Development Review Board

                                                Town of Stowe

                                                October 2, 2007

 

The regular meeting of the Stowe Development Review Board was held in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building on October 2, 2007 starting at 5:00 P.M.

This meeting was for the following hearing only.

 

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

 

Also present: Rich Baker, Zoning Administrator, Darrow Mansfield, Mansfield Ventures as well as members of the Castlestone team (David Seller, Architect, Jon Slason, Traffic Engineer) and others listed in the minutes book.

 

This hearing was recessed from August 21, 2007 in order that a site walk could take place this date at 4:00 P.M. The site walk took place with all members present as well as the Castlestone team.  

Project:           Requesting to demolish existing Mountain Road Resort and construct a 35-room resort hotel and a 6 cabin campground. 

 

Prior to beginning a Conditional Use review, Mr. Jones asked the applicant if there was any additional general information the applicant would like to share with the Board. The answer being no, with the exception of that passed on at the site visit. Mr. Jones started with the review under Sec. 4.7

 

Capacity of existing or planned community facilities and services: A letter dated 9/14/07 had been received from the Stowe Fire Department stating they could service the development based on several conditions. Mr. Mansfield stated they were present when the Fire Dept members made the conditions and the applicant agrees to them. The number of cabins has been reduced from 9to 6 and moved forward and clustered near the Morris house at the F.D. request. The 3 tent sites will have decks (off the ground) with a canvas type tent and will be set up for summer use. No one will be able to bring his or her own tent to the resort, stated Mr. Mansfield. The service building in the woods will be used for storage of the tents, bedding etc. Mr. Jones stated the tent platforms come under the definition of a structure. A 5’ pedestrian access will be kept open year around the entire building as a requirement of the Fire Department.  Municipal water & sewer: A letter dated 8/9/07 was received from the public Works Director stating there is adequate capacity to serve for each. Stowe Electric Department: A letter on file dated 8/16/07 allocating the required service for the development. Mr. McManis asked if there will be facilities to the tent sites and Mr. Mansfield said no, one would have to go to the central camp facility which is the house. Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity: Mr. Mansfield stated that for the purpose of this application, the r.o.w. off Birch Hill Road for the service entrance has been withdrawn. Mr. Slason from Resource Systems Group stated it is felt the change from the Birch Hill entrance to the resort entrance alters the traffic study by increasing the delay by 1.5 seconds (the worst scenario would be 27.1 seconds per vehicle). Mr. Slason stated they have included 71 seats in the restaurant in the traffic numbers. When asked, Mr. Slason stated he did take into account the expansion at the Mountain Resort when it came to the traffic analysis with an estimated 2013 traffic flow. Character of the Area: The project is in two different zones; the resort is in HT and the campsites in RR 3. Mr. Mansfield stated the house and existing garage are intended to be a support facility for the resort and campground. The cabins will each have the same design, single story with a small porch, 26’ x 26’ and 22’ to the ridge. The only exterior lighting in the cabins will be a light next to the front door and a recessed light in the ceiling. There will be no lighting for the tents stated Mr. Sellers. Lighting and Landscaping: Mr. Jerry Fay explained the lighting plan and said the height of the poles have been reduced to 16’ from the ground by the tennis courts. See Plan A and schedule for lighting plan and descriptions, including the lights being built into the wall of the pool. Generator, cooling tower and dumpster in the general area of the parking which is wooded and already lighted. By Laws in effect: Hotels are a conditional use in HT and campsites are a conditional use in RR 3. Parking: Mr. Mansfield described the numbers based on 15 employees at peak. A total of 35 rooms. tape 1 side 2 Planned parking is a 61 space underground garage, a parking lot with 19 spaces on the exterior by the hotel with 11 reserved parking spaces, which will need to be developed if needed. 2 ADA spaces indicated within the building and 2 on the exterior. The restaurant will be open to the public, stated Mr. Mansfield. Building height: Mr.                 explained how the building height was measured, with Scott Baker previously taking 3 different approaches. Mr. Fay stated all areas came in under the required 25’ according to the bylaws. Mr. Pineles asked for an explanation of the plan re: height. The existing grade of the parking lot will be left where it is, which defines the floor of the parking garage. When the garage is built, the area will be backfilled. The parking lot in the front will slope up to the building. Mr. Jones felt the project will not skyline. The slab of the parking garage to the peak will be 44’. The pool and tennis court will be in the rear of the property with gardens in the front. Sec. 4.7(2)(B)(!) will not have an undue adverse effect on the scenic or natural beauty of the area, aesthetics, historic sites, or rare and irreplaceable natural areas. An area will be cleared for the location of the pool, courts and cabins. The stream running through two culverts will be relocated with a buffer. Undue water, noise or air pollution: DISCUSSION: Mr. Pineles had concerns about noise, saying the 6 cabins are now concentrated around the activities building which is very close to the adjacent landowners, as well as the tent sites. Explained some of the possible situations and felt it inevitable creating noise. Mr. Sellers said the tents would be already there. Mr. Pineles said tents are not soundproof. Mr. Mansfield stated there will be internal controls 24-7 and offered some restrictions of hours. The existing brush could remain. Attorney George Stearns, representing Pall Spera:  followed up on Mr. Pineles’s concerns. Mr. Spera expressed concern with the noise around the clubhouse with people possibly congregating around the house. Mr. Mansfield stated the existing garage will be only used for storage. When asked about lighting, Mr. Mansfield stated there will be path lighting but no overnight lighting on the garage. Mr. Stearns asked how the congregation of the people inside or outside the clubhouse could be controlled. Mr. Sellers answered, “we will shut it down and close it up.” Mr. Mansfield stated the main floor could be separated from the lower part. Mr. Fine: concerned with the noise from the house, and especially from around the tents. He said if there is a place to have a fire, people will sit around and noise will be created. Mr. Leven asked what prevents a large business renting all the cabins and wishes to congregate at the house? It is a possible scenario. Mr. Seffner felt the resort will control noise at the hotel, but expressed concern about the potential noise level at the cabins/tents sites. Mr. Mansfield stated the clientele will be of an upper class but do hope there will be some interaction. Mr. Stearns asked if the cabins would be limited to 2 people each and no roll-ups? The answer was there will be a maximum of 12 people and no roll ups. When asked if the woods are going to be cleaned up, Mr. Mansfield stated they do no want to clear, but wish to leave much of the property as a wooded area, which isolates the guests from the neighbors. Mr. Fay stated they have no intent to clear unless they decided to put the power underground at which time they would plant more screening. Mr. Sellers felt low lying brush is good for the noise issue but could consider putting some low line evergreens nearer the houses if there is space.  tape 2 side 1 If the plan is to go underground with the power, the applicant will return to the Board. Mr. Izzo asked about mitigations for the noise re: the cooling units, generator, condensers. Tom Reilley from Salem Engineering responded saying a water cooling system will be used, which is significantly smaller system than the TN project. Sound is subjective, stated Mr. Reilley. Mr. Izzo asked what the decibel levels will be which were not available. Mr. Baker asked Mr. Reilley if the system will be heard at the property line. The answer was yes; there will be a sound to a degree. Mr. Izzo said there has to be a way of mitigating the noise. Mr. Teffner observed that the cooling towers and generator are now positioned away from the resort customers but closer to the neighbors. He asked if the units could be put in the middle of the property? Mr. Reilley asked to have a chance to address the Board’s concerns.

Mr. Mansfield sated that the applicant is willing to accept the same condition with respect to noise that was part of the TN decision, 50 dBA or less for the backup generator and 43 dBA for the cooling tower. The generator will be 140’ from the property line, stated Mr. Mansfield (TN’s much further). In discussing the cabins and tent sites further, Mr. Leven stated there might be undue noise because of the closeness of the tents to the property line, especially in the case where the tents could be moved. Mr. Pineles suggested a time limit to the permit for the tent sites until it is determined how much noise will be created. Mrs. Brittin asked how a time limit could be enforced. Discussion continued re: noise. Jeff ?? stated single family homes could be built in the area but the applicant did not feel it was the right thing to do. Mr. Jones polled the members re: how they felt about noise regarding the tent location etc. Each member gave a verbal opinion. Mr. Pineles stated noise is a bothersome issue with no reliable way to predict levels, and his concern was in regard to the tent sites and cabins. He felt a time limit for the permit would be beneficial. tape 2 side 2  Landscaping Plan submitted and reviewed. Storm Water Management: A State Permit is required. Discussion took place about the glass in the cupola and the amount of light. It was described as having tube lights, which will shed light down into the hallways.   

Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: project # 3518, 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 Fire Department’s memorandum dated 9/14/07 with the required conditions                shall be incorporated into this approval. 

 

      (3) The cabin plans shall be amended to show the dimensions and building height

(4)    All outdoor facility use will be limited from 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M.

(5)    Organized functions at the Morris house will be limited from 7:00 A.M.to 10:00 P.M. 

(6)    The location of the tent sites will be reviewed after two seasons of use to determine if their use has created undue noise. If found to be so, the Board will require the tent sites to be relocated to a different location in order to mitigate any noise created by their use. The CO for the tent sites will be for the first two seasons of use.

(7)    The vegetated area within 60 feet of the property line within the RR 3 portion of the parcel will remain undisturbed (including not removing any undergrowth and brush) with the exception of removal of dead or hazardous trees.

(8)    Construction activities audible at the property lines will be limited from 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday.

(9)    Sound levels for the generator and cooling tower will be measured, and certified by a registered Professional Engineer, to verify that the noise level at the nearest property line is 50 dBA or less for the back-up generator and 43 dBA or less for the cooling tower. The test shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued.

Those voting in favor of the motion: Mrs Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Ramos, Pineles, Leven, Teffner and Jones. No one voted against. No one abstained. Motion carried.

 

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:45

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Barbara S. Allaire

                                            Development Review Board

                                                     Town of Stowe

                                                    October 16, 2007

 

The regular meeting of the Development Review Board for the Town of Stowe was held Tuesday, October 16, 2007 in the Akeley Memorial Building.

 

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

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

 

Project:           Addition of second deck (recessed 9/18 and requesting further recess to 11/6/07)

Mr.Pineles moved to RECESS to November 6, 2007 at the applicant’s request in order that they can go to the SHOD for review. Mrs. Brittin seconded the motion with all in favor except Mr. Ramos who was not present.

 

Project:          Proposing to create transfer of development rights (Recessed from 9/4/07)

Mr. Jones stated the Transfer of Development Rights bank is still under review so suggested a recess. Mr. Pineles moved to RECESS to November 6, 2007, seconded by Mr. Teffner with all in favor. Mr. Ramos not present.   

 

A site visit was held at 4:00 P.M. this date with all members present with the exception of Mr. Ramos. Also Mr. Baker and Mr. Michelson were present. Present for the hearing was Tom Michelson. Sec. 5.1 of the subdivision regulations reviewed. Character of Land: 10.1 acres in RR 1 & 2 zones and appropriate for subdivision. Natural Features: Mr. Izzo referred to Sec. 5.1 (9) where it says “shall” (lot configuration) and the Board does not have any latitude to waive the configuration. Sec. 5.1(4). Mr. Izzo stated reserved strips are not allowed. After discussion, Mr. Teffner agreed with Mr. Izzo. Mr. Jones referred to Sec. 3.1(2) of the Zoning Regulations, which does give to the DRB some latitude. Mr. Izzo stated the Board couldn’t give a waiver and Mr. Jones said the subdivision as proposed is dictated by the topography. Mr. Izzo disagreed saying the lines are drawn at the suggestion of the applicant. Mr. Michekson said because of the issue reserving the 3 acres for the motel he couldn’t change the lines. Mr. Pineles said the applicant cannot have it both ways. The applicant cannot say the topography dictates the irregular lot and then say he plans to subdivide it in the future. Mrs. Brittin questioned the issue of the lodge requiring the 2 lots remain as 1 until such time the motel is gone. Mr. Baker reviewed with Town attorney, whether the Board can create a lot; keep the two lots together etc. but the Board needs to create a condition as to what they mean when they say the motel is gone. Mr. Teffner did not feel that Sec. 3.1(2) applies, saying there is no way the configuration of the lots affects the public safety, health and welfare. Mr. Pineles stated he felt all three conditions in that a section must be met. Mr. Leven agreed. After discussion most members expressed the feeling that the project could not go forward with the configuration proposed. Mr. Teffner moved to RECESS to NOVEMBER 27, 2007, and will be rewarned as a 4-lot subdivision, seconded by Mrs. Brittin with all in favor. Mr. Ramos not present.

 

Project #:        Covert 8-unit motel to 3 dwelling units (Recessed 9/4/07)

Project:           Amendment to previous approval (Project # 3525) for renovations of historic house (Adams Mill house)

Mr. Lande present and stated all changes are on the west elevation, i.e. relocate a door, new door on the second story; construct a walkout basement area by adding a door and two windows and relocate stairs. Mr. Pienles moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: 3601, as an amendment and based on the recommendation of the SHPC by letter dated 9-27-07. Mrs. Brittin seconded the motion with all in favor. Mr. Ramos not present. 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)   All conditions imposed for project #; 3525 shall remain in force.

 

Project:           Request is to modify previous approval (BA 7A-116-3) to remove snap in mentions.

In 1999 the BOA required snap-in muntins as part of the approval to help in the glare of lights from the interior as well as it was felt the muntins would help add to the character of the building, per condition # 2 of the Findings dated 10-5-99. tape 1 side 2 The approval was pre-SHOD guidelines. The SHPC by letter dated 9-13-07 states that the bow window is not in compliance with the guidelines, and recommended the muntins be removed. After more discussion, Mr. Jones said he was reluctant to require snap-in muntins when the regulation state they are to be discouraged. Mrs. Brittin agreed. Mr. Izzo felt there should be a solution, i.e. could have fixed muntins or consider it grandfathered. Mr. Pineles moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law taking into consideration the SHPC letter of project recommendation, seconded by Mrs. Brittin with all in favor except Mr. Izzo who voted no. Mr. Ramos was not present.

 

Project:        Proposing to construct a 40’ x 16’ in-ground pool in the RHOD

Mr. Trevor was present and stated for the record that the house as it currently exists cannot be seen from any public road. The property is located at the end of Notch Brook Road on a private road. The pool will be located in the rear of the house and the area is partially cleared. He stated one large tree (which is dead) will be removed with limited additional clearing. Mr. Baker stated he had visited the site and agreed it cannot be seen from any public vantage point. Plans are to have one light in the pool and no post lights around the pool. Mr. Pineles moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: project # 3586, classifying the project as a minor. Mrs. Brittin seconded the motion with all members in favor except Mr. Ramos who was not present at the hearing.

 

Project:            Construct a shed in the RHOD

Robin Dixon from Dixon Construction present and stated the addition (16’ x 20’ long) is one story, enclosed and on the north end of the existing house facing Putnam Forest Road which is private. Colors to match the house. No plans for any exterior lighting. Enclosure will he heated and used year around. Mr. Baker had visited the site and said the porch will not be seen from any public vantage point. The 2004 visual analysis found the site had some limited visibility from the higher elevations. In the far distance, Trapps can be seen. The site for the porch has previously been cleared. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: Project # 3574, deeming it to be a minor in the RHOD, seconded by Mr. Teffner with all in favor. Subject to the usual Change condition.

 

Project:          Enclose existing deck with unheated screened porch

Present was Chapman Smith who stated the porch is on the rear of the house and cannot be seen. Applicant had been before the SHPC who recommended approval by a letter dated 9/27/07. The roof and materials will match the existing house. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: project 3567, based on the recommendation of the SHPC and also that the deck is on the rear of the house which will not be seen. Mr. Pineles seconded the motion with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Pineles, Jones, Teffner and Leven voting in favor. Mr. Izzo recused himself as he works for the builder and Mr. Ramos was not present. Subject to the usual Change condition.

 

Project:          Proposing to construct a 26’x 32 garage in the RHOD

Present for the hearing was Chapman Smith. Mr. Baker stated after a site visit, it was determined that the house, being built prior to the RHOD regulations, can be seen from the road. There presently exists an attached 2-car garage and this proposed one is in addition. The intent is to match the materials of the existing house, stated Mr. Smith. tape 2 side 2, which Mr. Smith felt there would be typical spotlights or down lights on the side of the doors (this has not been determined). Lights could be on a motion sensor. No plumbing in the garage. Possibility of setting up a gas heater for the second floor. Mr. Teffner indicated that cut sheets and location for the lights should be submitted as any lights could be seen from the road. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: Project # 3522 classifying the project as a minor with no exterior lighting being approved except for recessed lights. Mr. Pineles seconded the motion with all in favor except Mr. Izzo who recused himself and Mr. Ramos was not present. Subject to the usual Change condition. 

 

Project:          Construct a single-family dwelling in the RHOD

Present were Darrow Mansfield, Milford Cushman, Architect, and Chad Forcier. Mr. Jones stated he had received a call requesting that one Board member recuse himself for having a conflict of interest. After discussion with the member, he felt he had no conflict and chose not to recuse himself. Mr. Pineles, Izzo and Jones did a site visit on 10/10/07 along with representatives of the applicant (Chad Forcier) and Rob Cobert. Mr. Pineles stated after the site walk, he was satisfied the project will not be visible from any view sheds. Mr. Izzo agreed, adding that the proposed cut zone is minimal. Mr. Jones agreed with both. Mr. Forcier (from Cushman Design) described the view shed analysis he had done, including placing the house on the plan which identifies Trapp Hill, Shaw Hill, Mt. Mansfield, and Moscow Village as possible public vantage points. Mr. Jones did not feel the project would be seen from any public vantage point. Mr. Cushman stated the garage has been lowered from the original plan. Mr. Jones stated there is significant tree cover on the neighbor’s property in the RHOD. Mr. Pineles stated the land slopes upward behind the house which helps. Mrs. Brittin asked where the RHOD is and the answer was, the entire parcel is in the RHOD. Mr.Cobert and Mr. Cushman explained the proposed lights to be used, i.e. there will be no lights in the cupola. Plans are for one light fixture with a concealed bulb on the deck as well as low view lighting. Front porch has a recessed light as well as a light next to the garage door. Members agreed that a Certification of the cut zone was not required as the cutting will be minimal in the area proposed. 

   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 proposed cut zones of 60-40 shall be evenly applied

(3)   The exterior lighting details, i.e. cut sheets and locations shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator for the record.

 

Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: project # 3556 deeming the project is a minor in the RHOD and with the above conditions, seconded by Mr. Teffner. Mrs. Brittin, Izzo, Teffner, Pineles, Leven and Jones voting in favor. No one voted no. Mr. Ramos was not present.

 

There being no further business to come before the board, the meeting adjourned at 7:20 P.M.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Barbara S. Allaire