Development Review Board

                                                      Town of Stowe

                                                      August 5, 2008

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

Members present: Larry Jones, Peter Collotta, Don Ramos, Susan Brittin and Charles Lusk. Also present were Tom Jackman, Town Planner who was taking Rich Baker’s place and Lisa McCormack from the Stowe Reporter.

Absent: Ed Izzo and Brian Leven. Others present: see list in minutes book.

Mr. Jones stated that there are 5 members present, two members absent and 4 affirmative votes are required for any approval.

Project #:      3771

Owner:          Sequist, Thomas

Location:       1378 Moscow Road

Project:          Construct a 12’ x 40’ horse she. Requesting a variance. (Recessed from 7/15/08)

Present was Tom Sequist. Mr. Jones stated for the record since the previous hearing, Mr. Sequist had submitted written testimony addressing the 5 criteria as he interpreted them. 

He is now requesting a 45’ variance to the setback from the Moscow Road. The 50’ setback from the river will be met. This application is being viewed under the old regs, Sec. 24.6(3).( Sec. 2.- 2.12 in the new regs). A. Unique physical conditions: Mr. Jones said he was not comfortable saying the proximity of the road to the river is a unique physical condition. Discussion. A narrow piece of property lying between road and river is not a unique physical condition. It still comes down to the road and its proximity to the top bank of the river, stated Mr. Jones. B. Mr. Lusk felt the requested variance falls short under the criterion that in order to enable reasonable use of the property, the provisions of the zoning regulations cannot be conformed to. He felt that there is already reasonable use of the property since there is a house on it. To grant a variance would be to say that no property in Stowe could be denied a horse barn because that constitutes reasonable use. Mr. Lusk said he didn’t see how the Board could do this and said he would have to get comfortable having a horse barn that one is automatically entitled to. Mr. Sequist said he interpreted reasonable use as it would apply to a field with an historic agriculture use, so that not every property in Stowe is entitled to a horse barn. Mrs. Brittin asked if there is another place the barn could be located and the answer was no, that is the extent of the property. Mr. Ramos said he could get comfortable with the reasonable use and felt the road is a unique physical condition. However, the amount of the variance is quite large which he was struggling with and asked if it could be put back away from the road a bit more. Mrs. Brittin felt not to be able to use that portion of the land would be to deny reasonable use. Mr. Lusk advanced a theory that the person who subdivided the property created the hardship, and that this could be attributed to the appellant, which would cause the request for a variance to fail on criterion C. Discussion followed re: C. Mr. Sequist inherited the situation, stated Mr. Lusk. Mr. Ramos disagreed. Mr. Jones said if the appellant did not create the issue, then it is possible to grant relief. Mr. Jones said any action by the DRB requires 4 affirmative votes. Mr. Lusk asked how Findings of Fact would be written if one member were to find the criteria falls short on one of the requirements and another member finds it to fall short on another. Mr. Jones said the Board may not be able to agree. Mr. Lusk said Mr. Sequist needs to have clarity. Discussion followed on how to vote. Mr. Jones polled the members. Mr. Lusk felt it would fail on B; Mr. Jones felt it failed on A and the other 3 members felt it met all critera. Although Mrs. Brittin moved to direct the Zoning Administrator to write Findings and Fact and Conclusions of Law approving the variance, she withdrew the motion on Mr. Sequist’s request for a RECESS, saying he felt it is vague in the way the rules are being interpreted and would like more consideration. Mrs. Britten then moved to RECESS to AUGUST 19, 2008, seconded by Mr. Lusk with all in favor of the recess.       

Project #:      3782

Owner:          Mickelson, Thomas

Location:        1203 Waterbury Road

Project:           Convert the Pines Motel to seven dwelling units

Zone:              RR 1/RR 2

Present for the hearing was Tom Mickelson as well as Mark Sgantas, Fire Chief with members Ed Andrus and Mark Walker. Mr. Sgantas advised the members that they may not have received two letters written to them regarding conditions of any approval for two projects in front of them tonight. Members agreed. Mr.Michelson said because of financial reasons, he is now proposing to create affordable housing apartments by converting buildings 1,2 & 3 into 9 apartments, using the existing footprint. These will be 2 & 3 bedroom units. He is proposing to construct two two-car garages and one three-car garage, providing one bay for each unit. Buildings are on private water and sewer. These units will be one story. The two conditions from the F.D. were: (1) trees be pruned and trimmed at the entrance to the driveway to allow for fire trucks entering and existing so as not to cause damage to the vehicles and (2) there shall be a dry hydrant or some form of adequate fire protection. Mr. Jones felt these could be incorporated as conditions in any decision. Mr. Michelson said he had a conversation with Mr. Schnee, (F.D.) and said he would put in a dry hydrant but the pond requires a lot of repairs, there is a lot of silt but he was willing to work with the F.D.to come up with an adequate water source. Mr. Sgantas said the F.D. is looking for fire protection, and always has been, but they are not looking for him to redo the pond. Mr. Michelson said it becomes quite burdensome for him to do it on his own. Mr. Jones said it sounds like there needs to be a reasonable water source and Mr. Sgantas agreed that is a fair assessment. tape 1 side 2. Mr. Jones said any approval would be based on a condition satisfactory to the F.D. and members agreed. Members felttraffic would be less with these 7 units that theprevious approval for 9 units. RR 1 zone. Character of the area: going from a lodging use to residential use. Access onto Rte 100 will not be changing. There are two front yards and all setbacks are being met. Building coverage is 7.6 %. (maximum of 8% in RR 1). Each dwelling unit requires 2 parking spaces. Existing exterior parking will not change, stated Mr. Michelson. The existing driveway is not changing. The only shared access is off Farr Road, which needs a road maintenance agreement. Mr. Michelson stated that was provided with the previous approval. Landscaping previously approved, although one tree has been added. There will be no external noise created by fans, generators etc. Siding of the motel buildings to be of concrete clapboard painted; roofing metal and garages vertical wood siding. Lighting Sec. 4.8: Plans are to leave the lights over the doors (recessed lights), take the lights off the side of the building and put one in the peak of each garage. Mr. Michelson stated there will be no change in the number of lights on the units. There is existing landscape lighting among the trees. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in support of project # 3782 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 conditions of the previous approval shall remain in force.

(3)   A satisfactory solution shall be worked out with the Fire Department for a source of water protection, prior to a CO being issued.

(4)   An exterior lighting plan shall be submitted.

(5)   A rendering shall be provided showing the delineated parking spaces.

(6)   The trees along the driveway shall be trimmed based on the condition requested by the Fire Department in a letter dated 7/24/08.

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

Project #:        3789

Owner:           Salvas, Joan

Location:         2400 Waterbury Road                       

Project:          Preliminary approval for a nine-(9) PRD

Present were William Chesbrough, Architect, Dean Salvas and Darrow Mansfield. Mr. Chesbrough stated the proposal is for a 9-lot subdivision on an 18.2-acre parcel. Presently there is an existing 3 bedroom dwelling on its own lot, and 10.28 acres of open space. One acre is in RR 5 and flood plain, the rest in RR 2. Sec. 3.6 (7) addresses having the development in two different zones and after review of the section, the members agreed to the waiver. In this case all of the development is in the RR 2 zone. Sec. 12.4 PRD.  

Setbacks around the perimeter of the project are 120’ except for the existing 150-year-old house which is less than 60’ from Route 100. The property borders the Waterbury River and Moscow Road on one side. Mr. Chesbrough stated the building envelopes are shown on the plan with the houses depicted within each envelope and internal setbacks of 10 feet. Closest structure to Rte 100 will be building # 6 with a 120’ setback. All proposed lots are less than 2 acres (except for existing dwelling). Open space is grassed, flood plain area with two streams, and trees. No affordable housing is proposed with this project. There is a planned pump house located on Lot # 5. A letter from the Fire Dept was presented requesting a 2500 s.f turnaround and Dean Salvas agreed it will be provided and on the final plat. Mr. Jones said any approval will be conditioned as such. Mrs. Brittin asked for the open space to be tape 2 side 1 described which is everything not included as a lot. Discussion followed concerning the existing gravel operation on the side of the road. Mr. Lusk did not feel the operation met the criteria of open space. Mr. Jones read Sec. 12.4-8 D. Mr. Jones felt, and members agreed, the current operation did not meet the criteria and at the final decision, the operation will have to go away from that location. Mr. Salvas stated it is his intent to remove it. Traffic: Out of the 9 lots, 7 will access onto Moscow Road with approximately 14 additional cars. Mr. Jones said his concern is with the intersection of Moscow Road and Rte 100, because Rte 100 is a very busy road. Character of the Area: it is RR 2 and a residential area. Mr. Lusk felt the character of the area will be dramatically changed by this, saying every other house in this area is on its own free standing parcel, but an instrument in the bylaw has been created making it difficult to say that doesn’t apply in this case. Mr. Jones observed that a stated purpose of RR 2 is to allow for higher density. No adverse effect on the area. No historic sites on the property. Sec. 3.1 On Moscow Road, which is a town road, access is more than 600’ from Rte 100. Lot # 5 has its own access off Rte 100. No landscaping or screening is being proposed and Mr. Chesbrough stated the existing trees on the parcel, along Moscow Road, along the brook and all others will remain. A state permit for the project is required. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: preliminary approval for project # 3789 with the following CONDITIONS:

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

    (2) The final plan submission shall include a turn-around designed in accordance with the Stowe Fire Department Recommended Construction Guidelines.

    (3) The topsoil operation cannot be located in the open space area. 

(4)    A road maintenance agreement for the 7 lots shall be submitted for the file.

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

7:00 RECESS

Project#:          3786

Owner:             Nimick Associates

Tax Parcel #:    6-176.010

Location:          932 Shaw Hill Road

Zone:                 RR 5/RHOD

Present were Polly and Kathy Nimick and Darrow Mansfield. Mr. Mansfield described the project as being at the end of Shaw Hill Road with 108 acres of which 20 acres are in a separate title located in the middle of the parcel with an existing driveway which will be shared with the new lot. 34.5 acres for lot A and new house site. No development is being proposed for the reserved lot, which does have various building sites. Mr. Mansfield stated no unusable lot is being created. There is a 10’ r.o.w. path, owned by the town, which has limited use to the former Kriezel property located on Meadow Lane. Sec. 5 reviewed: The Fire Department has reviewed the plans finding there will be no adverse impacts or conditions. Mr. Mansfield stated the grade is nearly flat. The new dwelling will have its own well and septic. RR 5 zone with the new house lot is in RHOD. Mr. Mansfield stated Lot B contains several building lots which would be acceptable to the Board’s review. The existing parcel has a highly irregular shape. Lot #A will be 3.1:1. The remaining area that will constitute Lot #B is irregular in shape due to the pre-existing parcel configuration. The Board waives the lot configuration requirements due to the pre-existing lot configuration. Mr. Mansfield stated there is an existing hydrant in the area. RHOD: Lot A is proposed to have a house site within the RHOD. A narrative included with the application identifies potential visibility from portions of Edson Hill Road, Mountain Road, Trapp Hill Road, and North Road. The applicant proposes to establish clearing limits once a final house site is determined. The visual analysis narrative recommends selective clearing for the house site in order to avoid creating visibility from any public vantage points. No clearing is proposed until further review by the Board. Any proposed clearing and construction would require review by the Board under the RHOD regulations. Mr. Mansfield stated it is possible to construct a house which will not be visible. Mr. Jones asked if a house will skyline. Mr. Mansfield responded saying he would be surprised if it did but would be addressed by the DRB at the time of proposing a house. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: project # 3786 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)   There shall be no clearing on Lot A, prior to review by the DRB of the house site, with the exception of the driveway.

(3)   A road agreement shall be submitted for the record.

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

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

                                         Development Review Board

                                                    Town of Stowe

                                                   August 19, 2008

The regular meeting of the Stowe Development Review Board was held Tuesday, August 19, 2008 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:0 P.M.

Members present: Susan Brittin, Ed Izzo, Don Ramos, Brian Leven, Larry Jones, Peter Collotta and Charles Lusk. Also present: Rich Baker, Zoning Administrator and those listed in the minute’s book.

Project # :      3772 (Recessed from 7/15/08)

Location:        138 Ski Club Lane

Project:          Add 3.37 Acres into overall acreage of Stowe Mountain Resort Ski PUD

Zone:              RR 5/SKI PUD/RHOD

Present was Rob Apple who explained that the parcel is located at 138 Ski Club Lane. They would now like to include the house and acreage into the overall PUD. A revised land Affidavit has been submitted. Mr. Jones referred to Sec. 12.3 (3) re: development standards and the setbacks. Mr. Apple explained when the Planning Commission created and approved the SKI PUD, they did not require the double setbacks. The original map is on file and the affidavits are updated. Mr. Apple stated there is no proposed change in the use of the house at this point, but may be torn down at a later date. Pursuant to the requirements of the Stowe Zoning Regulations, an amendment to an existing PUD is reviewed as a Conditional Use. There will be no change to the exiting driveway and the access to the two houses will not be changing. Since the members found no impact on the conditional use criteria, Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in support of project # 3772, seconded by Mr. Ramos 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 updated affidavit, showing the addition of the 3.37 acres of land shall be recorded.  

Project #:      3771

Owner:          Sequist, Thomas

Location:       1378 Moscow Road

Project:          Construct a 12’ x 40’ shed for horses and related equipment. Front yard variance request.

Present was Tom Sequist. Mr. Jones asked Mr. Sequist if he had any new information and the answer was no. He then asked members if they had questions or discussion. Mr. Lusk stated he had read the Rules of Procedure and found there is no reference to Roberts Rules for parliamentary procedure. He asked that the question be divided and explained his concern finding it perverse under the criteria as one could think one criterion could fail; another would not etc.ending up not being able to write a finding of fact. He felt there should be 4 separate votes either in the affirmative or otherwise. Mr. Ramos felt that could take place with any vote. Mr. Lusk wanted to use Roberts Rules. Mrs. Brittin asked for clarification. Mr. Lusk stated any one of the criteria if not met could mean a denial. Mr. Lusk moved to divide the question. No second. Mr. Jones stated the Rules of Procedure require four affirmative votes. Mr. Jones said the project is the same as the original application, but stated the barn will now be pushed back to comply with the watercourse setback (river side) thus requiring a 45’ variance from the road. Mr. Jones stated he could not find a unique physical condition. This is a narrow piece of property and there could be several other property owners in town whose property is in the same situation. If this were to be approved, it is possible to have to approve barns on either side of this property. Mr. Sequist felt the road as well as the river has created the uniqueness. Mr. Lusk felt there is currently reasonable use of the property with a house on it, finding the request for a variance fails on criteria B. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law approving project 3771 as presented. Mrs. Brittin seconded the motion. Voting in favor of the motion: Mr. Ramos, Leven and Collotta. Voting against the motion: Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Lusk and Jones. Motion failed on a 3-4 vote.

Mr. Lusk then moved to DENY project # 3771 request for a variance with the majority of the Board finding all the criteria necessary for a variance were not met. Mrs. Brittin seconded. Voting in favor of the Motion to DENY:  Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Lusk and Jones. Voting against the motion: Mr. Leven, Ramos and Collotta. Motion PASSED on a 4-3 vote.  

Project #:       3809

Owner(s):      Collins, Matthew & Jillian

Location:        306 Owls Head Lane

Project:           Minor revision to extend Lot # 7 building zone westerly to RR 5 setback

Present was Milford Cushman , Architect tape 1 side 2 Mr. Cushman stated the request is to move the building zone line to the 75’ setback line. After little discussion, Mr. Ramos moved to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law approving the request with all previous CONDITIONS of the subdivision to remain in force. Mrs. Brittin seconded the motion with all in favor.   

Owner:            Percy, Paul

Location:         2897 West Hill Road

Project:          Add 6 panel antennas and related equipment on existing tower

Present were Peter Katz for Centerline Communications LLC and Paul Percy. The plan is to add 6 antennas to the new Verizon tower, which will be below the existing antennas. A slab will be poured and equipment mounted on a 10’ frame, looking like the existing towers. Members determined this project can be classified “minor” in the RHOD zone. Sec. 3.7 reviewed and Mr. Baker stated there were no negative impacts reported. There is no plan to cut additional trees, stated Mr. Katz. He also stated the antennas will be at or below the existing tree line. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in support of project # 3807 subject to the CONDITIONS imposed in the 10/3/06 approval. Mr. Ramos seconded the motion with all in favor.  

Owner:       Ampersand Properties LLC & Thomas Lane Residential Homeowners Condo Assoc.

Project:           1. Request 10’ internal setbacks for Ampersand Phase III

                        2. Request modification to require sidewalks on one side only of Phase III

                        3. Request modification to not require sidewalks in Phase II

Present Ken Biedermann (6:15) as well as Todd Westervelt (Lot 11 Phase II), Burt Mill Lane, and Edward & Audrey Dunn, Lot # 14 Thomas Lane. Mr. Jones said that there were no materials provided for Phase II and questioned if that portion of the application was properly in front of the Board. Mr. Biedermann showed the original map and explained the sidewalks from Main Street to the Dunns’ house. Phase II is made up of lots 9-13 (5 lots), for which the sidewalks were never built and the homeowners do not wish to have them constructed as they would have to come into the front yards. Phase IV has not been built. Co-applicant is being represented by Ken Biedermann, who stated he is President of the Thomas Lane Residential Homeowners Condo Assoc. Mr. Jones stated he wanted something in writing to confirm that. Mrs. Brittin asked if the sidewalk is the same as the walking path shown on the map. There is a spur off the property which goes uphill which is currently not used, stated Mr. Biedermann. Mr. Lusk called it a walking path and Mrs. Brittin questioned the concept in that area. Mr. Jones said he was comfortable with having sidewalks on only one side in Phase III. And other members agreed. Mr. Jones stated any amendment within the PUD requires Conditional Use Review under the regulations. The impact review comments were from Charles Safford, Town Manager favoring sidewalks on only one side as did Justin Rabidoux, Public Works Director. Mr. Biedermann stated the PUD was created because the land is in 5 different zones, with Phase III mostly in the residential zone/ some in the industrial residential zone. Mr. Biedermann stated he was looking for a modification of the 30’ setback to a 10’ setback. Mr. Lusk felt a site walk would be beneficial and members agreed. Mrs. Brittin moved to have a site walk on 9/2/08 at 4:30 P.M. prior to the RECESSED hearing with members meeting at the Phase III location. Mr. Lusk seconded the motion with all in favor.

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at