded by Mrs. Brititn with all in favor. 

 

Project:            Appealing Zoning Administrator’s decision regarding expiration of permit (request postponement to 6/19/07 to coordinate review with related application)

Mr. Teffner moved to POSTPONE to JUNE 19, 2007 at the applicant’s request. Mr. Ramos seconded the motion with all in favor.

 

Project:         Add a screened porch and exterior deck in RHOD

Present was Milford Cushman, Architect for the applicant and stated he felt it should be considered a minor, as the deck/porch will not be seen from any public vantage point. The porch and deck with stairs will be located on the side of the house facing the mountain. Property is located on the corner of Billings Hill and Robinson Springs Roads. Materials to be used will match the existing house. Plans are for two ceiling lights in the porch and removing the two lights which are now by the side of the existing door. Mr. Baker had visited the site and did not feel there would be any view from off site. Mr. Pineles moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law treating the project as a minor. Mrs. Brittin seconded the motion with the usual change condition. All voted in favor of the motion.

 

Project:           Construct a tree house in the RHOD

Present were Matthew Strong, Architect and Andrew Ziminsky, Property Manager.

Mr. Ziminsky stated the floor of the 14’ x 16’tree house will be up at the 10’ level, with the roof ridge at 25’ above grade. He stated there will be no tree cutting or trimming involved before or after the project is completed. The building will be constructed of cedar with a driftwood color (similar to the trees in the area). Plans are for a twig like design around the bottom of the house which will help to conceal it. The tree house will be accessed by a trail, used by the grandchildren and possibly adults and will be approximately 200- 250 yards from the house (cannot be or will not be accessed by vehicles in the future). A discussion took place about any possible view from off site. Mr. Ziminsky showed photos taken from the Rec Path and stated there is a bowl within the trees which can barely be seen. The view window is approximately 8’ across, with a ridge behind. Mr. Ziminsky stated it will be maintained and managed by him so will not get to be in disrepair. Mr. Izzo stated it would have been helpful to have a cross section of the area to determine any possible view. Mr. Izzo asked if there will be lights and there is no power to the tree house. Mr. Ziminsky stated it is possible to have gaslights on occasion, but the tree house will not have permanent gaslights. Mr. Strong said there are glass windows, but he has offset them so the least amount of glass possible could reflect the sun. Mr. Jones stated the RHOD review does not require the project be invisible. Sec. 16 reviewed by the Board. Mr. Pineles referred to Page 16.14 of the bylaws and read aloud, “…there will be no significant exposure of buildings et.c” Mr. Jones felt the materials to be used and the design will help alleviate any view. Mr. Leven asked if there was another location and Mr. Strong said no, some of the beech trees in the area are not healthy and trees are limited as the maples and hemlock are not close together. Mr Pineles asked if the house is in a location where others in town will find it. Mr. Ziminsky said absolutely not, and he is at the property every day. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: project # 3400 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 trees will be cut or cleared for the construction of the tree house on either the up or down slope

(3)   No permanent lighting will be used, including gaslights.

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

 

Project:           Final Approval for a Five (5) Lot Subdivision

Paul Reed present on behalf of the owner. This is the same plan as the Board previously reviewed and approved on 5/19/07. The only outstanding issue was the location of the fire pond which will now be on the property near the original house site (and will not be installed until the first house is under construction). The name of the road has not yet been selected and needs to be on the final plat. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in re: project # 3413 with the following CONDITIONS:

(1)   The name of the road shall be approved by the 911 Coordinator and on the final plat

(2)   All Preliminary Approval Conditions shall remain in force with the exception of # 3 (proposed fire pond).

Mr. Pineles seconded the motion. Mrs.Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Jones, Teffner, Ramos, Leven and Pineles voting in favor. No one voted against.

 

Project:          Amendment to clearing area/landscaping plan for Lot # 3

   Present were David Sunshine and Don Harrington. Mr. Jones told members they would be looking at Sec. 5 and state statutes. Mr. Jones explained the lot conforms to existing regulations, but the use and the existing buildings are non-conforming. The RR 2 zoning district contemplates a single family dwelling on a 2 acre lot. This project is four dwellings on a 3 acre lot. The pre-existing use is 4 single family dwellings and the requested project is to increase by 50% of the aggregate square footage of this non-conforming use, as provided in Sec. 5.1(3)D. Only the existing building closest to the road encroaches upon the setbacks, but the new building will reduce the degree of non-compliance, as provided in Sec. 5.2(4). Mr. Jones stated the project is not increasing the degree of non-compliance and felt the Board could proceed subject to the Conditional Use review. Mr. Ramos stated he was comfortable treating the 4 buildings as an aggregate and not individually. After further discussion, the Board determined that the Regulations can be interpreted so as to allow this project, subject to Conditional Use review. tape 2 side 1  Sec. 4.7 reviewed. Plans are to replace the septic system; the project complies with the Municipal Plan in that development is contemplated along River Road; the main driveway is shared access to houses 1,2 & 3, and a second drive will go to house #4; each dwelling will have a 2-car garage; the existing cedar hedge will remain in place as well as the cedar hedge along the second driveway. Two existing trees on the plan will need to be removed. A general construction permit is required; buildings are not historic which has been documented. The plan is to do one building at a time, stated Mr. Sunshine. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: project # 3377 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 General Construction Permit shall be received for the file.

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

 

Location:         551 Edson Hill Road

Project:            Request approval to allow wedding ceremonies as previously approved under BA 11-060.02) Recessed from 5/1/07.

Mr. Jones outlined for the audience how he would run the meeting, which in turn would allow for interested persons to speak. Mr. Barnes was present and thanked members for their service, speaking for everyone who comes before the Board. In December of ’04 he brought a petition (application) to allow for small weddings. This was approved for 1 year with several conditions. It was found to be an accessory use to the property. At the end of the first year, he returned to the Board seeking another approval, which was granted. He said he was before the Board at this time for approval for the exact same proposal. Mr. Barnes said he does not charge for the use of the facility for weddings but does ask for a donation, which goes towards taking care of the animals. His plan is to have no more than 4 weddings over the period 6/4 and end 10/15/07. Mr. Barnes said he could possibly have a small tent/structure for the animals or for a violinist but is not an item in the application. Mr. Ramos asked how it got approved as an event type proposal and the answer was, as an accessory use to a commercial riding stable. (Sec. 6.2(1)K). Mr. Jones suggested reviewing the Conditional Use criteria in Sec. 4.7 of the bylaws as a methodology for uncovering all of the facts surrounding this project. Ability to serve/na; traffic on roads: Mr. Barnes stated any traffic coming to the property for a wedding will be maintained on site; character of the area: Mr. Barnes stated a ceremony will end at sunset and be limited to a maximum of 100 people with no amplified music. Mr. Fisher in the audience responded to the character of the area issue by saying trucks deliver large tents in front of the two properties with the tents being up for several days; with 100 people there are several cars and people walk around in front of their kitchen windows which is intrusive to neighbors. In the last instance, stated Mr. Fisher, when the application was denied, there was strong support from the neighbors for the denial and felt it a stretch to connect horse riding and a wedding. Mr. Barnes agreed at the wedding for 300 there were large tents, but participants were bussed up Edson Hill. This was an exception to the permit (‘05). Vickie Boyea in the audience spoke in favor of the weddings, as did Karen from Stowehof. Bylaws then in effect: Mr. Jones stated he was still on a fact finding mission so did not address this at the time; Adverse effect on scenic and beauty of the area; Mr. Barnes stated no structures are proposed, ceremonies will be small and few in nature (same response as in 2004). Mr. Fisher felt a tent is a structure and Mr. Barnes agreed to have one tent 10’ x 10’. Water or air pollution: nothing proposed stated Mr. Barnes and no music will be amplified if there is indeed any music; Mr. Fisher said he felt cars and trucks between the two properties (150 yards) and 100 people is air pollution. Compatibility with Town Plan, n/a; Adequacy of the driveway; Mr, Barnes stated there is no change in the driveway; Parking: all parking will be on the property in a gated area; Mr. Pineles asked if there is another access and Mr. Barnes stated the road being used is totally on his property and he allows the Fishers to use it. There is a second entrance down the road which would make the parking less desirable; tape 2 side 2 Letters (in file) from interested abutting property owners and neighbors. Mr. Izzo stated it was approved in 2004, but this application is dramatically different and at a level which is manageable; and the Board could condition the approval to have the tent down by Monday. Mr. Ramos asked the question if weddings are accessory to a riding stable and also is one tent for 100 people adequate. He continued saying Sec. 6.3 is very limited, and speaks mostly of facilities. Mr. Leven said he was having the same problem and in order to be an accessory use, it has to be customarily incidental to a permitted use which is the stable. Is having weddings customarily incidental? Mr. Baker stated the definition states incidental and subordinate. Mr. Teffner stated the last time the answer was no, it was not incidental to a riding stable, therefore it was denied. Mrs. Brittin stated one would customarily go to a stable if they were to want a horse wedding. Mr. Ramos felt an accessory use is a stretch. Mr. Izzo said it is a stretch but this proposal is much smaller and with much less impact. Mr. Teffner stated the principal is the accessory use, which is separate from the numbers. Mr. Pineles asked what happens if someone comes in and asks for a much larger wedding. Mr. Jones referred to Findings of Fact for the 2006 decision, which was based on the application and the conclusion stated the proposed use is not is an accessory use based on the size and scope and is not incidental and subordinate to a small riding stable. Mr. Teffner stated he did not vote with that in mind and said he would have a hard time adjusting to the principle based on size and numbers. Mr. Pineles says the definition has both incidental and subordinate so the Board would have to find that a wedding is both incidental and subordinate to a riding stable. He asked if the Board should consider the size of the lot in the zone, which might alleviate some of the impact. Mr. Teffner felt he could make the decision regardless of the numbers to satisfy the 3 conditions. Mr. Leven stated he could not find it incidental and subordinate to a conditional use. Mrs. Brittin had expressed herself and asked where someone would go to have a wedding involving horses. Mr. Jones stated he was party to the original decision and felt the choice was wrong and upon reanalysis, he stated he could not get comfortable with the idea that weddings are customarily incidental and subordinate to a riding stable regardless of the size. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: 3373 with all former conditions (May -2004), plus a maximum of 4 weddings during the season and 1 tent with a maximum size 10’x 10’’. Mr.Teffner seconded. In calling the question and asked if there was further discussion, Mr Pineles asked if it were possible for the Board to consider as a condition of approval that the guests be required to give a donation to support the animal relief effort of the riding stable, which is the principle business. Discussion. Mr. Ramos asked what the primary purpose of the horses is. Mr. Barnes responded that the purpose of the farm is to rescue the animals, but we also live there. Mr. Izzo withdrew his motion as did Mr. Teffner his second. Mrs. Brittin moved to RECESS to JULY 10, 2007, seconded by Mr. Ramos with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Ramos, Leven, Jones and Teffner voting in favor of the recess.    

Project:           Requesting a front yard variance to construct a 3-bedroom house.

Mr. Hanson stated he owns both sides of the Nebraska Valley Road with a house and pond presently on the south side. There are 2 lots on the north side of the road, which were created in 1967 & 68. These lots have septic approval with leach fields in. One lot has a camp on it. Mr. Jones referred to Sec. 4.6(2) small lots. The lot proposed for the variance is 1.8 acres so under Sec. 6.5 would use the RR 2 regulations, which requires 60’ front yard setback. If the applicant used the minimum the rear of the house would be in the wetlands (flood plain). The request is for a 50’ setback variance. Discussion took place about how and if one can build in the flood plain. Mr. Pineles asked why the lots could not be combined and relocate the house to the other side where there is a greater distance from the road. Mr. Hanson stated there is already a structure (camp) on the other lot. Mr. Teffner stated Mr. Hanson did not apply for the other lot and the Board needs to address the lot he was seeking the variance for. Mr. Hanson said one couldn’t build things with enclosed rooms in a designated flood plain, except possibly on peers etc. It would not be a permitted use in a flood plain. Mr. Jones referred to Sec. 24.6(3), the criteria for granting a variance – A. The conditions were created by the flood zone; B. without the variance, the project cannot conform to the setbacks as the other side of the lot is very steep, plus it is a pre-existing lot; C. the hardship was not created by the applicant, as it is a pre-existing lot; D. the area is residential, and other house are built close to the road and members found it will not be a detriment to the public welfare; E. testimony is that to have reasonable use of the property, the house requires a 50’ setback which is the minimum because of the flood plain in relationship to the boundary. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stating that the requested variance meets the criteria required. Mr. Pineles seconded the motion with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Pineles, Ramos, Leven, Jones and Teffner voting in favor of the motion. No one voted against. All members present.     

 Mr. Pineles moved to re-elect all present officers for the coming year as follows:

         Chairman: Larry Jones

         Vice Chair: Theodore Teffner

         Clerk:

 

         Secretary:    Barbara S. Allaire

Mrs. Brittin seconded the motion with all members voting in favor of the slate of officers.

 

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

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Barbara S. Allaire

                                             Development Review Board

                                                      Town of Stowe

                                                       June 19, 2007

 

The regular meeting of the Stowe Development Review Board was held Tuesday, June 19, 2007 starting at 5:00 P.M. in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building.

 

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

 

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

 

5:00 P.M. Project # 3320, Slayton, et al, 1940 Mountain Road officially WITHDRAWN.

Project:           Requesting modification to facade

Mrs. Brittin moved to POSTPONE to 7/10/07 at the applicant’s request, seconded by Mr. Ramos with all in favor.

 

Project:               Change roof design on historic building

 

Project:            Construction of a temporary tennis stadium and related facilities

Present to explain the project were Darrow Mansfield of Mansfield Associates, Shawnnalea Young, TN; Mark D’Angelo, TN and Andres Chmura, Grand Slam Tennis, Police Chief Kenneth Kaplan and others. Mr. Jones told members the project had been approved by the Selectboard with a condition requiring DRB approval. Mr. Mansfield described the project as the Fed Cup finals to be held at TN on July 14^th and 15^th and proposing to construct a temporary 4100 seat stadium located on the old tennis court site behind the racquet club. Cars will be entering the lowest gate, and the lowest filed will be used for parking. Mr. Jones stated the reason this project is before the DRB is because the temporary structure requires Conditional Use Review under Sec. 4.7: Capacity of existing facilities: Stowe Fire Department and Stowe Rescue (will have it’s own shelter) will be on site. Mr. Izzo referred back to the time the Board approved concerts at the Mountain and the problems with traffic at that time. Chief Kaplan explained the proposed plan to eliminate traffic jams, such as signs will be at the Moscow turn directing cars to the Barrow Road thus mitigating substantial traffic coming into the village; a uniformed officer will be placed at the intersection of Luce Hill and Mountain Road; 2 officers will be at the entrance to the Lower Meadow directing traffic into the parking area. At the entrance to the Lower Meadow, Mountain Road will be divided by cones into 3 lanes of traffic to allow for a left turn into the parking area with minimum backup. The parking lot will be open at 8:00 A.M. at which time people will start arriving. TN is creating activities after the matches so there will not a mass exist onto the roads. Ms. Young stated events start at 1:30 P.M. with 2 matches on Sat and 3 on Sunday. If there is rain, the matches will be pushed back a day, (i.e. it could be Sun and Mon). Traffic impact addressed; Character of the area: it is a resort area; Bylaws in effect:  directional signs will go up the day of the event (or at the earliest Friday afternoon), stated Ms. Young;   

Adverse effect on the scenic or natural beauty:  this is a temporary structure which will be removed within less than a week after the event; water, air or noise pollution: Mr. Jones asked if there will be anything amplified and Mr.        said that in previous events there is a band in the stands playing music between the games and cheering as there is in any sporting event. The music is not amplified, but there is an announcer who will be. Ms. Young stated the potential noise is only during events and not after. Friday night there will be a dinner at the resort with no amplified music, and all activities are within buildings on the tennis site. Mr. Schmura stated the band consists of drums, horns etc; Municipal Plan: project found to be compatible; Adequacy of driveway access:  Mr. Mansfield indicated that the majority of the parking will occur in the lower meadow and shows 1500 spaces; uniformed officers will on site as well as TN representatives to manage the traffic. Mr. Ramos asked if there would be parking on Rte 108 and Mr. Mansfield said, “absolutely not”. Plans are to use the village shuttle; some persons will be staying at the hotel. Mr. Pineles asked if every car pulling into the parking lot will have to stop and Mr. Mansfield said yes but some tickets will have parking included etc. He said there would be provision to get them off the road while they stop to pay. VIP tickets include parking at a separate site. Golf carts will be used to assist in transporting people from the Lower Meadow to the event site. A portion of the Rec Path will be closed off for the events. If needed emergency personnel have at least 3 points of ingress and egress to the Lower Meadow, even with a majority of the parking occurring there. Landscaping, screening, storm-water management: NA. Driveway access etc: already addressed. Mr. Ramos asked about security other than SPD. Ms. Young USTA is providing 24-hour security service with 50 people throughout the tennis area; TN has its own security. Mr. Kaplan stated there would be approximately 12-15 officers throughout the tournament. There will only be security lighting with no lighting of the courts. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: project # 3434 for this one event 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 its enactment, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.

(2)   There shall be no noise heard beyond the property line after 10:00 P.M. 

Mrs. Brittin seconded the motion with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Teffner, Izzo, Pineles, Ramos, Leven and Jones voting in favor. No one voted no. All members were present.

 

Project:           Install solar panels on historic building

Present were John and Donna Adams, landowners. Mrs. Adams stated the 4’ x 8’ solar hot water panel which will be affixed to the southern side of the dwelling which is historic, will be difficult to see form the bridge when one is in a car as it is behind evergreen trees. The panel is made of glass tubing. The SHPC unanimously recommended approval on 6/12/07. Mrs. Adams suggested the process had been cumbersome to go through. Mr. Pineles observed that panels will be seen more and more and suggested the Planning Commission address solar panels. Since there were no further questions regarding the project, Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law taking into consideration the recommendation of the Stowe Historic Preservation Commission re: project # 3425, seconded by Mr. Pineles. CONDITION:

(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 enactment, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.

Voting in favor of the motion: Mrs Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Pineles, Ramos, Leven, Teffner and Jones. No one voted against.

 

Project: removal of dormer

   Mr. Charkalis was present and stated the contractor was unaware he had to come before the SHPC even though the building itself is not considered historic. The dormer has already been removed. The SHPC recommended approval on 6/12/07. Mrs Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: project # 3417 and based on the recommendation of the Stowe Historic Preservation Commission 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 enactment, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.

Mr. Teffner seconded the motion with all members in favor.

 

Project: Proposing to install vents

Present was Jeff Hill, contractor. Plans are to install 3- 1’ x 6” round vents with thermostats tape 1 side 2 in the gables of the building. Mr. Baker stated he had spoken to Retrovest about dimming and tilting the sign lights. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: project #3424 and based on the recommendation of the SHPC date 6/12/07. Seconded by Mr. Pineles All members in favor. CONDITION:

(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 enactment, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.

 

Project:            Replace window with door on historic building

Present was Sam Scofield, Architect who explained the State Fire Marshall had required a door be installed instead of the existing window on the street side of the building. The work has been done except for the installation of the actual door. Patterson & Smith contractors did get a state permit, but erred in not getting approval from the DRB, although they did go to the SHPC who recommended approval on June 14, 2007. Their approval recommended a window door similar to the existing door. Mr. Scofield stated there is no other option because there are stairs from the upstairs apartments with a landing inside the building which needs access onto the porch. Mr. Pineles moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: project # 3433 with the recommendation of the SHPC using option C for a door submitted as evidence on 6/19/07 with the following   CONDITIONS:

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

Mrs. Brittin seconded the motion with all members in favor.

 

Project:           Requesting approval to install solar panels on dwelling

Mrs. Brittin seconded the motion. Those voting in favor of the motion were Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Jones, Pineles, Izzo, Ramos and Leven. Abstaining was Mr. Teffner who said there were too many issues involved and he was not satisfied with the process. No one voted no. It was agreed there are no guidelines for the Board to review. Mr. Leven stated he would like to keep in mind the size as it pertains to efficiency.

 

Project:            Single family dwelling of which part is in the RHOD  

Milford Cushman, Architect present and stated the location is in the Barnes Hill- Waterbury Waterworks road area with the rear portion of the garage in the RHOD. Mr. Baker stated he was at the site twice and felt there will be no visual impact because if one could see the house, the rear of the garage could not be seen. In 2006 a pond was installed and classified as a minor buy the Board. Mr. Cusham stated there are very tall trees, which will be retained with a very narrow right angle view shed. Roof will be of red cedar shingles. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: 3437 and classify as a minor in RHOD, seconded by Mr. Pineles with those voting in favor: Mrs Brittin, Mr. Jones, Ramos, Pineles, Leven, Teffner and Izzo. No one voted against.

 

 

6:40Board discussed a potential change to existing procedure, with members expressing a variety of opinions. Mr. Jones told members he would retain the existing procedure for the time being, but suggested that the Board take this up and discuss it further, and make a decision sometime in the near future.

 

Mr. Pineles told members he read in the business section of the paper an article saying Ted Teffner was recently inducted into the Hall of Fame of Broadcasters. Congratulations to you Ted. Quite an accomplishment and honor.    

 

 

Project: Amending Lot # 7 setbacks from 150’ to 120’.

Mr. Baker explained that PRDs have a double setback requirement and that because this project is located in the RR-5 zoning district it was approved with a 150’ rear setback. The regulations in Sec. 18.3(1) allow the Board to waive or change this requirement if topography or other conditions so dictate. Present were Kelley Lyden and Dean Ramos. Ms. Lyden stated that lot # 7 is 1.51 acres and that because of the rear setback requirement any house built on the lot would have to be located too close to the cul-de-sac. There is a no-cut zone which will be increased with any change to the rear setback requirement. Ms. Lyden stated they are the developers of the entire project. Ms. Lyden stated in the past they have cut very little and the house would be moved straight back, cutting back only enough for the house to be located. There is a slope involved to place the house. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: project 3432 allowing for the double setback reduction from 150’ to 120’ with the provision that the no cut zone will be pushed back accordingly based on the topography and other conditions. Mr. Teffner seconded the motion with Mrs.Brittin, Mr. Jones, Izzo, Ramos, Leven, Pineles and Teffner voting in favor.

    CONDITION:

(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.

 

Project:          Re-subdivision of lots #10 & 11 into 4 lots (recessed from 5/15/07)

Bill Hinchey and Eric Lande present. Mr. Hinchey had a reforestation plan for Lots #10 & #11. Mr. Lunde stated the connector piece, which is a separate deeded piece, will be merged with lot # 11. The previous reforestation plan was to plant 48 trees in a very large section of the property and members required a different plan with additional plantings. Mr. Hinchey stated that the existing clear cut cannot be seen from the roadside, house site or hillside, so he addressed the aesthetics from the view point of the house looking down. Mr. Hinchey suggested some cutting in the corners to allow for natural re-growth. He said they have put back the 48 trees on each lot and are proposing to plant red maple, white and gray birch, ash etc., all 2-3.5” caliper. tape 2 side 2 Mr. Hinchey said he did not see this so much as a reforestation plan but more as landscaping with different sizes and species. Mr. Jones felt none of the lots are visible from off site after it was grossly over-cut. The conditions of the 5/15/07 meeting are being accomplished. There will be no access to the area off Mill Lane. Mr. Hinchey stated there will be no cutting outside the building envelope unless trees are dead or deteriorating. A condition is to add the setbacks to the plat. The well protection area needs to be shown on the plat as well. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: project # 3363 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.

(2)   All standard conditions pertaining to final subdivision plat.

(3)   The applicant shall submit the standard Stowe Electric Department letter.     

Mr. Ramos seconded the motion with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Ramos, Leven, Teffner, Pineles and Jones voting in favor.        

 

Project:           Proposing to expand a non-conforming use by adding two multi-family dwelling units.

Present were Robert Beattie and Darrow Mansfield. Mr. Jones explained to members that if the Board should deny project 3436, they would consider the appeal in project 3398. Mr. Mansfield stated there is 3.2 acres on the property located at the corner of Stagecoach Road and Rte 100.This property currently has 8 pre-existing multi-family dwelling units on 3.2 acres in RR-2. Normally only one unit would be permitted. The applicant would like to expand the floor area by 50% and create 2 additional units. This was permitted in 1977, started, but then never completed. The issue is whether the 50% expansion rules allows for additional dwelling units, or just increased size. A discussion took place with Mr. Jones stating he felt the number of dwelling units allowed falls under dimensional requirements. Mr. Mansfield argued there is a district that allows for the expansion and felt dimensional requirements are like setbacks etc. Mr. Baker said there is no change in the building so dimensional requirements does not come into play. Mr. Jones disagreed. Mr. Beattie stated he got the original permit in 1971 under interim zoning, put in plumbing, electrical. Mr. Baker explained in 1977 Mr. Beattie returned and got a permit which had a 2 year expiration. Mr. Baker explained that the unfinished space is not out of compliance; it is the aggregate area of the non-conforming uses. Mr. Tefner stated this use is allowed in the district. Mr. Baker said the question is, does 50% allow an increase in density and make it more non-conforming by doing that beyond the aggregate area. Mr. Baker explained to the Board the reason for the appeal (next hearing). Mr. Ramos felt there was an intent to complete the project and comply, otherwise Mr. Beattie would not have gotten a permit. After further discussion, with no likelihood of resolution, Mrs. Brittin moved to RECESS to JULY 24, 2007, seconded by Mr. Teffner with all in favor.   

 

Project:             Appeal of Zoning Administrator’s decision regarding expiration of a permit (postponed 6/5/07)

Mrs. Brittin moved to POSTPONE to July 24, 2007, seconded by Mr.Teffner with all in favor.

Project:             Construct a 24’ x 70’ and a 60’ x 100 building and various site changes (postponed 5/15)

Present were Darrow Mansfield, Anderson Leveille and Brenda Convery. Mr. Mansfield explained the project is to build a 24’ x 70’ storage addition, one story building added to the exiting structure with a flat roof by digging out the bank, relocate the driveway and the larger addition of 60’ x 100’ will have a connector of 24’ to the existing building which will be at the level of the driveway. The proposed buildings will be steel with red steel roof. Driveway will be changed to two lane commercial drive with the parking area accommodating 20 cars. The 7 spaces already on the property are reserved to Patterson Building by easement. The existing Walker Construction storage area will go away, stated Mr. Mansfield. The project has gone to the SHPC for review, however its letter of project recommendation requested additional review of several components of the overall project. Mr. Mansfield stated the project will be done in two-phases. Phase one is the bunker and parking area. Mr. Leveille, as a business person, said he was concerned with the process taking so long as he had hoped to get started right away. Mr. Pineles stated he was concerned because the SHPC wants to review again and usually the Board sees the project after they have made recommendations. Mr. Teffner said he felt the SHPC was concerned with the exterior materials. Mr. Teffner suggested doing phase one and then come back with phase two as another review. Mr. Teffner moved to RECESS to JULY 24, 2007 for a site walk at 4:00 P.M., seconded by Mr. Ramos with all members in favor.

 

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

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Barbara S. Allaire