Development Review Board

                                                   March 11, 2008

The regular meeting of the Stowe Development Review Board was held Tuesday, March 11, 2008 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:10 P.M.

Members present: Don Ramos, Larry Jones, Ed Izzo, Dean Pineles, Susan Brittin and Brian Leven (5:30)

Project #:        3665

Owner:           Vargas, Manelick De La Parra

Tax Parcel #:   8-044.080

Location:         Taber Hill Road

Project:           Seeking an amendment to previously approved subdivision project # 3413 from 5 lots to 6 lots. (SITE WALK at 4:00 P.M. on March 11^th. Recessed from 2/5/08)

Zone:               RR 5/RR2/Partially in RHOD

Present at the site walk were: Susan Brittin, Ed Izzo, Larry Jones, Dean Pineles. Absent: Charlie Lusk, Don Ramos and Brian Leven. Others attending: Paul Reed and Don Peet.

Mr. Reed explained the project saying the main road serves 5 lots and branches off to a single family dwelling on lot # 6. The 50’ r.o.w will need to be extended to lots # 5 and #6, a total of 400’. Proposed lot # 6 is almost all in the RHOD. There will be no reserved strips. Screening considered adequate as it exists and limits of clearing are shown (Mr. Reed described the cut/no cut zones). Building envelopes are shown on plat for lots 5 & 6. Mr. Reed stated a dry hydrant and pond would be provided if at such time the Carpenter’s do not allow for the use of theirs, which exists. Mrs. Brittin asked if the Fire Department would require a turnaround at the end of the drive and the applicant will seek their comment. The pond/dry hydrant need to be on the final plat when recorded, stated Mr. Baker. The present driveway will not be used but turned into a grass area stated Mr. Peet. Mr. Reed stated there are no future subdivision plans, project completed. (Mr. Leven arrived to the meeting). Mr. Reed stated there are no changes for lots 1-4 from what have previously been approved. The 180-day clock will start the date of approval, stated Mr. Baker. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: project # 3665 with the following CONDITIONS:

(1)   All previous conditions shall be a part of this approval.

(2)   The road right-of-way will extend approximately 400’ to accommodate lots 5 and 6.

(3)   The Fire Department shall be consulted as to whether a turnaround shall be required.

Mr. Pineles seconded the motion with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Jones, Ramos, Leven and Pineles voting in favor. None voted to abstain. Mr. Lusk was absent. 

Project #:      3673

Owner:          Adirondack Properties, LLC

Location:       Brush Hill Road near Route 100

Project:          Nine (9) lot Planned Residential Development SITE WALK at 2:30 on March 9^th. Recessed from 2/19/08

Present at the site walk were: Dean Pineles, Brian Leven, Don Ramos, Ed Izzo and Larry Jones. Absent: Charles Lusk and Susan Brittin. Also present: Bill Kules, Gerry Scott and Bobby Roberts. Present were Bill Kules and Gerry Scott. Mr. Kules gave an overview of the project and Mr. Jones stated lots 1-8 are building lots (with single family, 4 bedroom dwellings being proposed) in which 6 of the lots will be clustered and lot # 9 reserved open space. The parcel consists of 46.3± acres total, of which 20.5 acres are in the RR-2 Zoning District, 25.6 acres in the RR-5 Zoning District and 34.4 overlaying acres in the RHOD. The slopes are moderate to steep. A 50’ buffer has been provided at the top of the bank for the watercourse, which runs through the middle. There is a wetland area at the southeast corner at the top. Lots will be accessed by a road off Brush Hill Road. There is a section about 300’ at a 16% grade, stopping at lot # 3. Plans are for on site wastewater and water supplies. Mr. Kules stated there will be no clearing on lot # 9 (except for downed dead trees and brush, just want to clean up the area). The Town of Stowe abuts the property on the south side. Mr. Scott stated he has done nothing in the way of clearing at this point. Mr. Jones suggested a plan be put together if there is an intent to clear any of the area. Mr. Leven suggested the owner contact a forester and not a logger to do any cleaning up on lot #9. Mr. Kules has on the plan a 2,000 s.f. dwelling with a building zone of 3,000 s.f. A lengthy discussion followed re: the road off Brush Hill and Mr. Kules stated the road off Brush Hill is at 8% grade for 25’. Mr. Izzo expressed his concern and Mr. Jones stated members slid coming out of the Roberts’ drive where it comes into the road. Mr. Izzo stated it is not a safe entry and felt it extremely dangerous. Mr. Ramos agreed that to have an 8% slope coming into a 16% slope is dangerous. Mr. Izzo stated this proposed road is off a road which is very steep. Mr. Jones stated after the site walk, it was the opinion of the members that the drive, especially where it goes off Brush Hill Road would be unsafe and not doable. tape 1 side 2 . He suggested that emergency vehicles would have difficulty getting to the lots. The Fire Department has not signed off on the project at this time. Mr. Kules stated he was trying to consider the amount of excavation which would have to be done at the entry if the slope were to be lowered. Mr. Izzo suggested the possibility of going in at an angle through Lot # 1 or through the Adams property, instead of a 90 degree. Mr. Ramos felt the grade at the intersection of the road is the main issue. Mr. Kules stated there will still be a section of 16%. To do otherwise there would have to be much more cutting done, which would be a concern, stated Mr. Izzo. If the road was dropped down, lot # 1 would be lost, stated Mr. Baker. Review continued re: the other sections, i.e. PRD the applicant asked for a waiver of the double setback on one side for lot# 8 in the RR 5 district (from 150’ to 75’). The Town of Stowe is the abutter on the side which the applicant is seeking the waiver. Members felt comfortable with the waiver. Mr. Ramos asked if a dry hydrant has been explored and Mr. Kules stated he will pursue that when further along in the process. It had been suggested by the Fire Department that the applicant explore the possibility. Mr. Pineles asked about using one of the driveways to the Brian Adams property. Mr. Scott stated he has discussed the possibility with Mr. Adams but at this time he (Mr. Adams) is not interested. There is a turnaround at lot # 8 and another at the end of the road as requested by the Fire Department (memo dated 2/20/08). Spaces between lots 4 & 5, (Sec. 18.3(2) there is no standard in the state regs but they recommend 30’ isolation. The town has a 50’ separation requirement (the applicant thinks this can be satisfied) and will address this issue. Mr. Jones suggested the applicant ask the Fire Department go to the site and look at the road before signing off.

The main concern felt by all members is the private road off Brush Hill Road. Mr. Izzo moved to RECESS to APRIL 1, 2008, seconded by Mrs. Brittin with all in favor.

Owner:        108 Homecrafters, Inc.

Location:      End of Sallies Lane

Present were Chris Parsons and Chris Howe. Mr. Parsons stated the plan is to subdivide a 10.3 acre lot into 2- five (5) acre lots, Lot B having a single family dwelling under construction and Lot B1 to have a single family dwelling. Both lots are wooded and both sites fairly secluded from any other homes. The existing parcel is not in the RHOD. Lot B will be approximately 260’wide and 860’ long and the remaining land, which will be Lot #B1 is extremely irregular due to a pre-existing configuration. Proposed septic and water wells are shown on the plan. Mr. Baker stated he had done a site walk and the land has a shared driveway to the two lots. Sec. 5.1 reviewed. There are no natural or scenic features and no known historic features and no reserved strips on the parcel. The members agreed the lot (10 acres) is already irregular, and the subdivision makes Lot B conform and Lot # B1 irregular. The driveway is private and not a public road. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: project #: 3678 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 implementation, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.

(2)   The applicant shall provide for the record, a maintenance agreement for the driveway.

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

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 7:50.

                                           Development Review Board

                                                     March 18, 2008

Project #:       3660

Owner:           Chase, Robert, Michael and Duane

Location:        Upper Luce Hill Road

Project:           3-Lot subdivision (Site walk to take place at 4:00 P.M. Recessed from 2/5/08)

Present for the site walk held at 4:00 P.M. this date were: Dean Pineles, Ed Izzo, Charles Lusk and Larry Jones as well as Rich Baker, Charles Burnham and Mrs. Warner.

Present for the hearing were Charles Burnham, Robert Chase, Mrs Warner, abutting property owner with her Attorney Becky Olsen. Mr. Burnham felt there were three outstanding issues after the previous meeting, (1) the forestry plan. Mr. Burnham stated an objective memo from Hunger Mountain Forestry, Inc (Brian Sweet, Forester) and dated 3/3/08 was submitted. This described areas 1,2,3 and 4 with a statement of objective and the treatment to be provided. Mr. Burnham stated the forester would be involved during the clearing process. Mr. Izzo stated he was concerned about the clearing and no-cut zones. Mr. Burnham said there are managed areas but no cut zones, which he then proceeded to describe each area with the treatment to take place for each, i.e. an example being in area #1, they will be removing 26 s.f./acre of UGS stocking and all dead standing and downed trees. He referred to the treatment prescriptions in a letter from Mr. Sweet dated 1/30/08. It is noted that area # 3 is the area in the neighborhood of the Warner house. Mr. Burnham stated the objective is to provide screening for abutters and the new houses. The forest is continually changing, stated Mr. Burnham. Mr. Jones stated he felt some members were struggling to visualize the area when finished. The proposed subdivision is not visible from any public vantage point. Mr. Lusk stated the principle of the forester is sound and that while the project may not start with perfect screening that perhaps the Board would have required years ago, it will evolve as it goes on. Mr. Lusk questioned whether there will be large equipment working thereby creating large corridors through the area. Mr. Burnham stated there will not be corridors, but will be pulling out the trees and downed material. Mr. Leven stated he was comfortable with the forester’s treatment, which has certain goals to obtain. Mr. Pineles stated he had a concern Sec. 5.1(2) as natural features and any possible wildlife habitat and having a large cut as being proposed. Mr. Burnham stated two-thirds of the woods there will remain and will not interfere with wildlife. Mrs. Brittin concerned with the amount of open space, the random inventory so there is no way of knowing what and where there will be cutting. She said there is no way of tracking what is done. She said if there is a 15 acres with 5 acres cleared and has wetlands that is significant. She felt the Board would be approving a plan not knowing how much will be cut. Mr. Burnham argued the plan is very comprehensive and suggested if the Board wants guidelines, they should write them. The recommendation is a prescribed program to follow and that is the plan, stated Mr. Burnham. The stumps come out and a meadow is created. Mr. Izzo suggested going back to the areas and looking after some cutting has been done and at certain stages in the process. Mr. Ramos stated there is a forest management plan incorporated into the plan, (certified by a forester) which he was willing to accept and said the testimony is the house sites will not be seen. There is a state construction permit required, stated Mr. Baker. Mr. Jones stated he would like to observe how the plan works but indicated he would like to see how the plan works and suggested it be certified. Mr. Izzo felt the members should look at the work done at a certain stage in the process, which has been done in the past. Mrs. Warner, abutter, stated she was concerned with the clearing areas on the perimeters with vast clearing being proposed on lot #3, the size of the clearing area seems large. She asked that the clearing area end at the lower end and the forestry area in the larger area of the house site. She said the more it is clear-cut, it will have the possibility of run-off and erosion, being on the underside of the lot. She asked that the set back be more. Mrs. Olsen asked about relocating the existing stock and asked if it could be stored in the upper area and not near the Warner’s house. Mr. Burnham responded that most of the trees exist in that area. Mrs. Brittin felt the Board needs to see in the plan the run-off, wetlands area etc—as she felt it is too late to visit after the work is done. Mr. Jones agreed but said the threshold question is, in the RHOD, whether to classify it as minor or significant and it was felt this to be minor even though there are personal concerns. Mrs. Olsen asked if there is a storm water permit before any clearing and Mr. Burnham said it has been submitted. tape 1 side 2 Mr. Lusk asked if the heavy equipment will be going outside the meadow areas and Mr. Burnham said no, winches and cables will be pulling out the brush/trees. Mr. Leven sated he would be fine with the right of going to observe the property at a later time, but was not comfortable in adding any conditions which the Board might wish to impose at a later date. Mr. Lusk stated he was satisfied with the cutting/clearing as did Mr. Jones. Mr. Izzo still felt there will be large clearings. Mr. Pineles agreed it would be nice to look at the site after clearing has taken place but agreed if members don’t like it, he did not feel they could impose conditions. Mrs. Brittin referred to Sec. 5.5(5) having to do with storm water run-off issues etc, especially as it might impact Mrs. Warner’s property. Mr. Burnham submitted a letter from Little River Survey, William Kules, re: the wetlands and storm water services (in the record). Mr. Burnham stated there will be no disturbed area uphill from Mrs. Warner’s property. Mrs. Brittin argued there should be a management plan and stated she would want to see the documentation given by Mr. Burnham for the record. Mr. Burnham told the members the rules change every time he comes before the Board, which makes it difficult to explain to his clients. Members stated each circumstance and subdivision is different. Mr. Izzo felt the Board needs to be concerned with neighbors and their concerns. Wetlands: Mr. Burnham stated there would be no undue adverse impact on any wetlands. 1300 s.f. of fill (per letter dated 3-7-08 letter from wetlands consultant) therefore does not trigger the state/federal requirements. Driveways: two driveways are being proposed, the issue being do the driveways need to be 600’ apart or can there be two driveways within the 600’. (Mr. Jones stated it has been an ongoing issue for the members) Mr. Ramos said it is vague and should defer to the applicant. The plan says there is 2,000’of frontage. There is an issue for site distance, curves etc, stated Mr. Lusk and asked if everyone was comfortable with the downhill driveway being just beyond the steepest bend in the road. The two drives are less than 600’ between (and that is the issue). Mr. Pineles asked if the regulation is a safety concern? He was concerned about creating a safety issue in any area (not necessarily at this project) and are these safe. Site distance to the west uphill is over 500’ and to the east is 340’. The upper drive is 600’ and 400’ with the evergreens to be trimmed. Mrs. Warner asked why the clearing has to go beyond the house site. Mr. Jones said he understood what she was saying but the testimony has been the entire subdivision will not be seen. There is also a 75’ setback.

Mr. Lusk moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: project # 3660 with the following CONDITIONS:

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

(2)   A driveway maintenance agreement shall be submitted before recording the plat.

(3)   A licensed/certified forester certifies the cut status three months after the commencement of cutting. No additional cutting shall occur after the certification without notice to the Zoning Administrator. Any future cutting will require review by a certified forester and certification of cut status as related to the original approval.

(4)   All other statutory requirements shall be on the plat prior to being filed.

Mr. Pineles stated the town is required to notify abutting property owners (or interested persons) so they can come to the hearings. He felt the Board was obligated to listen and felt the plan meets the minimum regulations as far as the setback, but may not meet the moral standards, considering the concerns of the property owner. He asked Mr. Burnham if there is a way to redesign the cut zone for lot# 3 that would provide a greater setback. Mr. Burnham responded saying he did not feel that an appropriate question for a Board member. The adjoining property owner cleared the trees (she purchased it already cleared) right up to the property line and now is asking us to create more of a setback. How equitable is that, asked Mr. Burnham. Mr. Pineles stated the clearing is significant and felt to bring back a few feet would not alter the scheme. Mr. Jones limited the discussion at this point as the concerns have been expressed but the board position is to observe the setback (75’). With no further discussion, Mr. Pinles seconded the motion with Mr. Izzo, Ramos, Leven, Jones, Lusk, Pineles and Mrs. Brittin voting in favor. No one voted against. No member was absent.

Project:           Plans are to demolish a portion of the building and construct an addition (Recessed 2/19/08)

Chairman Jones stated for the record that Barbara Allaire (as last time) could participate with two hats if she wished, as she was an interested party and concerned citizen. Present for the hearing was Chris Carey, Architect. The handicap ramp design has now been changed to the other side in the proposed plan, which the SHPC has reviewed and approved, by letter dated 3/13/08. Mr. Carey described the landscaping plan as being lilacs, spirea and 18-30” mugo pines. Mr. Baker stated the plan is a fairly limited amount of landscaping for a parking lot and the size species are 2-3’ high (except for the lilacs). Mr. Carey stated there has been talk about a small berm. Mr. Baker said he wanted to make it clear the landscaping plan will not screen cars. Mr. Carey stated they did not want to hide cars, it was a conscious decision. Mr. Lusk observed the applicant could not have bothered with landscaping, in the winter there will be nothing and asked where the snow will be put and that should be kept in mind. Mr. Carey felt the snow could go on the reverse side of the lot. Mr. Jones referred to the regs in Sec. 22.1(d). Mr. Jones felt the landscaping as proposed does little to minimize the visual impact. Mr. Ramos felt there could be more landscaping, but did not feel more would beautify the area. Mr. Lusk stated the proposed landscaping does not do much to alleviate looking at car bumpers. tape 2 side 1 Mr. Lusk stated the mugo pines need to be at least 4-5’ tall in order to break up the line of the parking lot. Mr. Carey felt the Legion would not have a problem with that. Mr. Pineles said he could accept the plan if the bushes survive. Mr. Carey stated the light at the base of the flagpole has been relocated. Plans are to place lighting along the walkway (at the request of members). A flagstone walkway will be installed between the two parking areas. The Board wanted the walkway lighted. Discussion re: the canoes, storage or retail (display). Mr. Leven felt they are both. Barbara Allaire stated her concern is that the yard on Rte 100 south side will be filled with storage of trailer, canoes, snowmobiles etc. which are now located off the Sylvan Park side of the road. Mr. Baker stated the kayak storage (and other items) are shown on the site plan to be located in the rear and the front is a parking area. If it is used other than as a parking lot, the applicant can be cited for use other than parking. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: 3675, with the following CONDITIONS:  

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

 (2) A shared driveway maintenance agreement shall be submitted before a zoning permit is issued.

(3)    The landscaping plan shall be altered before a zoning permit is issued to include a variety of taller mugo pines that grow a minimum of four (4) feet to five(5).

(4)    The plan shall be altered and a cut sheet submitted before a zoning permit is issued to include a pathway light along the walkway between the front and rear parking lots.

Letters from the SHPC dated February 13^th and March 13, 2008 have been submitted for the record and approval was based in part on their recommendation.

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

Project #:       3045

Location:        700 Trapp Hill Road

Project:           Request for permit extension or re-approval for construction of outdoor pool and community building.

Zoning:           RR 5/RHOD

Present was Hans van Wees who explained the permit expires in July (decision dated 5/06). Clearing and site work were started last summer and would like to complete the buildings this year. Mr. Jones felt it should be treated as a new application and Mr. van Weiss stated the project has not changed from what was originally approved. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, incorporating the original decision, subject to all prior 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)   All previous conditions imposed in the original decision shall remain in force, except the lighting condition which has been satisfied.    

Project #:         3388

Owner:            Trapp Family Lodge Owners Association, Inc.

Tax Parcel #:    6-121.030

Location:          Trapp Hill Road

Project: Request is for a permit extension for villas units 1-2, 21-40 (except # 28)

Mr. van Wees present and said all the villas were approved under the same permit and 17 have been built at this time. The applicant submitted a phasing plan dated 2-21-08 which goes out to 2012. After discussion, members agreed to allow the permit to run in coordination with the Act 250 permit. Mrs. Brittin moved to approve the renewing of the permit for the remaining villa units to dates coinciding with those dates outlined in the current State of Vermont Use Permit. Mr. Lusk seconded the motion with all members voting in favor. No member was absent.

Project #:       3684

Owner:          Ampersand Properties LLC

Project:          Amend existing permit # 3322 to change windows, eliminate a door and other minor exterior changes.

Present for the hearing was Ken Biedermann who explained the proposal replaces the doors with windows, replaces stone veneer with clapboards going to the ground, removes a portion of the faux railing, replaces stone pillars with wooden columns, modifies window design on the elevator façade, and shortens the width of the elevator façade. The Historic Preservation Commission recommended approval of the changes in a letter dated 2-28-08. Mr. Pineles moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as an amendment to project # 3684. ALL previous CONDITIONS remain in force. Mr. Lusk seconded the motion with all members in favor. No member was absent.   

Owner:          Duquette, Donald & Wendelyn

Location:       383 Moscow Road

Project:          Change of use from pottery studio/sales to store and deli, which includes renovating the building. (former schoolhouse)

Present were Norm Benoit and owner Don Duquette. Mr. Benoit stated there is a 4 apartment house on the property and he spoke of the pottery building (former school house). He stated there will be no changes to the existing parking of 17 spaces (14 required). tape 2 side 2 Mr. Benoit stated plans are to remove the large groups of trees on the corner and in the front of the building for two reasons, one for safety and the other to allow for exposure of the building with a plan to replace with lower landscaping. Plans are to add 2 parking lot lights, 14’ high poles for shoe box fixtures with 100-400 watt bulbs. Sec. 4.7 review: this is a non-conforming use in the RR 2 zoning district, which does not allow for a store/deli. Sec. 5.1(1) & 5.1(3) discussed. The Board agreed this could go from one non-conforming use to another. There will be no seating, only take out items and no change in the dimensional requirements. Plans are for 1800 square feet of retail space. Exterior changes include: changing a window to a double-wide door on the east elevation; changing a window to a single wide door on the south elevation; replacing a door on the Moscow Road elevation with a window the same size and style as the existing windows. The building is in the 100-year flood zone. If more than a 50% improvement in market value is to be done, the flood regs come into play. In this case, there is a letter submitted that renovations will cost $40,000 (listed value $60,000). There are no plans for anything to be in the basement. There could be an elevation certification provided by a surveyor. Sec. 14.8 (4) (pg 14-7). Mr. Duquette felt the building is above the flood elevation but this will have to be verified. Water, noise or air pollution not a concern; however, Mr.Izzo observed that any compressor which may be located on the exterior needs to be on the site plan with a condition that the noise level will not be heard beyond the property line. Driveway access adequate. There appears to be adequate parking/plan. There are two groups of trees (4 each); one on the corner and one near the driveway. Mrs. Brittin asked if all the trees near the driveway will be removed. Mr. Benoit said yes because when one comes out of the parking lot, one can’t see. Mrs. Brittin felt there should be some shrubs or something along the road and in the corner. Mr.Lusk suggested that when the tress are removed, he would ask that there be 2 shade trees be put in the lawn area in the rear of the building so as to tie the building into the landscape. Mr. Jones shared the same concerns. Mr. Lusk stated the building is traditional in a traditional neighborhood, and the neighborhood is about landscape plans. Mr. Leven questioned why remove the trees near the corner, stating he pulls out of there many times and never felt it to be a safety hazard. He would like to see them remain (at least a couple of them) and suggested scaling down what will be cut rather than adding new plantings. Mr. Pineles suggested members drive by the site and look at the present landscaping, taking into consideration what Mr. Lusk and Mr. Leven had expressed. Outdoor lighting on the building shall be shown on the site plan and cut sheets submitted. No proposed lighting along the walkway. Mr. Ramos moved to RECESS to April 1, 2008, for the applicant to submit a landscaping plan and cut sheets, seconded by Mr. Lusk with all in favor. Hours of operation to be 6:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M.

Mr. Jones said that he, as well as all of the members is saddened to have Mr. Pineles leave the Board, this being his last meeting. He and his wife will be spending the next year out of the country. It has been an honor and privilege working with Dean and he will be sorely missed. We all thank Dean for his dedication to the Town and participation on the Board. I will really miss you neighbor!!.

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