Development Review Board

                                                        Town of Stowe

                                                         July 10, 2007

 

The regular meeting of the Development Review Board was held Tuesday, July 10, 2007 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M.

 

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

                 Stowe Reporter and those listed and filed in the minutes book.

 

Project # 3371, Waterbury Road LLC, which was requesting a change in roof design for a historic building, was WITHDRAWN.

 

Project:           Revision of clearing zone on Lot # 1 and relocation of driveway on the De La Parra Vargas plan.

Present was Paul Reed who stated the owners interest in getting to Lot # 5 has changed and plans are to create an alternate route which will also serve Lots # 3, 4 and 5 which will be sold. Plans are not to abandon the original driveway, which was approved in case in the future all lots are for sale. Plans are to follow the so-called farm road, which will join the approved road. Requesting to reserve the right to the secondary access. The road goes through Lot # 1, through the open meadow. Mr. Reed stated minor clearing would take place, possibly 15 trees, which will create a lane. Discussion re: the easement across Lot # 1. Mr. Baker stated if allowed to use both drives, a 50’ r.o.w. easement would be required. Mr. Reed stated plans are for the road and power to be in by Labor Day. Mr. Pineles moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to amend the previously approved plat showing the alternative driveway with a 50’ r.o.w. and all previous CONDITIONS to remain in force. Mrs. Brittin seconded the motion with Mr. Pineles, Jones, Ramos, Leven , Izzo and Mrs. Brittin voting in favor. Mr. Teffner not present.

 

Project:           Seeking to amend clearing area/landscaping for Lot #3

(Recessed from 5/6/07, Site walk to take place at 4:00 P.M.

Mr. Jones stated a site walk took place this date at 4:00 P.M. with the Carpenters, Mr. Goodhue, Mr. Baker and Board members Mr. Ramos, Pineles, Jones, Izzo, Leven. Mrs. Brittin and Mr. Teffner not present. Present at the hearing were Mr. Goodhue and the Carpenters. (Mr. Teffner absent) and Mr. Foreman, previous owner in the audience.   

When asked, Mr. Carpenter stated that 27 trees were removed in the no-cut zone were.

Mr. Goodhue presented a proposal replacing 25 trees, that number taking into account the rights of way for the utilities and a leach field. Mr. Goodhue stated the purpose of what was being proposed is to rapidly screen the house from Taber Hill Road. Mr. Izzo described the plan indicating what has been cut, and said it is very uncharacteristic of the area. Mr. Goodhue stated in a few years, there would be total screening from the road with what is being proposed. Mr. Jones said to Mr. Carpenter that members felt he clearly bought the violation. Mr. Foreman, seller of the property and in the audience, strongly denied this saying there was never a violation, he was never asked to come to a meeting, never was told there was a violation and he took it personally for anyone to make an assumption there was a violation at the time of purchase. When asked if he cut the trees, the response was, “I put in the roads, cleared within the clearing area and created paths for all three house sites”. Mr. Izzo: “so you did not cut trees in the no-cut zone”. Answer from Mr. Foreman: “, I am not saying there were not tress cut in various spots, it was never the intent and I will not swear there wasn’t a tree taken out that shouldn’t have been, but it wasn’t intentional.” Mr. Foreman: “I am stating it is not the state the property was in when I sold it.” Mr. Reed, in the audience, said he had been involved in the proximity for some time and he estimated there has been in excess of 100 trees cut in the no-cut zone and would corroborate that the majority of cutting was done after the property was sold. Mr. Foreman stated he was in support of what the Carpenters are doing and the project and asked that the record show he was never asked to come to a meeting about the violation. He said the property looks far better than when the Carpenters purchased it. Mr. Jones stated he found the comment beneficial saying the buffer which has been created is far better than what existed. The cutting has occurred and there is no going back, it is what it is, the question is, is what the applicant has proposed a good faith effort to mitigate in order to do what the original buffer was intended to do. Mr. Izzo said it is not even close. He felt a better plan was needed, it is a precedent setting issue and there are neighbors concerns, stated Mr. Izzo. Mr. Jones said he felt the plan provides mitigation, it keeps the home site from being seen from the road etc. Mr. Izzo said there was a subdivision approved and this area which has been totally cut was a wooded area. Mr. Leven said he felt this is a good opportunity to develop a mechanism to deal with this sort of thing, a no-cut zone was approved and it is not the Board’s role to figure out who is at fault, but the Board wants to get back to where the no-cut zone was established. Mr. Leven felt it is the responsibility of whomever did the cutting to do the replacement (it could be action taken by either owner). Mr. Izzo asked if the Board goes along with this, what will we do the next time there is a violation. He said the Board approved a subdivision and it should be followed. Mr. Ramos felt it may need to be taken on a case by case basis, he did not feel it would ever be established who cut what, but reasonable judgment has to be exercised and the burden is on the Carpenters to mitigate that. He said he was not sure if the proposed plan does that. He did not feel the Carpenters did it on purpose or knowingly but it is distressing to see it. Mr. Pineles said he was sympathetic to the Carpenters and the Board does not know who did the cutting but it looks like the “moon” now which is a shame and someone bears the responsibility. The Board needs to communicate the message that when a no-cut zone is established, that is what is meant, and if there is tape 1 side 2 a violation it has to be corrected. It is probably physically impossible to put the area back to where it was because of the easements, mounds etc. Mr. Pineles said the Board needs to stick to its principles. He felt some more infill could satisfy the Board. Mr. Izzo felt more of a plan is needed with more trees. Mr. Jones stated this will be up to the owners as they have heard the Board’s concerns. Mrs. Brittin moved to RECESS to AUGUST 7, 2007, seconded by Mr. Pineles with ALL members in favor. Mr. Teffner not present.

 

Project:           Seeking to convert a Resort PUD to a PRD to allow for 13 single-family dwellings on Parcel 1 and Lots # 21 and 22.

Attorney Harold Stevens present representing the applicant. Mr. Jones stated for the record the following letters have been received from owners/interested parties: Leighton Detora, Lorig & Seven Yekhpairian, Julio & Liz Olimpio, James & Varol Trihy, Sandra & Roger Montgomery, Daniel Seff representing Lisa Mihan, David Holton, Merna DeCoveny, Bruce Morton, John Patten, Thomas Murphy, Mary & Chris Lintermann, William & Helen Lewis. Present were those listed on the sign in sheet. Attorney George Stearns appeared on behalf of Dominique Root and presented a memorandum which was not read by the Board because it had not been presented in a timely fashion. Board member Dean Pineles stated for the record that Mr. Stevens and he play golf together on a regular basis but the case has never been discussed. He felt he could evaluate the situation objectively but said if anyone had concerns he would recuse himself. Mr. Detora, in the audience, stated he would feel better if Mr. Pineles did recuse himself, which he did and did not participate in the discussion. Mr. Stevens stated the 12^th supplement declaration of Stowe Highlands was before the Board. All the property owners listed in the application took their property subject to the declaration of the entire development, so he felt a threshold showing has been made despite the objection of 12 of the approximately 55 lot owners that the applicant has the right to apply to change the development from a PUD to a PRD. Mr. Stevens recognized the objections of the other parties but felt that those are a matter of private property rights which is a matter for the Superior Court to decide not the DRB or Environmental Court. A similar application has been before the DRB under the 10^th supplement and was rejected because it did not have all property owners as applicants. Mr. Stevens felt that the court said Stowe Highlands was authorized to make a determination of property if all owners are not parties. Mr. Stevens read the Courts decision. Mr. Jones referenced the decision that was rendered in the matter of S-06-11 in July 2006 and asked Mr. Stevens how the application before the Board now is different from the application in that matter. Mr. Stevens said the first application was rejected on whether Stowe Highlands was the proper applicant so the actual merits of the application never made it to the Board. Mr. Jones:” the threshold determination in that application was whether Stowe Club Highlands had the requisite control over the entire 236 acre tract in order to develop it as a PRD”. Mr. Stevens said it was primarily objected to because the Board found that all owners had to be applicants. We are not seeking to change anything, stated Mr. Stevens. Mr. Jones said, the issue is whether the applicant has the requisite control, as provided in the definition of a PRD, and asked whether the applicant has this right to control. Mr. Stevens said it was his opinion that the 12^th supplement to 2^nd amendment declaration for the Stowe Club Property provides the applicant with the necessary right of control. Mr. Baker stated there is a difference in being an applicant for a zoning permit or conditional use and one for a PUD. The PUD definition talks about control. Mr. Jones stated he felt this applicant standing alone does not have the authority to apply as this appears to be the same issue that appeared before the Board in July 2006, the only difference being a piece of paper which says the applicant has the right to request a change from a PUD to a PRD, and he was uncomfortable in doing that. Mr. Izzo felt it is exactly the same and all owners bought into the PUD. He asked what is the difference in this application. Mr. Stevens said when owners bought, the development was subject to change. The plan has been changed throughout the years. The developer has retained the right to amend and/or change the declaration until a turn-over date, which date has not yet occurred. Mr. Stevens said this is a decision for the Superior Court to decide. Mr. Izzo to Mr. Stevens: “ after these owners bought into a PUD and now you want to change it, wouldn’t you think they (owners) would want to be a part of it?” Mr. Stevens: “we have had meetings and the majority of the people want it but 12 people do not want it. When they purchased the property it was subject to change by amendment. He asked that the Board get to the merits of the application and review the project. Mr. Jones said the court’s decision was that the applicant does not have the degree of control over the entire parcel necessary to be sole applicant in this matter. Mr. Stevens argued that the 12^th supplement provides this element of control. Mr. Ramos said it sounds like a form of eminent domain is trying to be created and that takes away the rights of some property owners for the applicant’s purposes. Mr. Stevens argued they are not taking any rights away as the applicant has the right to amend the entire plan. Mr. Ramos felt to amend the whole thing from a PUD to a PRD, “I don’t buy it”. Mr. Stevens:” I think you are making a threshold decision about private property rights and that is a mistake.” Mr. Ramos said there are 12 (20%) property owners objecting and that is considerable. He asked if the developer is the owner of record of the entire property? Mr. Stevens answered not of the entire property but the declaration gives the applicant control over the entire property. Mrs. Brittin disagreed. Mr. Detora referred to the Board’s decision of May 2004. He said there is no such things as a universal right, the declaration speaks to the covenants and addresses the land. He asked under what condition could an applicant, owner or developer on a wholesale basis modify the permits. Mr. Detora read Supreme Court findings on Planning Commissions into the record. Mr. Detora stated the applicant has not shown the Board anything, which allows them to change any part of the subdivision. Mr. Morton agreed with Mr. Detora and stated there is one relevant difference between the application currently pending before the Board and the matter decided in July 2006, in that the Environmental Court has upheld the Board’s decision and he read from the decision. 

No one can exempt himself or herself or anyone else from doing as the court decision says. Dominique Root argued with Mr. Stevens’ statement that there would not be an impact, which she said it would affect the value of her property as she purchased thinking there was going to be a hotel on that parcel (she stated Attorney Stearns would speak on her behalf). Mr. Stearns spoke to the court order, which basically says Stowe Highlands cannot act unilaterally to change the entire development ----this is a ruling of the court and that is what counts. He said this is the third time the applicant has been before the Board trying to do the same thing, tape 2 side 1 and continuedsaying the 12^th amendment (which is the only thing different) is a self-serving document and its intent is to address the deficiencies of the 10^th amendment. This application is not properly in front of the Board, stated Mr. Stearns. The applicant is only one of the 55 owners, stated Mr. Stearns, and the 12^th supplement (recorded in 12-2006) was not signed by any of the other owners. Mr. Jones said he felt one of the issues is making a distinction between what rights and privileges the developer retained and what authority (if any) has been granted by the property owners, and continued by saying he felt inadequate in making that decision. He felt it was a legal issue, recognizing it has gone to court before and they are better equipped to deal with it. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law DENYING application project 3421, restating the decision in S-06-11, seconded by Mr. Ramos. Mr. Levin stated he did not have the full history of this matter and wished to discuss it further with members or the Town Attorney. At 7:00 P.M. Mr. Jones stated the board would go into deliberative session for 5 minutes and left the room. Mr. Stevens left the building. When members returned from the deliberative session, the motion stood and Mr. Jones called the vote with Mrs. Brittin, Ramos, Jones, Izzo and Leven voting in favor of the motion. Mr. Pineles recused himself from any participation and Mr. Teffner was absent. No one opposed. The motion carried to DENY.

 

 

Project:          Seeking approval to allow wedding ceremonies/receptions as previously approved under BA 11-060.02 (Recessed from 5/6/07) 

Mr. Jones asked the Board members if there was any other factual information they required or any discussion of issues having been raised. The request is the same as the original application, but the applicant is seeking to make any approval permanent. The number of weddings (4) was not a condition in the previous approval. Mr. Ramos said he could possibly get by the accessory use issue by reasoning that the bride uses the rental house prior to the wedding etc., but he felt there should be conditions imposed. Mr. Jones summarized that the conditions would include the tents would be 10’ x 10’; limited to 4 weddings, 100 people, no alcoholic beverage or food served, provide parking on site and reception would end at sunset. Mr. Pineles said the issue of accessory use hinges on whether or not animals are used in some fashion for the wedding, and that should be a condition. They need to be a part of the wedding in a significant way, stated Mr. Pineles. Katie Barnes was present on behalf of her father and said they would have no problem in accepting Mr. Pineles’ suggestion as a condition of any approval. Mr. Leven stated it is regrettable that permits have been granted for this in the past, and he failed to see how in this residential neighborhood providing wedding services qualifies as an accessory use to a horse stable. He said he could see it if they wanted to have wedding and provide horses, but not the other way around. He said he sympathized with the neighbors and was inclined to deny the permit. Mr. Jones polled the members. Mr. Pineles said that he felt the prior decision was a stretch but a limited scale of operation and there should be some sort of precidential value to the previous decision so others coming before the Board have a sense of what to expect. Mr. Leven stated his position. Mrs. Brittin saw it as an accessory use and felt the limited scope would satisfy the neighbors concerns. Mr. Izzo said he was part of the first decision and felt there should be more conditions imposed on an approval if granted. Mr. Ramos stated he took Dean’s concern to heart and agreed with what Mr. Izzo said re: the limited scope and the imposition of additional conditions. Mr. Jones said he had struggled with this request and was part of the original decision and expressed willingness to admit if a mistake was made, but the Board’s function is to interpret the regs and he tends to err in favor of the applicant. He could vote in favor of the limited scope, a one-year period and at the end a very thorough review of the conditions. Peter Fischer, in the audience, asked if this means anyone with a horse could conduct weddings and did not see the difference in this request from the 11-06 vote when it was decided it is not an accessory use and he restated his concerns. Mr. Jones stated for the record the previous decision, which was based primarily on the size and scope. Mr.Altadonna, in the audience, suggested the Board could impose conditions on a case-by-case basis and put in a mechanism that required further review after the first wedding. When asked, Katie Barnes believed a caterer would be involved. tape 2 side 2 Mr.Leven

encouraged the applicant (his daughter) to reach out to neighbors after the first wedding for input as to how it went. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law in re: project # 3373 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 enactment, for a determination if an amendment shall be required;

(2)   The marriage ceremonies and receptions will take place from June 1, to October 15, 2007.

(3)   The ceremonies and receptions will end at sunset and be limited to 100 people.

(4)   The applicant will not provide beverages or food.

(5)   There shall be no amplified music.

(6)   One 10’ x 10’ tent allowed per event.

(7)   No more than four (4) events will occur per calendar year.

(8)   Horses shall be an integral part of the wedding ceremonies.

(9)   The permit issued will expire November 1, 2007.

(10) All parking shall be on site.

 

Mrs. Brittin seconded the motion. Voting in favor of the motion: Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Jones, Ramos, Izzo and Pineles. Voting no: Brain Leven. Not present: Ted Teffner.    

 

 

Project: Seeking approval to construct a 13,935 sq. ft. pond in RHOD

Present were Gunner McCain, Engineer, owner Harry Bonyun and neighbor Barbara Tomasi. Mr. McCain stated the pond is approximately 1/3 acre located in the RHOD, within a flat open area with very few trees. No berm will be built. The area is Class II wetlands area, which does allow for the construction of a pond, without damming. The pond will be located on the downhill site and will not be seen from any location off-site. It will meet the setbacks in place at the present time, however, Mr. McCain stated it is possible the bylaws will be changed and would allow the setbacks to be 50’, which they are requesting if that happens. Ms. Tomasi spoke of the possible impact on the wetlands since there is a substantial amount of water in the area and she was afraid the course would change because of the beaver situation, as it is impossible to know exactly where it comes from. It is a wildlife corridor, stated Ms. Tomasi. Her concern was that the natural flow of water would diminish. She was seeking to prevent the construction of the pond stating there will be an adverse impact on wildlife and the wetlands. Mr. Baker stated the site is cleared and the state regulates wetlands and streams. Act 250 gets involved with wildlife but other than possibly in subdivisions, the town does not. Mr. Bonyun stated this will be the third pond on 300 acres and described the area saying he was not familiar with what Ms. Tomasi was referring to. He described where this pond would drain. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: project # 3454 finding it to be a minor in the RHOD. Mr. Izzo seconded with all members in favor. Mr. Teffner was not present.

   (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.    

Project:            Exterior alterations and an addition to historic structure

Present was David Jaqua and Sam Scofield, Architect. Mr. Scofield stated this building is historic with the east elevation being seen from the road. The main changes are the apartment is being gutted, with the windows being raised and replaced; the roof over the apartment is being changed to shed the water and a portion is being cantilevered out 10’; removing a chimney and replacing with a window; brick portion of the building to remain; vestibule will be eliminated; adding French doors in the kitchen which will allow for the use of the covered porch. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: project # 3465 based on the recommendations of the Stowe Historic Preservation Commission, seconded by Mr. Ramos with all members present voting in favor. Mr. Teffner not present.

 

Project:             Seeking to modify facade (Postponed 6/19/07)

Present was Gerry McDermott, Architect and Michael Phillips, owner. Mr. McDermott stated the proposal is to change the funeral home portion of the Stafford building to a store front with large windows and the addition of dormers on the east and west elevations. Plans are to remove existing siding and replace with spruce clapboard siding, install two plate glass windows and extend the glass around the corner of the building. 

SHPC letter dated 6/28/07 received recommending approval subject to conditions. It was stated by Mr. Baker that the windows are not original (not certain if the windows on the side of the doors are original). Mr. Phillips stated the windows on the second floor would be replaced with two-over-two. tape 3 side 1 Mr. Pineles questioned 17.11 1(A) of the SHPC which states that although the changes to the funeral home portion of the streetscape are significant, they will be similar to the rest of the street elevation. He asked if that is the standard and said if it is, there will be no more historic buildings left. He felt a historic building should be made historic in its own right and not made similar to the rest of the street. Mr.Izzo stated the proposed windows in the funeral home are not close to what exists. Pall Spera in the audience, stated the windows in the funeral home are similar but not original and there havebeen renovations. Mr. McDermott stated the large windows would allow for retail display. Mr. Izzo moved to RECESS to JULY 24, 2007 in order that a site visit can be held at 4:30 P.M. Mrs. Brittin seconded with all in favor. Mr. Phillips asked if there was anything he could do prior to the meeting and Mr. Jones said the more information available the better.      

Project:              To allow office space to be used as a dwelling unit or office space

Mr. Charklis was present and said the area is 600 s.f. of space with a kitchen. He is seeking to allow it use as office space or an apartment. There will be no external changes and parking for either use requires two spaces, which is available. Mr. Pineles moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law re: project # 3456

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

Mrs. Brittin seconded the motion with all members in favor. Mr. Teffner was not present

 

   Project:             Seeking to expand building zone in order to relocate Caretaker’s    dwelling.

 Present was Charles Grenier, Engineer who stated the proposal is to move the proposed                     caretakers building 200’ south in anticipation that in the future there will be a primary residence near the stable. The applicant is seeking to move the building zone and adjust the limits of clearing to accomplish this. No additional clearing will be required to do this, stated Mr. Grenier. Plans are to expand the previously approved building zone in order to relocate the building back to the RR 5 setback zone. It was agreed the applicant could put the building zone along the pre-approved no-cut zone on the plat. Mr. Leven asked if any Class III wetlands go beyond the no cut zone and Mr. Grenier said no. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: project # 3471 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)    The building zone line shall be at the pre-approved no-cut zone on the final plat in order to relocate the caretaker’s cottage.

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

 

Project:         Proposing to amend rear setbacks for Lot # 5 of The Birches.

Present were Don and Linda Gringras and Alan Guazonni, Architect. A letter was received from Julio Olympia dated 7/8/07. Lot # 5 is a part of the PRD, which requires a double setback of 150’ along the perimeter, and the applicant is requesting to modify the setback to 130’ because of the topography of the lot. Mr. Guazonni explained the possible location for the house and stated the setback is now 35’ off the road. The applicant is requesting to cut back 20’, cutting into the elevation because the grade is so steep. Mr. Baker stated an amendment is needed for the clearing area and not the setback in order to cut a bench out to get the house in. The neighbors, Olimpios, are concerned with clearing which is the last buffer of mature trees. Mr. Guazonni stated the house would be 3-4’ below the neighbors. The members were having difficulty understanding the proposed location and clearing to be done and it was felt individual site visits would be helpful. Mr. Leven wanted to see where the setback line would be pushing back. Mr. Guazonni was asked to have marked where the new cut-zone would be. Mr. Izzo moved to RECESS to JULY 24, 2007 in order to do individual site visits. Mrs. Brittin seconded the motion with all in favor. Mr.Teffner absent. 

 

Planning Commission’s time schedule is to have the draft of the zoning regulations available in August.

 

September meetings the 4^th & 18^th.

 

(1)   A request for a temporary structure has been requested to install a 70’ telephone pole at Spruce Peak near the utility building. Mr. Baker stated that the pole will not be seen from the road. The Board agreed to approve for one year as a temporary structure. The new one will be installed at the end of the year.

 

(2)   The Hockey Academy is requesting to put a modular temporary class room in the                                                                                                                        

rear of their building, which will not be seen from Rte 108. Members agreed it could be used as a temporary structure for a 2 year period as long as it is not visible from Rte 108.

 

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Barbara S. Allaire

 

                                          Development Review Board

                                                   Town of Stowe

                                                    July 24, 2007

 

The regular meeting of the Development Review Board was held Tuesday, July 24, 2007 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M.

 

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

Others present: Rich Baker, Zoning Administrator and those listed in the minutes book.

 

Project:          Addition of a deck

Mr. Pineles moved to POSTPONE to August 7, 2007 at the applicant’s request, waiting for SHPC review. Susan Brittin seconded the motion with all in favor.

Project:           Construct a front porch, sunroom, garage and garden shed

Mr. Pineles moved to POSTPONE to August 7, 2007 at the applicant’s request, waiting for SHPC review. Mrs. Brittin seconded the motion with all in favor.

Project:             Modification of façade (RECESSED from July 10, 2007)

Present were Mike Phillips, Gerry McDermott (Architect); Valerie Rochon, Stowe Area Association; Pall Spera, Realtor. Mr. Jones noted for the record a site visit was held at 4:30 P.M. this date with Mr. Jones, Teffner, Pineles, Izzo and Susan Brittin. Not attending were Don Ramos, who was not at the meeting, and Brian Leven.

Mr. Jones stated that members were aware of what the project is being proposed and asked Board members if they had questions of the applicant. Mr. Jones stated he felt there are 4 different elements to the project, (1) modification to the street façade; (2) west elevation changes; and 2 roofs/dormers (west and east elevations). Mr. Phillips stated the phasing of the project is related to weather, will do as much as possible before fall depending on the weather. When asked, Mr. McDermott stated there will be shutters on the west side on first and second levels; SHPC has recommended approval with conditions in a memo dated 6/28/07; changes in exterior lighting will be a sconce on each

side of each door with no lighting on the west elevation; condensing units for cooling exist, stated Mr. Phillips; door to the apartments will remain as solid door/ residential looking. Mr. Teffner stated there will be a lot of glass and he was troubled about the large plate glass window on the west side. Mr. Phillips demonstrated through pictures that several buildings have a large window on the corner of the building, which makes it available for people walking along the street to see that it is retail. Mr. Izzo felt there would be a lot of glass. Mr. Jones referred to Sec. 17 in the design review of the village and felt it is more about presentation rather than preservation (which Mr. Jones explained). Tim Meehan, member of the SHPC stated it had been reviewed a number of times and felt it satisfied all the criteria and as long as the changes are sympathetic to the additions to the historic vocabulary, they are acceptable. Valerie Rochon stated they are concerned with the retail community not being viable; commended the SHPC for allowing a window on the side which will draw customer attention, while preserving the historic integrity of the building. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: project 3483 noting the SHPC’s recommendations, seconded by Mr. Pineles with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Teffner, Leven and Jones voting in favor. No one voted no. Mr. Ramos not present.

(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 prior if an amendment shall be required.

Project:            Construction of a 24’ x 70’ and 60’ x 100’ building and various site             changes.

Present at the hearing were Anderson Leveille, Brenda Convery and Darrow Mansfield.

A site visit was held at 4:00 P.M. this date with Mr. Jones, Teffner, Izzo, Pineles and Mrs. Brittin in attendance as well as Darrow Mansfield and the owners. Mr. Mansfield stated the plans have been redrafted to include increasing the pitch of the roof from 3-4 to 8/12 to obtain a barn look, details of windows and added a porch on the parking lot end of the building. The double loaded parking lot has been changed to having it on only one side. The changes have not been to the SHPC as yet. Mr. Jones suggested deciding the project in two parts but Mr. Izzo disagreed in doing that, he felt the entire project should be before the Board and felt there needs to be more input from the SHPC prior to discussing. Mr. Baker stated the SHPC did not have any concerns with the bunker, but did not have enough details for the rest of the project to make recommendations. Mr. Izzo felt the metal siding would have a big impact on the character of the area and felt the design should complement the other existing buildings. Mr. Pineles felt that because of the topography, the building will basically out of sight. He said he learned there would be a concrete retaining wall up against the edge of the bunker so the top of the bunker will be made available for parking, which means the bunker will not be seen except for the parking. The east and west ends of the larger building will have siding to match the existing buildings. The steel buildings will have steel vertical siding. Mr. Leveille stated he preferred to have the project approved (or denied as one project). There will be handicap parking available. Siding to be similar to board/batten stated Mr. Leveille. Mr. Mansfield stated there will be exterior lighting on the end of the large building and the path along side of the building (need cut sheets). The only public vantage point is off the drive from Moscow Road so landscaping would not be a factor, stated Mr. Jones; Mr. Leven asked about the connectors between the buildings and Mr Mansfield stated there is room for drainage off the roof. Mr. Teffner moved to RECESS to August 7, 2007, seconded by Mrs. Brittin with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Teffner, Leven, Jones and Pineles voting in favor. Mr. Ramos not present. Mr. Jones stated the Board will go through the Conditional Use Review process at the 8-7-07 meeting.   

 

Project:      Renewal of permit for corn maze

Mr. Percy stated his request is to do the same thing he has been doing for the last 5 years and asked for a permanent permit, rather than a 3-year approval. Mr. Percy stated nothing will be changing, the location remains the same, except that the cut of the maze changes each year. Mr. Teffner observed that a condition of the prior decisions was the small building should be removed at the end of each year. Mr. Percy stated because of the wind, he had to hitch it down and that is why is isn’t being removed tape 1 side 2 Mrs. Brittin asked about the agreement with the Town to utilize the Rec Path parking lot. Mr. Percy stated he talked to the Selectboard and the decision was it could be used as it is a public parking lot (no written agreement). Sec. 4.7 reviewed finding there are no changes and the condition in the previous approval to have the temporary building removed was deleted from this approval. Mr. Percy estimated between 10-15 people are going through the maze at any one time. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: project # 3505 as a permanent approval and using the same shed as previously approved with the CONDITION:

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

Mr. Teffner seconded the motion with all in favor except Mr. Ramos who was not present at the hearing.

 

Project:           Amendment to rear setbacks for Lot # 5 of the Birches. RECESSED from 7/10/07)

Members Susan, Dean, Larry and Brian did individual site visits prior to this meeting. Present were Mr. & Mrs Gingras. Mr. Jones stated there will be excavation creating a plateau on which the house can be located. Mr. Gingras stated the excavation will be back 20’ and 2 (4’) walls terraced with natural stone and landscaped. Mr. Gingras stated the house will be back 150’ from the rear setback. Mr. Baker stated the Board should remember walls are considered structures, even though permits are not issued. Mr. Leven felt the project request is really an amendment to the no cut zone. Mr. Gingras felt that would be all right if he could continue to cut the grade back. The elevation at the entrance to the property is 934’ and at the top is 990’. The peak of the building would be 2-3’ below the top of the elevation. Mr. Leven stated the no cut zone is a U around the property. The Board agreed after discussion, to modify the rear portion of the no cut zone to 110’ from the rear property line and to allow retaining walls within areas permitted to be cleared. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion if Law re: project # 3475, 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)   Recording a plat is required to show the change of the no cut zone to 110’in the rear portion of the lot, which will allow for the retaining walls.

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

 

Project:           Requesting to expand a nonconforming use by adding two multi-family dwelling units (RECESSED 6/19/07)

Present for the hearing was Darrow Mansfield . Chairman Jones opened hearings for both project # 3436 and project # 3398. Mr. Mansfield submitted to members a memo dated 7/19/07 which the members had not read. Mr. Mansfield stated non-conforming uses are allowed and made observations of other properties i.e. Stowehof Inn, Snow’s Market, Foxfire etc. under the same regulations that exist today. Mr. Jones referred to Sec. 5.1 (3) (b) and submitted that density is a dimension. He pointed out the provision was added in 10/89 and the projects listed were prior to that. Mr. Jones stated density always occurs under the dimension requirements for the specific zoning district and argued density is defining the maximum allowable occupancy of a particular parcel. Mr.Leven agreed they are related but conceptually did not see density as a dimension. Mr. Teffner stated coverage used to be considered physical density. Mr. Baker disagreed. Mr. Mansfield emphatically disagreed that density is a dimension, stating density is different in every district as are setbacks. Mr. Baker suggested the members look to see if the proposed new apartments are considered new uses. Mr. Jones felt the regs do not allow an expansion of density. Mr. Jones suggested going through the Conditional Use Review and took notice of the second application: Mr. Mansfield stated the electric is in the building, there is on-site septic, project will add 4 additional cars; did not feel traffic will be affected; the exterior of the structure will not be impacted except in the rear. It was agreed noise or pollution will be very low impact. The Municipal Plan allows for moderate increase in housing; driveway in place; no landscaping or screening planned. All exterior lighting exists with no changes being proposed. Sec. 5- expansion of a non-conforming use. Mr. Jones polled the members with Mr. Jones the only member saying he would vote in the negative. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: project 3436 with the following CONDITION:

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

 

Mr. Mansfield WITHDREW this application.

 

Project:           Construct 4 outdoor tennis courts

Present: Mark DeAngelo, Project Manager; H. Keith Wagner; Project Landscape Architect, Carolyn Orben and Darrow Mansfield. Mr. Jones started the hearing by congratulating TN representatives for the very successful Fed Cup, which was put on the weekend of July 20^th at TN field. Mr. DeAngelo thanked the Board and Town for their help and support. Mr. Mansfield stated the proposed courts would be replacing the 2 courts behind the Inn and the new ones will be located next to the existing Tennis Center. Project is in the Meadow Overlay District. A corner will be as close as 107’ to the edge of the pavement of Rte 108. Plans are for a chained linked fence around the courts and with no lighting. Mr. Mansfield stated there are 4 existing courts in the large building, with locker rooms, so players would use the facilities in the large building and then access these new courts down a path. Mr. Wagner explained the proposed landscaping around the courts as evergreen/oak and birch trees 8-10’ and 12-14’ tall on the roadside (primary screening) . Oaks to be 4-4.5” caliper and 25’ tall. Conditional Use Review: courts to be green in color; only access to the courts is by way of a walkway; no need for additional parking; courts will be for use by the hotel; Sec.7 is Upper Mountain Road; Sec. 7.4 as an accessory to the hotel use. No negative responses from the municipal services; replacement of existing courts so it was felt there would be no impact on traffic. Adequate parking based on the calculations for the overall Resort PUD parking and with the existing courts. Mr. DeAgngelo stated they plan to use the existing courts this fall and tear out next spring. Sec. 15.4 (1) Meadow Overlay District read: Mr. DeAngelo stated the courts will be located lower than Rte 108 and he felt the plantings will help obscure any visual impact with the 25’ high oak trees on the southern end of the meadow so the majority of the meadow view shed will be preserved. Mr. Pineles asked if there will be exterior lighting and Mr. DeAngelo replied there is no intention whatsoever to have lighting. No changes to driveway access; patrons already cross Rte 108; there is a legend of the landscaping plan on file; storm water management does not apply; project is in the Resort PUD and the MRD. The fence, black with vinyl coating will be on the ends of the courts; Mr. Jones referred to the Resort PUD Sec. 19.4 (3 a), which calls for the green belt around the perimeter of 200’. Mr. DeAngelo referred to the section with 100 contiguous acres and TN is that and Rte 108 is a r.o.w to land TN owns. He felt the 200’ goes around the TN property. Discussion followed. Mr. DeAngelo agreed if it would help they would state there would be no further development north of the courts up to Covered Bridge Road. Mr. Jones referred to Sec. 19.4 (4) dealing with open space. Mr.DeAngelo described the future Master Plan for that side of Rte 108 to members. Mr.Leven asked why the courts could not be moved back 200’. Mr. DeAngelo answered they want them adjacent to the existing building and the further they move the proposed courts, the more obvious the they would be. Plans are to put new buildings in the area. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in re: project # 3500 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)   The planting list shall be amended to include the oaks with their designated sizes before a zoning permit is issued.

(3)   An open space plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator designating the preserved open space area north of the courts and the proposed building envelopes in the MOD behind the courts. 

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

 

Project:          Construct a 2,400 s.f. office building 

Present were: Tom Fletcher, builder; Attorney George Stearns, and Scott Trowbridge, abutting property owner. There are presently 3 structures within the complex, this one being the 4^th. Project has been in front of the SHPC and a letter dated 7/18/07 recommending approval. Conditional Use Review: septic system within the complex; need Capacity to serve letter from the Stowe Electric; plans are for 2 offices and storage space. Mr. Stearns stated Mr. Griffiths (owner) has a business/manufacturing in which he travels worldwide. He will use this building as his corporate office with his wife and he as personnel. Board felt the building will be similar in character to the 2 existing buildings; there is a driveway which goes through the complex and this one will be an extension, with an easement across the driveway to the proposed building; each individual building responsible for their area re: snow plowing etc but there is an association which is responsible for the common drive, stated Mr. Trowbridge. Charles Grenier is the engineer for the project. Exterior lighting will be a recessed light in the entryway; motion detector flood light (which needs to be shielded) in front of the overhead door and a light on the wall on the back door. There will be no parking lot lights. Mr. Trowbridge stated he had spoken to Mr. Fletcher and there are concerns with the infrastructure and how the applicant plans to get from point A to point B; how many trees will be cut to get the electric in correctly. The manhole is behind the power transclosure and the telephone light is behind all the above. Mr. Trowbridge stated it is a very tight area and caution needs to take place. The driveway has to remain clear at all times. Mr. Jones stated the developer has heard the concerns of Mr. Trowbridge. Mr.Pineles moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: project # 3486, incorporating the SHPC letter, 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)   A “capacity to serve letter” from Stowe Electric shall be submitted.

(3)   The developer shall file cut sheets for the lighting plan.

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

 

The Planning Commission is striving to have their public hearing for the update on the Rules & Regs September 17, 2007. Board members felt they should have a copy 2 weeks prior to the hearing.

 

State Waste Water Regs have been changed as of July so the Board will no longer address this. The State Regs will supersede all review of wastewater and the Town’s Regs. The Town will no longer issue health permits as of 7-1-07. 

 

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned

At 8:40 P.M.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Barbara S. Allaire