Development Review Board

                                                            July 1, 2008

The regular meeting of the Stowe Development Review Board was held Tuesday, July 1, 2008 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M.

Members present: Peter Collotta, Larry Jones, Don Ramos, Brian Leven, Ed Izzo, Charles Lusk and Susan Brittin.

Others present: Richard Baker, Zoning Officer, John Schafer, builder for Mr. Kerrigan; Gordon Reynolds, Little River Survey and others listed in the minute book.

Owner(s):       Kerrigan, Barry and Virginia

Location:        11 West Ridge Road

Project:           Construct a single-family dwelling in the RHOD (Recessed from 6/17/08). Site Walk held at 4:15 P.M. this date with Mr. Collotta, Leven, Jones, Izzo, Mrs. Brittin and Rich Baker plus Mr. Kerrigan and Schafer in attendance.

 Mr. Schafer, builder and Mr. Kerrigan were present. The lot pre-exists the RHOD guidelines and has been partially cleared. Mr. Schafer stated the roof will be black but the house will remain white as previously proposed. There was a long discussion over the height of the building and where it was measured from on the ground. The testimony was it will be 24’ 81/2”, as specified in the regulations. It was unclear on the plans prepared by North Woods Joinery where the measurement was taken from. Mr. Schafer stated the drawings show a wall of rocks (retaining wall) and shows a finished ground level of 4’. Mr. Jones read the definition of height measurement. Mr. Izzo was uncomfortable with the proposal since he could not understand for certain how the measurement was taken and where it was measured from and suggested the plans be correctly submitted and certified. The highest point is in the front and Mr. Schafer stated they fully intend to meet the requirements as stated in the regulations. Mr. Leven felt it could be resolved by having a condition that the plans show the correct height measurement and Mr. Ramos felt there needs to be a certified architect. Discussion re: cutting/clearing. Mr. Jones stated, very little, if any of the roof will be seen from any public vantage point. Mr. Lusk stated there are several soft woods developing on the down side, which should be left to help with screening. Mrs. Brittin felt the house would be screened adequately with the existing vegetation but felt it is important that some of the lower evergreens be left (limits of clearing). It was agreed, after much discussion, that starting at a point measured 15 feet from the wall of the house, there will be no cutting of trees measuring more than 4” caliper. Mr. Kerrigan stated they do not wish to have any more clearing done than necessary, as they want the buffer. Reviewed the cut sheet for the exterior lighting of which there will be 3 wall lamps, one over the main door and one on each side of the small door as shown on sheet # 4 of 12 dated 5/13/08. These lamps will have frosted panels. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 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)        No trees further than 15 feet from the house foundation shall be cleared except those trees under 4 inches in diameter (measured at four feet high).

(3)        An architect shall submit a corrected elevation before a zoning permit is issued certifying that the height on the front elevation is not more than 25 feet.

Mr. Ramos seconded the motion with all members in favor. No one abstained and no one voted against.

Project #:        3718

Owners:          South Hollow Properties

Location:        151 South Hollow Road

Project:           Appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s enforcement of road construction and maintenance conditions relating to S-96-1, South Hollow Properties Subdivision approval. POSTPONED 5/20/08. Requesting to POSTPONE to 8/19/08

Mr. Baker told members that Bill Kules would be going out to measure the road in the near future. Mr. Baker explained the situation as it stands, it being difficult to describe what maintenance means and the measurement of the road will be difficult to determine when it was built 16 years ago. Mr. Lusk moved to POSTPONE to AUGUST 19, 2008 as requested by the applicant, seconded by Mrs. Brittin with Mr. Jones, Leven, Ramos, Lusk, Izzo, Collotta and Mrs. Brittin voting in favor. No abstentions and no one voted no.   

Project #:       3754

Owners:         Peer, Leslie and Marion

Location:        1017 Pucker Street

Project:           Amendment of approved subdivisions in order to relocate driveway access.

Present was Gordon Reynolds from Little River Survey Co., who stated they are willing to abandon the existing curb cut to lot # 2. Mr. Jones referred to Sec. 5.4 (4) of the subdivision regs, which stated access roads onto state highways can be no more than 1 access for every 1,000’ of frontage or fraction thereof. In this project there is less than 1,000 feet of frontage with 2 accesses currently. They are proposing to do away with one of the existing accesses and create a new one at the far end of the property, even though it is not 1,000’. Mr. Jones stated under Subdivision regs Sec. 3.1(2), the DRB has the authority to modify the regs given certain conditions. Mr. Reynolds gave his reasons for granting the modification; (1) more difficult for two owners to manage one driveway; (2) would be a better subdivision design; (3) the proposed drive will not go across the neighbors property and make the driveway better for lot # 2; (4) sight distances adequate according to the state. He did not feel there would be a significant change. Mr. Jones expressed his opinion that the provision requiring only one access road for each 1,000 feet of frontage is requisite in the interest of the public health, safety and general welfare along this stretch of Route 100. Based on his observations driving this road daily, he feels this is a very aggressive stretch of Route 100. Mr. Reynolds agreed with Mr. Jones, but felt changing the curb cut would not change the risk. The curb cut for the barn is not being used on a daily basis but the one for the proposed house would be used on a daily basis. Mrs. Brittin asked what the slope is from Rte 100 and Mr. Reynolds said less than 3% within 20’. Mr. Leven asked how far it would be from one lot to the other and Mr. Reynolds stated it will be 530’ from the proposed curb cut to lot # 2 to the existing driveway at the north end of lot # 1. tape 1 side 2 Mr. Lusk asked if this application is separate and distinct from the previous ones and the answer was no, the application the last time was to add another curb cut , making 3. Mr. Leven felt it could not be handled as a reconsideration since a fee was paid etc. Mr. Jones stated that his concern has always been about the safety of the proposed access. Mr. Jones said there is new subdivision off Brush Hill which can be anticipated to increase the number of cars at that intersection, and the south bound traffic along this stretch is very aggressive. Mrs. Brittin agreed saying that has been her concern right along. Mr. Reynolds said the sight distance going south is adequate and did not feel it had anything to do with Brush Hill but agreed it is a dangerous stretch of road. Mr. Jones polled the members: Mr. Ramos felt it would be a safety issue based on his own experiences; Mr. Lusk said he felt there is a general safety issue with the potential of cars coming off Brush Hill, but he didn’t share the same concern re: the 1,000’; Mr. Izzo said he shared the same concerns as Mr. Lusk, safety issue, Brush Hill road and expressed an additional concern about the elevation coming out of the driveway could be hazardous; Mr. Collotta agreed there is a safety issue; Mr. Leven said he didn’t consider the curb cut across from Brush Hill Road and did not have the concern that he did with the previous proposal and could probably get past the modification; Mrs. Brittin said she could not vote to grant a modification of the 1,000’ regulation because of the safety issue and this proposal has not changed her feeling; Mr. Jones stated he stood by his comments. Mr. Izzo moved to RECESS to August 19, 2008 and give the applicant an opportunity to reassess, seconded by Mrs. Brittin with all in favor. 

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjoined at 7:45. 

                                             Development Review Board

                                                        July 15, 2008

The regular meeting of the Stowe Development Review Board was held Tuesday, July 15, 2008 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M.

Members present: Larry Jones, Ed Izzo, Brian Leven, Peter Collotta and Don Ramos.

Absent: Susan Brittin and Charles Lusk.

Project #:        3772

Location:        138 Ski Club Lane

Project:           3.37 Acres into Stowe Mountain Resort Ski PUD

Mr. Izzo moved to POSTPONE to August 19, 2008 at the applicant’s request. Mr. Ramos seconded the motion with those present in favor

Project #:        3760

Owner(s):        Pall Spera & Newton, Ann

Location:         72 Main Street

Project:            Change of use from single-family dwelling to first floor retail and/or office/apartment on second floor.

Present was Pall Spera who stated that all changes will be internal (no exterior changes) with the exception of a handrail on the front porch. The birch tree in the front lawn may have to be removed because of its conditions. Mr. Spera also stated the project will comply with State regulation re: historic buildings. Any proposed air conditioning units if they are to go on the exterior will come to Mr. Baker, Z.A. for a determination if it has to be reviewed by the Board for noise/screening. This project is reviewed under Section 4.7 as a conditional use. Mr. Baker stated no Municipal Department review forms returned indicated that the proposed development would have any adverse impact on their respective departments. The facility is connected to town water and sewage systems. It was agreed there would be minimal impact on traffic. Parking: On the plan there are 6 spaces available, whereas 7 are needed. Mr. Jones observed that the parking spaces are not built out and unless they are employees and tenants will be inclined to park on Main Street. Section 22.3C give the DRB the authority to modify the parking requirements in the case of a building with multiple uses. Mr. Jones said that although an ADA space is required, he felt the DRB could waive the requirement. Mr. Leven felt there should be one. Mr. Baker stated the Dept of Public Safety will look at the ADA space requirement. Mr. Ramos stated his preference is to have the ADA space and let an employee park on Main street rather than no ADA space. Mr. Spera stated he will do what is needed, but chose not to build out the parking lot but will comply with the regulations. Members, with the exception of Mr. Ramos, agreed to waive the ADA requirement. Mr. Izzo suggested the possibility of having directional signs for parking on the property. Mr. Leven suggested there is room for the ADA space in the front. Mr. Spera mentioned the possibility of the tree being removed and a sign go in its place. The sign may be lighted which Mr. Baker will review. No plans for much landscaping except around the porch area. After finishing the review, Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in support of project # 3760 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)   All parking shall be built-out as shown on the site plan before occupancy of the renovated Newton house.

(3)   Any new air conditioning units shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator to determine the need for screening.

Mr. Collotta seconded the motion with all those present in favor. Mrs. Brittin and Mr. Lusk were not present.

Project #:        3767

Owner:            Janeric Products of Vt.

Tax Parcel #:   11-029.010

Location:         Spring Trail

Project:            Adjust location of r.o.w. to Lot 15 from the south side to the property line between Lots 10 & 14 to the north side of the property.

Present was Don Swain who said the final plat has not been filed. This request is a modification of projects 3363 & 3666, which involved reconfiguration of Lots 10,11, 14 & 15. The request is to modify a driveway location and associated easement serving Lot #15 from the south side of the property line between Lots #10 and #14 to the north side of the property line. No other plan modifications are proposed. Mr. Ramos moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in support of project # 3767 as an amendment 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)   All conditions for the approval of Project 3363 and 3666 shall remain in effect and be part of this approval.

Project #:       3775

Owner:           Jeffrey Pine Properties LLC

Location:        Thomas Pasture Lane Lot # 75

Project:           Construct a single family dwelling with detached garage in the RHOD

Zone:              RR 5/RHOD

Present was Milford Cushman, Architect. Mr. Jones told members he had visited the site and he felt the site was not visible from any public vantage point because of the distance and the subdivision pre-dates the RHOD. Mr. Cushman said any possible vantage points were from Luce Hill Rd at a distance of 3.44 mi and from Stowe Hollow Rd at a distance of .68 mi. He said the roof would be driftwood or weather wood and the siding a dark chocolate brown. Plans are to have lights in the ceiling of the breezeway and two on each side of the door (20 watts each with a cut sheet of the fixtures submitted) tape 1 side 2 and other in the rear are a total of 1400 watts and downcast. Sheet A7 shows the roof and a portion of the house above the existing trees. The distance from the house to the treeline is approximately 100’. Sheet 121 shows the conservation area of Robinson Springs. The Sheet also shows that 10 birch trees will remain in the front of the garage and there will be no other clearing of the existing treeline on the view side. There will be some thinning in the rear. Mr. Cushman stated the peak of the roof from grade is 26’ and 19’4” to the center. Mr. Leven asked if the glass in the front will be tinted (12 windows) Mr. Cushman stated because of the elevation that would not be needed. Mr. Izzo moved to classify the project as presented as a MINOR, and instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with the following CONDITIONS:

(1)   Any change in the plans or thepoposed 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)   No trees will be cut from the lot except those indicated on the site plan. The plan shall state and show the limits of clearing.

Mr. Collotta seconded the motion with Mr. Leven, Jones, Ramos, Colotta and Izzo voting in favor. Mrs. Brittin and Mr. Lusk were not present.

Project #:        3771

Owners:          Sequist, Thomas

Location:        1378 Moscow Road

Project:           Construct a 12’ x 40’ shed for horses, hay, and related equipment.

Requesting a variance from the required setback from a watercourse as specified in Section 4.12(1). Present was Tom Sequist who stated the plans are to have a wooden structure 12’ x 40’ (horse shed). No concrete used. The parcel is divided by Moscow Road with a dwelling on the upper northern side and the field is located on the lower portion of the lot. A setback of 60’ is required from Moscow Road and a 50’ setback required from the Little River. Rear setbacks are not an issue. The entire width of the parcel in question is approximately 100 feet between the top of the bank of the Little River and the road. The required front and watercourse setbacks overlap which would not allow for any structure to be built. Property abuts Stowe Land Trust and State land. The applicant is seeking a variance under the provisions of Section 24.6(3). The proposed barn is situated on the top of the bank for the Little River. The tree line is represented on the map and ends approximately 35’ from the waters edge, stated Mr. Sequist. Mr. Sequist stated the location was chosen because of the prevailing winds, and the snow build up along Moscow Road. They are trying to maximize the pasture area so would not be a good idea to place the shed in the middle of the field. Discussion focused on the various criteria necessary for granting a variance. Mr. Jones felt that building on the edge of the bank would be the maximum variance, rather than the minimum that will afford relief. Mr. Sequist stated he is looking to put a shed anywhere on the land, but with the setbacks as they are, they are X’d out either way. Mr. Jones expressed his concern about locating a barn at the water’s edge with its impact on water quality and the fact that kids swim in the river downstream. The question before the Board is whether there are unique physical conditions or whether these conditions are created by the zoning regulations. Mr.Leven felt # 2 was the issue and question whether a barn on the property is a reasonable use. Mr. Izzo stated the regulations are designed protect certain things, i.e. watercourse etc. In his opinion, this is a very narrow strip that is not suitable for a building. He also had concern about stormwater flow from the horse barn and surrounding area going into the river. Mr. Sequist said he sees many pastures right up to the edge of the rivers but Mr. Izzo stated those locations pre-date zoning. Mr. Sequist said the horses will not be there full time, just mainly in the winter. Mr. Leven asked if the shed were to be in the area of the overlap, would that represent the minimum variance that will afford relief. Mr. Izzo said the history of the Board has not to issue variances except in very rare instances, and this request does not even come close to satisfying the criteria. Any structure on this parcel will require a variance, based on satisfying all 5 criteria as specified in the regulations. Mr. Jones suggested a recess to allow the applicant to work with Mr. Baker, and change or not change the proposal Mr. Ramos asked, given the piece of property, what condition would change if a recess were to be granted because of the regulations. Mr. Izzo stated he did not see how the Board could approve this, it is an area that cannot be built upon and to allow a variance from the top of the bank would be setting a bad precedent. After further discussion, Mr. Leven moved to RECESS to AUGUST 5, 2008 in order that the applicant can work with the ZA and the possibility of returning with a different plan etc. Mr. Ramos, Leven, Collotta, and Jones voted in favor of a recess. Mr. Izzo voted no. Mr. Lusk and Mrs Brittin were not present.

Project #:       3763

Owners:         Percy, Dana T. Jr. & Peter E.

Location:        269 Weeks Hill Road

Project:          Construction of a garage addition and add a shed dormer and lunchroom, bathroom facilities.

Present was Darrow Mansfield, Land Planner representing the applicant, and Chip Percy. The applicant is seeking approval for several changes to Percy Park including construction of a 24' x 40' garage addition on one building, adding a shed dormer on another building, and a bathroom inside another building. The only exterior light will be on the warehouse building next to the door. Sec. 4.7 reviewed. Mr. Baker stated there were no negative impacts on the review sheets. There will be no impact on the existing traffic or parking from these alterations/additions; Mr. Percy stated there are no new exhaust fans being proposed. On site water and sewer exist. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in support of project # 3763 with the following CONDITION:

(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.    

Mr. Collotta seconded the motion with Mr. Izzo, Collotta, Leven, Ramos and Jones voting in favor. Mrs. Brittin and Mr. Lusk were not present.

Project #:        3765

Owner:            Silver Maple Holdings, LLC

Location:         1100 Pucker Street (Poor property).

Project:            Seeking approval of a three-lot subdivision

Present was Darrow Mansfield representing the applicant. Others present were Scott & Linda Almquist and Sandra Ames –??[LTJ1] abutters. Mr. Mansfield explained the project, saying the historic house and barn are located on Lot # 1 which fronts Rte 100; a new 14’ driveway will be located at the northern side of the property to serve all 3 lots, replacing the existing drive which will be eliminated; on site sewer and new water wells; Lot # 3 will be cleared. Lot # 1 is 2.1 acres, Lot # 2 is 2.1 acres and Lot # 3 is 2.3 acres with septic area. Section 5 of the subdivision regulations reviewed: members agreed the parcel could be subdivided; Mr. Baker said Mr. Grenier has not been able to locate the well for the neighboring property (which will need to be on the map). The only historic feature is the house, which will be renovated. Any exterior renovations will need to go to the SHPC for their review; a cut zone is being proposed which will help screen Lot # 3. Mr. Mansfield stated there is a drainage pattern which heads towards Rte 100; however, the project is subject to a Storm Water Run Off Permit by the state. Mrs. Ames (?) asked how the abutters would be informed of any state review and Mr. Mansfield said the applicant will notify them. Mrs Ames was also concerned with the location of the proposed dwellings and what screening will take place. Mr. Jones said any dwelling is not subject to the Board’s review and Mr. Baker stated they will have to meet the requirements but no screening will be required (unless proposed) . Mr. Jones said any permit is subject to appeal. Mr. Almquist said he doesn’t oppose a house but needs to protect his property from run-off etc. He was hoping there could be a buffer for protection of run-off. Traffic: Mr. Jones stated it is on an aggressive stretch of Rte 100 but felt the incremental increase in traffic as a result of this subdivision is unlikely to result in any observable impact on traffic in the community. The edge of the proposed driveway will be 20’ from the abutting property line. The site distance will decrease slightly, stated Mr. Mansfield, but the T intersection is flat. A permit from AOT is required. Design was found to meet the lot configuration requirements. A building envelope for each house site is located on the site plan. The Fire Department had no adverse comments. Mr. Mansfield stated this is the maximum density for the property, and consequently not further development is planned. A shared maintenance agreement will be developed for the shared driveway. Both abutting owners were concerned with run-off; the brook, screening etc. tape 2 side 2 Mr. Mansfield stated the proposed houses will be small, i.e. under 2,000 s.f. and approximately 150’ from the Ames property in the rear. Houses may have walkout basements, stated Mr. Mansfield. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in support of project # 3765 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 proposed shared driveway maintenance agreement shall be submitted before the plan is recorded.

Mr. Ramos seconded the motion with Mr. Jones, Izzo, Ramos, Collotta and Leven voting in favor. Mrs. Brittin and Mr. Lusk were not present.

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 P.M.