Development Review Board

                                              Town of Stowe

                                          November 27, 2007

 

The regular meeting of the Development Review Board was held Tuesday, November 27, 2007 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M.

 

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

 

Other present: Rich Baker, Zoning Administrator, and those listed in the minutes book, including Chip Percy, Ned Houston, Tom Michelson, Jesse Roman, Stowe Reporter; Noel & Chris Howe and Geoff Wolcott. 

 

Project:           Request to continue use of the yurt for 2008 by Mud City Adventure                Program.

Mr. Pineles moved to POSTPONE to December 18, 2007 at the applicant’s request due to scheduling conflict. Mr. Teffner seconded with all in favor except Mr. Izzo who was not present.

 

Project:            Create transfer of Development Rights (RECESSED from 11/6/07)

Mr. Teffner moved to POSTPONE to December 18, 2007 for further taxation issues investigation. Mr. Ramos seconded the motion with all in favor except Mr. Izzo who was not present.  

 

Project:           Proposing a subdivision of two (2) lots

Present were Ned Houston from Environmental Services, neighbors Chris and Noel Howe and Chip Percy (5:15). Location is off Moss Glen Falls Road. The 25 acres being subdivided into two-lots ( Lot 4A of 18.7 acres & Lot 4B 6.3 acres) was a portion of a previously approved 4 lot subdivision. Lot 4A was kept open by Act 250 because of a deeryard but was approved for a single-family dwelling. There is an old grandfathered access road, which will be upgraded. This drive runs through the parcel and onto state lands and is currently used by VAST. The proposed project will allow for continued use by VAST by making a new trail corridor. The existing drive/logging road will be moved further away from the edge of the brook and the existing road will then be seeded. Mr. Howe, in the audience, asked if the trail would have a gate, which will be closed during the spring and fall. Mr. Houston said yes. The future plans contemplate the state to owning Lot 4A. In the meantime, no development will take place on this lot. Mr. Percy arrived at this time. Mr. Percy explained that this lot cannot be built upon, it has a deeryard, and so it is non-buildable but can be used for recreation. He preferred it not be identified as a conservation easement. Sec. 5 reviewed. The 25 acres can be subdivided. Lot 4A is an irregular lot, however, this provision can be waived under Sec. 3.1(2). Because of the ongoing dialogue between Act 250 and the applicant and the proposed condition that the lot will not be developed, the Board agreed the irregular portion of the lot could be waived; Lot 4B restricts clear cutting for 100’ in front of the parcel and the vegetation along the bank will be retained; the building zone is 150-200’ from the VAST trail; a strip of land (which is wetland) will be left near the parking lot in case the state should purchase Lot 4A; there will be no reserved strips; plans are to preserve much of the existing landscaping; there will be no increase in traffic since the plans call for only a single family dwelling; the building area is specifically identified on the plat; Board agreed to grant a waiver for the lot configuration because of reasons previously stated; Lot 4A will not be developed. The applicant will be granting a r.o.w. off Lot 4B to Lot 4A. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: project # 3640 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) No further development shall take place on Lot # 4A, without review and approval by the DRB.

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

 

Project:            Amendment of previous request for a 3-lot subdivision to a 4-lot subdivision (RECEESED from 10/16/07)

Mr. Michelson was present and started by saying since the 3 lot subdivision was not voted on, he felt his argument should be with the P. C. and did not see, after reading the regs, why the 3 lot subdivision could not be reviewed (approved). Sec. 5.1(2) (a) says the Board may restrict an irregular lot; tape 1 side 2 Mr. Michelson referred to the definitions and did his own interpretation of dimensions, i.e. to find the ratio he used the average mean. Mr. Mickelson explained how he did the figuring using the lot depth perpendicular to the lot width etc. using the two roads in order to arrive at the 3-1 ratio. 

The reason he wants the irregular lot is he wants to own the pond. (He referred to the irregular lot approved for the Nachman subdivision). The only reference to dimensions is in the zoning definitions and not in the subdivision regs. Discussion took place as to how the measurements were arrived at. Mr. Teffner stated the Board needs to decide first if the lot is restricted because it is irregular. There needs to be a reason if the Board chooses to do so. Mr. Jones stated the proposed so-called pond lot may not satisfy the definition of a lot in that it may not be capable of occupying one building. Mr. Ramos felt it was a matter of the lot configuration in 5.1 (9) and the applicant says the dimensions are less than 4-1 (by using his figures and the definition in the zoning regs). One of the unique circumstances is the applicant needs to keep a certain number of acres for the front lot. Mr. Mickelson again showed members how he measured the lots to determine the mean of the lots at Mr. Leven’s request. Mr. Pineles asked if the zoning definitions carry over into the subdivision regs (there is no dimension requirements definition)? Mr. Jones stated that in the past the Board has used the definitions in the zoning regs. Mr.Baker referred to Sec. 3.1(2) and felt there was some logic to go back to the Zoning regs. Mr. Leven was not convinced the regulations provide the accurate method because of the street line etc. He felt it was academic whether it be a 3 or 4 lot subdivision as two lots could be sold off and the other two joined into one. Mr. Mickelson stated the state has not notified him as to whether or not the pond lot can be built upon but the applicant is asking for a 3-lot subdivision. Mr. Baker stated both requests were formally warned with no action being taken on the first warning, so he felt the Board could continue reviewing the request for the 3-lots. Members agreed there are no significant natural features; there will be no reserved strips created; northern boundary has rock wall and trees, as does the driveway; (existing landscaping was discussed) tape 2 side 1 . Mr. Pineles had a concern that the Board was placing restrictions on Lot B1 prior to talking about that application. Mr. Teffner felt the opportunity to put a condition on the subdivision was advisable, in that that may be the only opportunity. Mr. Mickelson said he did not have a problem doing that. Mr. Pineles said he felt if the Board is discussing B1, pedestrian access applies. It was agreed the project will be adding traffic onto Rte 100 but will not have an adverse impact; the Fire Department has asked for a dry hydrant in the pond. Mr. Mickelson stated he is planning on fixing the pond and refilling it and suggested perhaps the rest of the owners could pay for half the cost. Right now a dry hydrant could not go into the pond as there is no water; the Board asked to have the setbacks as the building zones on the plat for B2; lots B1 and B2 need to be in joint ownership as long as the motel remains; Mr. Teffner stated this is contrary to what the Board has done in the past since there is not enough acreage for the motel. Discussion. Mr. Mickelson stated there is an agreement in the original subdivision that the road is shared by all using the road (this is not being implemented). It is the intention that the agreement, which is in the deed, will include these new lots, stated Mr. Mickelson.

Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: project # 3536 as a three (3) lot subdivision with the following CONDITIONS:

Mr. Teffner seconded the motion with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Jones, Ramos, Pineles, Leven  

and Teffner voting in favor. Mr. Izzo was absent.

Project:            Request is to convert an 8-unit motel to 3 dwelling units (RECESSED from 10/16/07)

Present was Tom Mickelson and stated Lot B1 is currently occupied by a house and 2 motel buildings. The proposal is to convert the existing buildings into nine condominium units using the existing footprints over a 4-year period. The property is served by 3 separate leach fields. Mr. Baker observed that the condominiums could not be sold when converted because of the on-going 5-acre requirement for any motel lodging operation. Mr. Mickelson said they would be done as apartments until the lodging operation ceased, and didn’t know how to do it any other way. Mr. Jones stated they would have to remain as rental units until such time as the motel operation ceases. The density requirements under the regulations for each phase of the conversion was discussed. Sec. 4.7 reviewed: building height needs to be put on the elevation drawings; Fire Department suggested pruning the spruce trees to allow for visibility and better access; because the project is going from 14 units to 9, it was felt traffic will be lessoned; character of the area: members felt the project will improve the character of the area; 18 parking spaces will be provided to include 1 handicap space which needs to be shown on the plans; using existing accesses into the property; Mr. Mickelson stated the parking lot or driveway will not be paved. Going from motel units to residential will result in less noise being created. A copy of the deed providing for the maintenance of the road (same as for the subdivision approval) is needed. Members felt the existing spruce trees should remain. No need for a storm water management plan from the applicant as very little is being disturbed. Mr. Teffner asked if there should be some planting along Rte 100 in front of building # 2 because if it is sold, there needs to be something that softens the view of the building. One should not be looking at the bare end of the building. Mr. Mickelson will bring back a specific plan for this. Discussion took place about granting a 4-year approval as requested. Mrs. Brittin suggested 4 years might be too long in case nothing has been done, she did not like 4 years, and this project is very visible. Mr. Pineles felt there could be a public interest in not allowing for four years. After discussion, Mr. Teffner moved to RECESS to DECEMBER 18, 2007 in order that the applicant can return with documentation the Board needs to review. Mrs. Brittin seconded the motion with all in favor.

 

Mr. Baker’s Report:  there were items he brought before the Board, none of which required any action.

 

They’re being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Barbara S. Allaire