Development Review Board

                                              February 5, 2008

 

The regular meeting of the Stowe Development Review Board was held Tuesday, February 5, 2008 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M. 

 

Board members present: Larry Jones, Don Ramos, Susan Brittin, Brian Leven, Dean Pineles and newly appointed former member Charles Lusk (former member of the Board of Adjustment for 6 years). Absent: Ed Izzo.

Others present: Rich Baker, Zoning Officer, Jessie Roman, Stowe Reporter and those listed in the minutes book.

 

WELCOME ABOARD CHARLIE!!

Project:          Modification of Driveway for a two-lot subdivision (Recessed from 1/8/08)

Present: Mr. & Mrs Peer, William Kules, Surveyor and Attorney Ronald Merelman.

Mr. Merelman stated at the previous meeting there were two (2) issues remaining, (1) the safety of the driveway access in which there is a Letter of Intent submitted by the AOT and indicates the proposed driveway complies with the site distance etc on a state highway; (2) deviation from the regulations. Mr. Jones stated the project will be reviewed under Sec. 5.4 (4) and under Sec. 3.1(2) – Modifications of Regulations which state the Board may waive or vary such provisions and requirements of the regulations which in its judgment of the unique circumstances affecting a particular plat or plats are not requisite in the interest of the public health, safety and general welfare. Mr. Kules stated the state has been to the site and reviewed the location. Mr. Kules felt the state is knowledgeable on the safety issues. There is existing vegetation along the brook, which is well established, and stabilized and providing a benefit that the storm water regulations suggest. There is potential for erosion before and after construction; 36” culverts would be required with fill and the streambed will be disturbed. The driveway will be expensive and the maintenance agreement will be difficult. Mr. Kules felt the property could be devalued by detracting from the beauty of the area. Mr. Kules stated the overall intent of the regulations. Mr. Pineles said at the original meeting, it was felt there would be a significant drop-off from Rte 100, which could create a danger. Mr. Kules said it is a straight road and felt the proposed location (with a lesser drop-off), will be better and cheaper than the one previously approved. There was a letter from VTRANS (who Mr. Baker said only look at the standards and do not do a study, and rely on the town for approval or disapproval). Mr. Jones asked if the AOT is sufficient to make the Board comfortable with the safety issue. Mr. Baker said the town has the 1,000’ rule, which helps with the safety issue etc. and the Board needs to look at Sec. 3.1(2). Mr. Jones said the Board needs to determine if the 1,000’ requirement is in the best interest of the public safety and are there unique circumstances why a waiver should be granted. Mr. Ramos did not feel it would create more congestion but agreed the stretch of road is busy and cars speed. Mr. Merelman argued that the subdivsion has been approved and this driveway would not create additional traffic. The barn entrance is not currently a main entrance to any residence so the distance between the existing curb cut and the one being proposed is significantly further away than the barn entrance, which is used only for Mr. Peer’s special needs. Mr. Merelman stated the grade going into the barn entrance is significantly more than the proposed entrance. Mr. Pineles asked if the barn entrance could be closed and Mr. Merelman said it is necessary for Mr. Peer’s needs (this could not be guaranteed if there were to be a shared access). Mr. Pineles asked once the new house is built, could the new curb cut be used for access to the barn (there would then be no new curb cut created). Mr. Merelmen said that would not be practical to totally close it off as then one could not get a horse trailer in there. Mr. Merelman suggested they would agree to no further subdivison of the property, even though there is none anticipated. After discussion with his Attorney, Mr. Peer did not agree to this stipulation. Mr. Peer explained his situation of need and also suggested to include that as a condition could devalue his property. Mr. Jones gave his personal opinion as to why it is a dangerous location saying it would be next to the entrance to the egg farm, would be opposite Brush Hill Road which will be coming in with a proposed subdivision, which will create additional traffic. Mr. Leven said even though he was not present at the beginning of the hearing (came in at 5:15) he had not heard the arguments as to why the Board should waive the requirements, i.e. would the location make for a better subdivsion design etc.

 

After continued brief comments, Mr. Pineles moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: project # 3655 to modify the driveway on the grounds there are unique circumstances based on the topography and the granting of the additional cut will not create an adverse condition re: public health, safety and welfare. Mr. Pineles made as a part of his motion that there be no further subdivsion of the parcel. Mr. Lusk disagreed with the proposed condition saying he felt it beyond the scope of the Board’s review and unreasonable. Mr. Pineles withdrew that part of the motion. Mr. Ramos seconded the motion with the following CONDITION:

 (1) All of the original conditions in the original approval shall remain in force.  

 

Those voting in Favor of the motion: Mr. Ramos, Pinles and Lusk.

Those voting NO: Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Leven and Jones.

Mr. Izzo not present at the meeting.

Motion FAILED on a 3-3 vote.

Project:            Complete exterior modifications and enlarge duplex within existing footprint.

Present was Mr. Sisler who explained the project and said there will be no expansion of the footprint, simply taking an unheated area which is being turned into a bedroom, taking the existing bedroom on the first floor and converting it to a mud room, and minor exterior changes. There will also be a 12’ x 8’ wooden deck added. A letter of project recommendation dated 1/10/08 was submitted from the Stowe Historic Preservation Committee. The question was, is it an expansion of a conditional use as it is a duplex. Mr. Jones said he had trouble considering it a conditional use and the Board agreed not to review the criteria. Mr. Pineles moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in support of project #3661 and incorporate the recommendation of the SHPC dated 1/10/08. Mrs. Brittin seconded the motion with all in favor. Mr. Izzo was not present. tape 1 side 2   

Project:              Updating approval for Final Plat to re-subdivide lots 10 & 11 (Project #: 3363)

Present for the hearing was Don Swain. Mr. Jones told members the reason the project was in front of them was the failure to record the plat within 180 days of decision. Mr. Swain stated there are no changes to the proposal and the approved plat. The driveway from Lot 11 will not connect to Edson Hill Road . There will be no additional clearing to take place outside the approved cutting zone, stated Mr. Swain. Mr. Lusk moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in support of project #3666 which updates the prior decision. Mr. Ramos seconded the motion with ALL members voting in favor. Mr. Izzo not present .

Project:                Installation of temporary outdoor tent from 5/08 to 11/08

Present representing the Jewish Community Center were Mike Goldfield and Rich Jacobs. Mr. Jones said the project was being reviewed in light of concerns about noise. A decision was granted on 5/24/07. There have been no noise complaints to date. The applicant was in front of the Board asking for a permanent tent approval. Plans are to have 8-10 functions a season, but Mr. Goldfield said not everyone uses the tent. Mr. Pineles asked if there was live music last summer and the answer was no. The Board was uncomfortable in giving a permanent approval for the tent and since the use has taken place only one summer (with no music). Mr. Pineles said he was concerned with the possibility of noise and was happy to hear there had been no complaints. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in re: 3356 for a three (3) year period with the tent being available for use from April 1-November 30^th of each year and with the CONDITION:.

(1)   All previous conditions shall remain in force.

Mr. Lusk seconded the motion with all members in favor. Mr. Izzo was not present.  

 

Mr. Pineles left the meeting.

 

Project:             Amendment of previously approved Vargus subdivision (Project #: 3413 from 5 lots to 6 lots)

Present were Paul Reed and Don Peet. Proposal is to make two lots of the currently approved lot # 5 of 22 acres at the end of the road (which was approved in 6-07). After outlining the configurations of the two proposed lots, Mr. Reed requested the Board do a site visit, especially to show the members what has taken place to date. Mr. Jones had a concern with the shape of the lot and did it meet the criteria. Mr. Reed stated Charles Grenier has indicated it does. Mr. Baker suggested this request is a modification of a previous approval since that approval has not been recorded. Mr. Reed stated the proposed driveway to go to the Vargas house would be 900’ long since the grade is much less than the existing drive. Mr. Lusk moved to RECESS to MARCH 11, 2008 with a site visit at 4:00 P.M.Mrs. Brittin seconded the motion with all in favor, except Mr. Izzo who was not present. 

Project: 3286   Approval of existing garage (built without permit) in RHOD          

Applicant or a representative were not present. Mr. Baker explained how this came about saying Mr. Boykin was told by a previous Z.A. that he did not need a permit for the single car garage (14’x 28’x10’6 high) since there would be no foundation. Mr. Baker informed him that this was incorrect. Mr. Baker stated the garage can be seen from Ayers Farm Road as the front yard is cleared (pre-RHOD regulations) but did not feel it will be seen from any other vantage point. There is no lighting on the exterior and none proposed. Mrs. Brittin moved to classify as a minor (being an accessory building), seconded by Mr.Ramos with all members in favor. Mr. Izzo not present.

 

Project:                3-lot subdivision

Charles Burnham and Robert Chase present. Mr. Burnham submitted a narrative dated 12-27-07. He said the proposal is for a 3-lot subdivision and described the location off Luce Hill Road. The south side of the road was previously subdivided 2 years ago and there are 30 acres on the north side of the road. The proposal is to create two 6.5-acre lots and a 16-acre parcel, on the side of the hill. Lt. # 3 is fairly flat; Lts. 1 & 2 are on a small plateau with delineated wetlands (on portions of Lt.3). Mr. Burnham stated the driveway will go in on an old farm road and will require new curb cuts for Lts. 1 & 2 with the driveways being fairly level. tape 2 side 1 Mr. Burnham stated there are no public vantage points from the lots and one will not see any clearing. Sec. 5 of the Subdivision Regs and the narrative were reviewed in detail. Mr. Burnham identified the wetlands (and referred to the Forester’s statement). No activity is being proposed in the wetlands, other than the driveway, which will cross a small strip of the wetlands, following a corridor. The state has been contacted (with no response as yet). The entire parcel, all three lots, is in the RHOD. Any development on any of the lots will have to come before the Board. An existing stonewall will be preserved and there are no reserved strips. Mr. Sweet (narrative dated 1-30-07) did an inventory which describes in detail specific clearing limits in 4 areas as (1) the area between Luce Hill Road and lots 1 & 2; (2) above and surrounding lot # 3; (3) uphill from the neighbors house and screening is recommended; (4) an existing hedgerow of red pines which will be preserved as much as possible. Mr. Burnham stated essentially 30% of the lots will be cleared, leaving 70% untouched. Mr. Baker stated a small amount might be seen at the hairpin turn. Discussion took place whether or not to have the forester certify what the cleared area will be. Mr. Burnham argued that he did not know if the ordinance called for that. Mr. Jones explained the Board is still in the learning process on how to determine what will take place and suggested he did not have the capacity to interpret the plan as submitted and visualize what is proposed to occur on the ground. Mr. Burnham explained the process that will take place, i.e. contractors will come in to do the job according to the plan and follow the standards. Mr. Lusk asked Mr. Burnham to describe his statement in Sec. 5.2(4) and saw no reference in Mr. Sweet’s plan where this process will be promoted, which he felt would be helpful to have (and attuned to the layperson). Mr. Burnham said they are talking about stalking standards. Mr. Jones suggested a site visit would be helpful. Mrs. Brittin questioned the clearing represented on the plan and asked for clarification. Mr. Leven asked about the 30% representation on the plan. Pedestrian access did not come into play. Since there will only be single-family residences, traffic should not be an issue. Mr. Leven expressed his concern that one driveway is crossing a wetland. Mr. Baker said one driveway is avoiding the hairpin turn and the other, by moving it down, would be avoiding most of the wetland. Mr. Jones reiterated and clarified what the regulations states. Mr. Burnham did not agree and did not understand what the Board’s concern was. Mr. Jones felt the Board could get comfortable with the driveways as proposed. Becky Olsen, Attorney, representing some of the neighbors, indicated they are in favor of the proposed location of the curb cuts as it brings driveway serving lots 1 & 2 further away from their driveway. Applicant has identified the building lots on the plan. No negative comments from the Fire Department have been received and Mr. Burnham stated the recommended guidelines from the FD dated 3/30/07 are satisfied. Sec. 16 RHOD. This will be addressed after the site walk. Storm water is subject to state review when structures are being proposed. Utilities shall be underground. Mr. Leven again expressed his concern with the driveway crossing the wetlands. tape 2 side 2 Mr. Burnham stated there will be a culvert installed and the road is not in the wetland. After review of the site development and environmental protection review standards, Mrs. Brittin moved, seconded by Mr. Leven to RECESS to MARCH 18, 2008 with a site walk at 4:00 P.M., prior to the hearing, with all present voting in favor.   

 

Project:                Appeal by Rose Marie Matulionis of Certficate of Occupancy for 95 School Street.

Present were Don Post for Rose Marie Matulionis, who submitted the appeal; owner Ken Brede, Daniel Mulligan and Attorney Lannie Nichols. A letter submitted from Rose Marie (not dated), which states the concerns, was submitted for the Board and on file. Mr. Jones felt there were three issues in the appeal; (1) the support mechanism for the balcony; (2) lighting and (3) a new survey/plat information which has been brought up after the decision was made on 4-1-06. Mr. Jones did not feel that the decision could be reopened on an appeal of a CO. Deck (balcony): the plan did not show any supports under the balcony, whereas three (3) supports were built. Mr. Baker agreed he did not see those when doing the CO. Mr. Jones pointed out to Mr. Brede the # 1 condition which goes with any approval which states “ the project shall be completed as approved,” and the reason it is there is to avoid this circumstance. Mr. Jones told the Board the appeal could be granted and return it to the SHPC for review, or the members can ask if the supports are a significant addition to the façade requiring review. Mr. Jones referred to Sec. 17.5 of the SHOD regulations, and read each activity which requires design review. Mr. Leven asked if the supports were not a part of the design, the square coverage would be decreased. Mr. Baker said they were discussed at the SHPC meeting. Attorney Nichols did not think the supports are substantial. Mr. Lusk asked what happens to the condition of “any change to the plans or the proposed use of the property shall be brought to the attention of the ZA , prior to its implementation, for a determination if an amendment shall be required”. Mr. Jones stated the Zoning Administrator could have handled the change. Mrs. Nichols stated there was nothing intentional on the part of the contractor and felt it was an oversight. Mr. Brede stated the work was done in February 2007 and during a snowstorm, it was felt the supports were needed. Mr. Jones again reiterated “any change ----“. With respect to lighting, Mr. Baker stated this is not reviewed under SHOD. However, the original decision does include lighting standards. Mr. Baker stated this decision was not appealed. Mr. Jones read the lighting standards. Mr. Baker stated he had been to the property on several occasions in the evening and never found the lights to be on. There are two carriage lights on the building which have been changed from clear glass to frosted glass (at Mr. Baker’s request) and below the terrace there are 3 lights, downward pointed. Mr. Post, who owns property next-door, said he received the information from Ms. Matulionis but felt he was not sure what the concerns are. He agreed there are several lights within the surrounding area in the village. Mr. Brede agreed he could change the bulb wattage or remove them completely from the second floor balcony. He said the goose neck lamps have a 60 watt bulb. Mr. Lusk stated he found it perverse to be allowed to put supports on a balcony and not call them a part of the structure and need review. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Chairman of the Board to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law denying the appeal in project # 3662 of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Ramos seconded the motion with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Jones, Ramos, and Leven voting to deny the appeal. Mr. Luck voted in favor of the appeal. Mr. Izzo and Pineles were not present. The notion carries 4-1 with 2 absent. Mr. Post asked if the approval of 2006 preceded any questions about the property line and Mr. Jones said yes. It does not have anything to do with this particular project, stated Mr. Jones.

 

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

 

Respectfully submitted