Development Review Board                  APPROVED 3.24.09

                                                 March 10, 2009

The regular meeting of the Stowe Development Review Board was held Tuesday, March 10, 2009 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M.

Members present: Charles Lusk, Ed Izzo, Susan Brittin, Brian Leven and Don Ramos. Absent: Peter Collotta. One vacancy remains. Also present: Richard Baker and those listed in the minutes books.

Project #:   3879 (RECESSED from 2/17/09)

Owner:           Adirondack Properties LLC

Location:         Brush Hill

Project:            Nine-lot Planned residential Development (AMENDMENT of project # 3673)

Present were Bill Kules, Gerry Scott and Cory Mack, traffic resource. Mr. Kules told members there are two options for the curb cut and based on letters from VTRANS and Justin Rabidoux, prefer the drive next to Adam’s property (option 1). They have relocated the building envelope so there will be no cutting and requesting an 85’ setback waiver from the r.o.w. (from 120’ to 85’) Mr. Kules said he felt the intent of the regulations had been met for a PRD. Justin Rabiodux, Director of Public Works memo dated 2/24/09 which stated he had done a site inspection and concluded and recommended Option # 1. Mr. Mack contacted the state and VTRANS suggested an advanced warning sign before the intersection. The state is planning a sign inventory along Rte 100 as there have been several collisions along that intersection stated Mr. Mack. Eric Adams arrived (5:08). Mr. Scott said in collaboration with the state, they are able to have a sign at that intersection. The primary safety spot is Rte 100 and not prior to the proposed curb cut stated Mr. Scott. Mr. Mack explained to members the safety analysis, and explained both options. Site restriction about 600’ to the north due to the curve and to the south over 1,000’ (option 1). There have been 13 accidents within 150’ of West Hill, stating the intersection at West Hill is substandard and has issues.   

The sign would probably be within 350’ north of the intersection of West Hill Road to give people a warning that there is a dangerous intersection coming up. Mr. Scott said they collaborated with the state and the dangerous spot is 350’ from the proposed driveway. Mr. Izzo asked Mr. Mack (who reported what VTRANS had given him) if he was at the site between 6:30-8:30 AM and the answer was no. Mr. Izzo said Mr. Rabidoux cannot conclude anything about an application and should be struck from the record. Mr. Leven said he was trying to get by the language on pg 23 in the subdivision regs. Sec. 5.5(4) – last paragraph and he read aloud and said he felt it was addressing this kind of situation. Mr. Izzo said it was clear, the word being “shall” and talking about a driveway into the PRD and not a separate driveway. Mr. Kules interpreted it differently. Mr. Lusk questioned if it is limiting one access from a town road. Discussion continued re: the two accesses for the subdivision. Mrs. Brittin said she would not be in favor of the curb cut for safety reasons but felt it qualified as a PRD. Mr. Izzo said he would not vote in favor. Mr. Ramos said he was still undecided. It appeared there was not a majority to vote in favor. Mr. Lusk asked if the board wished to go into executive session. Mr. Kules asked members to offer another solution and asked how they would feel if the applicant were to incorporate Lot # 9 with Lot # 4, creating an 8 lot PRD. Lot # 9 would be withdrawn and this would now include open space of 24.6+ acres on Lot # 4, all of Lot # 9 conservation area. The plan could be amended for preliminary approval, stated Mr. Baker, reconfiguring the lots. The buildings zones/buildings/cut zones will not change. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of fact and Conclusion of Law re: project # 3879 approving the amended plan for preliminary approval with the previously approved conditions and merging Lot # 9 with Lot # 4 and all of Lot # 9 becoming part of the conservation area. (Mr. Baker sta

ted the conditions). Mr. Lusk seconded the motion with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Leven, Lusk, Ramos voting in favor. Mr. Collotta absent. One vacancy.   

Project #:         3955

Owner:             Nimick Associates

Tax Parcel #:    6-176.010

Location:          932 Shaw Hill Road

Project:             Updating approval of project # 37866 (Two Lot Subdivision)

Polly Nimick present and said Charles Grenier, Engineer needs to do another survey to meet the existing standards. There have been no changes to the previously approved plan. Seeking additional time to file the final plat. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: project # 3955 extending the previous approval for 180 days. Mr. Ramos seconded the motion with all members in favor. Mr. Collotta absent.   

Owner:             Stowe Town School District

Tax Parcel #:    6-104.000

Location:          413 Barrows Road

Project:            Reconfigure parking lot. Add landscaping and parking lot lighting

Present were John Pike, Director of Finance; George Cormier, LSSU and Andrew LaRosa, Black River Design. Mr. Lusk asked Mr. Baker if the ice chillers/coolers received a permit? Mr. Baker will check. tape 1 side 2 Mr. Pike explained the plan as redesigning the parking area for busses and safety reasons, islands and add landscaping. There are currently 169 spaces (what the school counted) and requesting to go to 132. 122 spaces are presently striped. Pg. 158 describes the minimum lot isle measurements requiring 24’ and the plan has 20’. Mr. Baker said he interpreted, as meaning with 90 degree parking one does not have one way. Mr. Izzo suggested the parking be angled. There will be a parking area for school busses who arrive for events. Mr. Baker stated schools are a conditional use and felt the issues are: the isle widths, the reductions of the spaces and the ordinance do not address schools in particular and lighting. Bollard lights will be used with full cut off lights along the islands. There are currently lights on the canopy, which will be removed. There will be 5 handicapped spaces provided. Mr. Izzo asked what standard is being used to arrive at the 132 spaces. The south side parking area is seldom used, stated Mr. Pike and thus will alleviate cars parking on Barrows Road. Signage would be installed to indicate the parking in the rear. Mr. Izzo asked if there is something, which allows students to drive to school, and Mr. Cormier said they have not ever had the need to restricted students unless not following regulations. Mr. Ramos said if the spaces are reduced by 30% that could be down to 100 spaces. Mr. Lusk asked what the threshold is the school needs, saying there are other functions, which take place at the school, i.e. town meeting, graduation and other municipal events. The Board needs to determine the standard to be used. Mr. Baker stated Bruce Godin, Parks & Grounds, and could not be present, had a concern with losing spaces, especially when an event is taking place. He also stated [people do not use the back area. Beverly Lemery, next-door neighbor, stated the back lot is not used and said the main lot is usually full. Mrs. Lemery asked if there would be lighting in the back lot? Ans: there is no plan for lighting. She felt to lose parking spaces is wrong and questioned where they will be parking. Mr. LaRosa referred to pg 159 and used “Assembly halls” as criteria for parking. He said there is a total of 179 (??) seating in the auditorium. Mr. Baker referred to Sec. 14.3(2). Mr. Lusk about snow removal since part of the area will be taken away. Mr. LaRosa said they have met with Percy’s and are confident they can plow around the islands. They may have to periodically bringing a bucket loader stated Mr. Pike and admitted the place to put snow is being diminished by the project. Mr. Lusk said the piles of snow existing this day are large. Mr. Ramos said he was comfortable with the number of spaces and suggested there be signage for any overflow parking to the rear. It is not planned to stripe the rear lot at this time, stated Mr. LaRosa. Mr. Lusk felt the members should know how many employees on a daily basis, number of students driving, teachers etc. Barbara Allaire stepped down from the Board to the audience and stated she uses the parking lot several times in the fall, has to arrive an hour prior to any game and wait for someone to leave to get a space. Team busses create a problem park perpendicular to the fields, which remove 4-5 spaces. Mrs. Allaire asked if the teachers could be required to park in the rear lot. She said there are absolutely not enough spaces and overflow parking is along Barrows Road as well as the lawn area. Mr. Pike agreed that people think only of the main lot and the south section is not being used. The grass parking will not take place, as it will be curbed. Team busses will have a designated place to park. He said the teachers could be required to park in the rear and agreed it would help. Mrs. Brittin suggested doing a site walk. Mr. Lusk suggested a statement from the Selectboard or Manager (who has seen the impact statement) who have reviewed the plan. He used Town Meeting as creating a possible parking problem. Lighting: there are presently some building lights, similar to bollard lights in the rear. Mr. Baker asked the members to consider the 20-22’ between the islands and suggested it might not be enough width, especially to go around. Mr. Pike said wider widths can make for faster driving. Mr LaRosa. tape 2 side 1 Mr. Baker said he will research the lighting which is possibly not in compliance which has been brought to his attention from a neighbor. There will be 6-7 pole lights, each under 16’ in the islands as well as bollard lights along the sidewalks and the bus stops. Mr. Ramos asked if there is adequate lighting in the south lot and the answer was they have not been told that is a problem. Mrs. Lemery asked if the lights will be on 24-7. The answer was they are programmed turn on when it gets dark and programmed to go off, they will be controllable by manual implementation. Mr. Lusk said this would be addressed.  Sec. 3.7 Reviewed: Mr. Godin’s comment was taken during testimony; Sewer Department asked that trees not be planted in the sewer area; traffic on the highways will not be changing but Mr. Leven suggested if more people are forced to park on the road, it affects the standard. Mr. Lusk suggested Mr. Kaplan call Chief Kaplan and ask his comments. A sheltered crossway is being provided. There will be no removal of existing trees, but there is additional vegetation as an alternate plan. Members felt they need a planting schedule. Mrs. Brittin moved to RECESS Project # 3957 to March 24^th at 5:00 P.M. when a site walk will be held for a site walk at the site on Barrows Road. Mrs. Lemery asked if the tennis courts will be affected by the plans and the answer was no. Mr. Izzo seconded the motion with all in favor. Mr. Collotta absent. 

Project #:           3958

Owner:              Hayes Hospitality Holdings LP

Tax Parcel #:     7-019.000

Location:            990 Mountain Road (Grey Fox Inn)

Project:              Erect a temporary fence (up to 40’x80’) to be used for weddings of up to 150 people.

Alan Hayes was present and stated the plan is to have an 80’x40’temporary tent holding 150 people to be used for weddings with participants staying at Grey Fox. Mr. Hayes described the location of the tent as being in the vicinity of the graveled area (Site A of the plan). Mr. Hayes stated it would not be necessary for parking to be near the sewer line. Mr. Hayes said 25 additional parking spaces are required which will be arbitrary after the land is graded. Mrs. Brittin asked about the parking affecting the setback and Mr. Baker said he would be allowed parking up to 10’ of the property line. Mrs. Brittin asked how many events are being planned and Mr. Hayes he does not have but for a business plan would like 12 a year and looking for 6. The tent will go up Thursday and down Sun, Mon or Tues. Mr. Lusk said the approval would be as if it were to be permanent. Mr. Hayes said in the event the hotel is added to he would like the opportunity to put a tent on the lower level which is not now in the flood plain. Members felt the approval should be for Site A only. If Site B on the plan is to be used, the applicant shall return to the Board.    Hours will be noon to 10:00 P.M. Plans are to have a band or DJ for the weddings. May –October time frame and Mr. Hayes said it is not his intent to do multiple events on a weekend. Mr. Izzo concerned with the possibility of noise and Mr. Lusk said there is a standard in the bylaw for noise off the site. The length of time to allow the tent was discussed and Mr. Lusk suggested there be a time period involved particularly because the date of the first event is not known. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: project # 3958 with the following CONDITIONS:

   . (1) The project shall be completed according to the plans hereby approved. 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) Amplified music shall only be permitted between the hours of noon and 10:00 P.M.

   (3) This approval shall be limited to two years from the date of the first event. The applicant notifying the Zoning Administrator of that date shall determine that.

   (4) The Board approves Site A only

   (5) Any new parking shall be not closer than 10’ from the property line.

   (6) No parking shall be permitted over the sewer line without the approval of the Stowe Public Works Director.

Mr. Ramos seconded the motion with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Ramos, Izzo, Lusk and Leven voting in favor. Mr. Collotta absent and there is one vacancy on the Board.

Project #:          3936

Owner:              Porrier, Jennifer

Tax Parcel #;     7-252.010

Location:           623 Sylvan Park Road

Project:              Variance request for an 18’ x 18’ deck built without a permit within the watercourse setback.

Zones:               RR1/RR2   

tape 2 side 2 Present were Jennifer and Tom Porrier. Ms. Porrier stated the house, driveway, grading of the land existed when the deck (18’ x 18’) was built in 2002 on the top of the land. Mrs. Porrier said her dad built the deck with no excuse and forgot to get a permit for which she apologized. Mrs. Porrier moved in to the house in 1999. There was already development, i.e. grading, driveway etc.closer to the watercourse prior to the deck being built. Old regs Sec. 14.12. The language is the same in the new regs. House is a pre-existing structure. The deck is approximately between 40-50’ from the watercourse. The 50’ buffer is shown off the USGS maps, stated Mr. Baker. Mr. Baker said the deck makes it more non-conforming. Mrs. Porrier asked about the term of development saying no additional work has been done; the deck was put on top. Mr. Porrier how it is protect water quality and scenic beauty, feeling it was improving the water quality. Mr. Lusk explained the definition of development and there has been development within the 50’ of a watercourse. Mr. Porrier said he felt the regs were setup to protect the natural environment and water quality back in 1989. Mr. Lusk explained the Board has to review under Sec. 3.10(1) and felt the Board has to address as if the applicant is asking to construct the deck. Mr. Izzo described the criteria, which need to be addressed and followed. Sec. 2.12 Variance (pg 21):

(A)    ----

(B)     Reasonable Use—there is a narrow deck wrapped around a portion of the house. and that deck could not have been enlarged because it extends out over the garage. The deck was built in the only place possible, stated Mrs. Porrier. There is a propane tank is buried on one side.            

Members agreed they did not need to review any additional criteria, feeling B could not be met. Mr. Porrier said the watercourse goes dry and did not think it would be environmentally beneficial to remove the deck since they would have to re-grade, seed the land, take out trees etc. He did not see that there would be any protection to remove the deck because all the original impact happened years ago. Mr. Baker reiterated to the Porriers that the criteria are state statute 

 Mr. Lusk moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to Draft Findings for project # 3936 the request DENYING a variance finding the standard under 2.12.(B) was not met. Mrs.Brittin seconded the motion with Mrs.Brittin, Mr. Ramos, Lebven, Lusk, and Izzo voting in favor of the denial. Mr. Collotta was absent and there is one vacancy on the Board.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:15 P.M.