Stowe Development Review Board       APPROVED 6.16.09

                                                   May 19, 2009

The regular meeting of the Development Review Board was held Tuesday, May 19, 2009 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M.

Members present: Susan Brittin; Charles Lusk; Don Ramos; Brian Leven and Peter Collotta. Also present Richard Baker and those listed in the minutes book, including 

Project #:      3970 (Recessed 4/7/to 5/19. requesting to RECESS to JUNE 2, 2009

Owner:          Salvas, Joan

Location:       2400 Waterbury Road

Project:          Final Approval of Nine (9) Lot subdivision

Mr. Ramos moved to RECESS to JUNE 2, 2009 at the applicant’s request, seconded by Ms Brittin with all in favor.

Project #:        3982 (POSPONED from 4/21/09 at the applicant’s request)

Owner:            Estate of Gerald Kirchner (Lease Holder)

Location:         1333 Waterbury Road

Project:            Construction of Stowe Electric Department Operations Center

Present were: Ted Teffner, Ellen Burt, Manger; Attorney Ed French, Darrow Mansfield for Stowe Electric Department as well as others in the audience.

Charles Lusk, Chairman stated that this evening is the first time the DRB has reviewed anything having to do with the Operations Center and any suggestion to the contrary is

inaccurate. He also explained the Board is limited in its review and stated the criteria.

Mr. Mansfield described the site as being 19.4 acres with a single- family dwelling. Two-thirds of the acreage is wooded and uphill from the house and abuts Owls Head development. Proposing to construct a new 2-lane driveway (and remove existing drive).   

New parking area will allow for 23 parking spaces in the rear of the house. The existing house/garage is 1250 s.f. and proposing to add 3,000 s.f. onto the house includes a breezeway. Construct a 5 bay garage of 5,000 s.f. and a 30’ x 50’ storage shed having 3 doors. The basic intent of the layout is intended to minimize and visibility from the north and south, therefore buildings are clustered and allows keeping the front of the building green and open. Intent is to look like a rambling farmstead. Setbacks are 100’ from the front; 110’ from the closest side yard and unlimited in the rear. Plans are to in the future subdivide some of the acreage in the rear and sell off for the construction of 2 dwellings. Storage outside will be restricted to the poles stated Mr. Mansfield. Building coverage at 1.5%. Mr. Mansfield stated the exterior lights will be on when the facility is open, off after closing but will have an over-ride for emergencies when employees need to be at the building. The Electric Department will own approximately 12 acres for this project and share the driveway for the future project in the rear. He suggested the department will be using approximately 1 acre for the buildings. Mr. Mansfield agreed to submit a lighting plan. David Jaqua, representing himself said there are others in the community who are very disappointed with what is going and voiced his disappointment, i.e. a commercial use in the residential district is inappropriate. He said the Town Plan’s goal is to keep municipal functions within the village boundaries (this violates that) and there are conservation organizations who try very hard to preserve the visual integrity of the gateways to the community and they look at these kind of issues. To allow the town, because it is a public entity, to skirt the normal process is appalling. Mr. Lusk said there will be a bond vote for this and statements will be able to be made. Carla Ely who owns a house at the end of Farr Hill Road asked what kind of development could happen on the rest of the property. Mr. Mansfield again stated the plan is to sell off approximately 7 acres and the possibility of constructing 2 dwelling units exists. Mr. Lusk responded that the subdivision is not being addressed at this meeting. The Fire Department responded that they wish to make the pond available to this project. Mr. Baker stated the pond is owned by The Pines as well as this property. Mr. Mansfield stated the issue has internally been discussed this and will will be working with the other property owner. Sonny Davis in the audience said he felt this a good development for the property since probably 8 houses could be built on the property and did not feel that would look good. There is no other place in town where the Electric Department can expand would preferred to see a barn on the property as opposed to 9 houses. Ms. Ely asked members if some form of shielding could be put in place so that persons driving down Farr Hill Road would not have to look into the rear of the development. Mr. Mansfield felt that a fair questions and stated it would be addressed, especially screening of the sheds. Sec. 3.7 Review: Traffic: Mr, Collotta felt there could be a significant increase in traffic, people dropping off payments, trucks going in and out, staff arriving and leaving etc. He could not modify the plan which would not interfere with the functional operation. Mr Mansfield stated there will be 3 large trucks; 2 pick ups; 10 operational people; 5 office staff. Ms. Burt stated there are approximately 10-15 customers per day. The office will not be open week ends. Mr. Ramos felt there will be minimal impact on traffic and said after looking at the Vt Transportation file there is an average of 12,000 cars per day on a stretch of Rte 100 said Mr. Rabidoux. Town Engineer said after working with the Dept of Transportation the figure of 11,800 was given. Height Bulk of building: Mr.Ramos stated he had rather see a farmhouse and barn as opposed to a residential community and said he was pleased with the design. Mr. Lusk agreed. Members agreed the setbacks are adequate. Mr. Mansfield stated there will be 5,500 s.f. of office space. Parking covered and adequate. Noise: Mr. Mansfield said laoding facilities will be in the rear of the building. It is an office complex with regular hours. The possibility is there that employees would have to arrive in the night for emergencies. There will be a generator which will only be on when power of off. Lighting: Mr. Lusk wanted more detail for the exterior lighting, location, wattage, numbers, cut sheets and located on the plans etc.Landscaping: Mr. Lusk stated he would want to see foundation plantings, most importantly around the farmstead. Mr. Ramos suggested evergreens be used to screen the sheds rather than a fence. Mr. Jaqua: concerned with the review process, and questioned the implications going forward and said, what if they (applicant) wanted to build a highway garage at some future time, the review would still  tape 1 side 2 belimited . There is no representation being made that this field will remain (the 12 acres is the site) so does the undeveloped portion of this parcel stay limited in its use in perpetuity. The question from Mr Jaqua was: “ in approving this, is the Board in fact conserving the land or could a highway garage be built on it in the future?” Mr. French said that is beyond the scope of this review and will share every plan we have. This satisfies out needs now and have no future plans. Mr. Lusk asked if the Electric Dept would be bound by the 12 acres which was stated, or could they contemplate spinning off 6 acres for something else. Mr. Lusk said he had been under the assumption the 12 acres are for this project. Mr. Baker said the Board (or applicant) would have to place a condition or a possible conservation easement on the parcel in order that nothing else can take place on the parcel. Mr. Jaqua said he wanted to  

make sure the townspeople understand when the Board says yes, this entity could use for any other municipal use. Mr. Teffner said the electric department is not necessarily the town; we have to ask the taxpayers for approval and money, other than that, it is a utility. and not accountable to the town. Mr. Teffner did not feel the use should be restricted. Mr. Ramos felt it a very valid point. Mr. Lusk suggested Mr. Baker seek legal counsel as to whether or not a condition could be place on any approval. Mr. Jaqua said it is others fear that this will be an established municipal area and could be utilized by future generations. Mr. Labier felt it should not be restricted for municipal uses. Mr. Davis said to talk about “forever” could be harmful for future years. Mr.Lusk commented this discussion could be something for the bond vote. Mr. Baker said any future plans would have to come back to the Board. Mr. French suggested the Commissioners need to have a meeting while the town needs to get legal counsel. We cannot see beyond the foreseeable future, i.e. perhaps extend out pole yard. Mr. Teffner felt it a good thought re: the bond vote and could possibly agree not to put another use on the property, or possibly put a # of years on the use. Ms. Brittin Brittin moved to RECESS to JUNE 2, 2009 and that the applicant will return with a more detailed lighting plan; satisfy landscaping plan; resolution of pond use with other property holder and resolution of the uses on the parcel. 

Project #:        3977 (POSTPONED from 4/21/09)

Owner:            Mt. Mansfield Ski Club (Lease Holder)

Location:        403 Spruce Peak

Project:           Construct an addition to the Mt. Mansfield Ski Club building

Zones:             RR 5/SKI PUD/RHOD

Present were Paul Reed, Igor (?) , Kim Brown and Charles Burnham. Mr. Reed explained that the Ski Club building is on the foundation of the old Spruce Base Lodge and needs to expand the club building by 40’ x 80’ (lease ½ acre). Mr. Reed said the membership has increased and requires additional space. Existing perimeter has a circular drive for dropping off kids of which there are 220, plus parents for the different activities. The anticipated use will primarily house the athletes and parents of the different activities, i.e. lockers, lunchroom. offices and will have a training space component inside the structure. There will be approximately 10 ski events run out of the proposed structure. Written communication was received today from Thomas & Mary Allram, owners of 1027 Spruce Peak Road and dated 5/19/09. Mr.Grayson, abutter: Who stated he lives on Spruce Peak and is favorable to the proposal but offered his concerns. When the earlier building housed the Day Care facility, it did not share the road to the eight houses of the Spruce Peak Houses Association. Mr. Grayson stated they did not use that road. With Spruce Peak Realty development, the road has changed and now there are remaining 8 houses. The original road has been relocated to the former Big Spruce Road. Mr.Grayson said he was attending the meeting on behalf of Spruce Peak Houses Assoc. A new road was constructed at the intersection below the Ski Club. Mr.Grayson said one concern is the Ski Club has taken on more functions/events. That changes the nature and character of the area, which has now become a major event venue. He stated the parking at a time when there is activities is not adequate, the parking lot is not adequate and overwhelmed the road. He is concerned with shifting of major events, adding a new use and capacity to this area will now put an unconscionable burden on the infrastructure, the road and traffic flow. He felt there should be some kind of traffic control/flow; improvement in the road surface. Adequate access/ infrastructure and controls are needed, stated Mr. Grayson. Review under Sec. 12.3 (2) Resort SKI PUD. (pg 139) HT in the Ski PUD as a seasonal private club (definition pg 66) and Mr. Reed agreed as did members. Kim Brown said the area has been extensively photographed from various locations and cannot be seen from any public road. Charles Burnham, Land Planner said ½ acre has been leased and not been able to find any surveys of record or any subdivision permits for that ½ acre parcel. tape 2 side 1 Review of project classification, major or minor: adding on to an existing pre-existing building. Mr. Reed stated will not be changing the impervious area of the lot. Mr. Leven under # 2 commented that even though one cannot see the expansion, it is not a small-scale project. After discussion, members agreed it to be a minor. Conditional Use Review: under community services, the building will be sprinkled; will meet with state codes; Fire Department had questions on their Impact statement which will be addressed, i.e. Public Safety issues a CO; contact FD for FDC locations; will maintain the 360 degree access; Knox box for FD will be addressed. Mr. Reed said that is currently done year around. Traffic: there was testimony stating there will be an effect, which sometimes overburdens the road. Mr. Reed stated he understood some of the concerns and suggested using placards on either side of the road which would mimic the other side of the Mt. Mr. Reed stated the road is at A21 standards and would match many Class 3 roads in town, even in mud season but cannot overcome all situations in mud season. A very limited amount of parking will be around the club stated Mr. Reed, saying they will be guided to park other places. There will be 2-way egress. Ms. Brittin asked that the Board see a proposal for the parking plan. Mr. Burnham suggested putting an additional 110 cars in the lot, creates a problem; i.e. snow banks etc. The parking lot is not adequate, there is no way to get a 2-way access, need an overall parking plan and Mr. Burnham felt the road should be brought up to a commercial standard, with a maintenance plan and on going plan should be submitted (and be the applicant’s burden). This stretch of road has additional burdens on it, stated Mr. Burnham. Mr. Grayson said their concern is with the section that starts at the beginning of the gravel road and goes around the corer to the parking lot. (approx. 1,000). Mr. Ramos asked is asphalt would be a solution and Mr. Grayson said yes. Mr.Reed stated that would not be possible. Mr. Burnham stated there needs to be a plan for significant events and Mr. Reed agreed. Mr. Igor (?) said they are making every effort to book events during the week and said that teams travel in vans. Mr. Grayson said maintenance of the road is the problem as any damage done to the road in the winter or early spring, stays there. It is not maintained. Character of the Area: meets the standard in the PUD. Mr. Reed agreed if the road was not maintained up until 2 weeks ago that would not be satisfactory and agreed to return to the Board with a plan, which would satisfy the homeowners. Mr. Carron (?) he supports the Mt. Mansfield Ski Club but it is the condition of the road. He felt the MMSKI CLUB does not own the road. There is an applicant leasing a building from someone who is not in the room. Which the issue is with the owner of the assets. They have been lead to believe the road will be paved and documents to show this. Mr.Lusk did not feel it germane to the application. Ms. Brittin moved to RECESS to JUNE 2, 2009 for further information from the applicant. Mr. Ramos seconded the motion with all in favor.        

Project #:       4004

Owners:         Leslie & Claire Pike Trust

Location:       End of Owls Head Lane

Project:          Two (2) Lot subdivision at end of Owls Head Lane

Present were Raul Reed and Carla Ely (in the audience) Ms Ely re: Lot 10B, She said she met with Mr. Reed and Brendan O’Reilly have an agreement for the improving the area between Ms. Ely’s home and the proposed Lot B. Same limitations to tree cutting will remain as were approved in the original subdivision on a submission dated 5/18/09. Lot A will not be changing from the approval given 2 months previously. Sharing the egress off the road. The ratios of cutting in the 100’- 90% leave; 10% cut. 4 huge pine trees to be removed. There is a mutual written agreement between Reed, Grist Mill & the Elys, which includes the planting of an additional 10-12 trees. Mr. Leven referred to Sec. 5.3 of the Sub Regs and asked when the Board puts this into play. Mr. Reed stated there have been 9 lots approved and this application is for the 10^th & 11^th lots. Mr.Lusk referred back to the original Findings of Fact. tape 2 side 2 Mr. Reed agreed to designate a 1,000’ long area in perpetuity, encompassing approximately 20 acres and owned by 5 or 6 owners. Conservation area to designate and Mr. reed stated he would bring in a Master Plan accommodating this plan. Mr. Lusk stated the applicant is put on notice that any further subdivision will require a designated open space. A State Subdivision permit is required. Not in the RHOD. Road extension will not change from the previous plan. After little more discussion, Ms. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: project # 4004 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 final plan shall be amended before recording to reflect the proposed changes per the memorandum dated 5/18/09.

(3)   Any future subdivisions shall require the designation of an open space area.

(4)   Upon the completion of the Owls Head Lane extension, a licensed engineer shall certify that the private road has been built to A-21stanmdards and built at least 18’ wide.

Mr. Ramos seconded the motion with Ms. Brittin, Mr. Collotta, Leven, Lusk and Ramos voting in favor. 2 vacancies remain.

Project #:           4001

Owner:              Town of Stowe

Tax Parcel #:    7A-162.000

Location:           Pond and School Streets

Project:              Relocation of Previously approved Historic School House (Project 3298)

Zones:                VR 20/SHOD

Present were Chris Carey, Architect; Justin Rabidoux, Town Engineer, and Bill Kules, Surveyor. Mr. Carey told members the plans are to move the historic building (yet to be moved from West Hill) back on the site 8’ toward the Elementary School which it is believed will improve the aesthetics y adding green space. Mr. Rabidoux said in discussion with the other tenants (other users) of this town owned property, it was their view that the parcel served to have more green space in front of the buildings. This also provides some symmetry with the other buildings. Sec. 10.10 allows for setback waivers in a Historic District. Mr. Lusk felt it a good idea to bring more in line with the existing structures. Mr. Leven asked the “intended functional use” is defined. The Board opted not to impose any condition which would get ion the way of the use. The Board felt the criteria were met. Ms. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law and indicate the Board waived the setbacks

(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 previous conditions of the original approval shall remain in force.

Barbara Allaire, with permission from the Chair, asked where the project stands and what the time frame is for moving the building to the site. Mr. Rabidoux said the intent is to land the building on the site in October and perhaps start preparing the site work and foundation work in September which would fit in nicely with the repairs being done to the library which is required to be completed by Oct 1. It is the intent to have it on the site by winter stated Mr. Rabidoux. 

Project #:            4002

Owner:                3923274 Canada Inc

Tax Parcel #:      15-042.840

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

Zones:                  RR 5/RHOD

Present was Sam Scofield, Architect. It was reported the clearing limits have been established and the Board previously approved an amendment to the clearing. 

Mr. Scofield showed many photos of the site and where the buildings could be seen. He felt the only places this project may possibly be seen are from the high School area and the barn at Stonybrook. Trees are shielding the site. Mr. Baker did a site visit and said there are public vantage points are far off. Pg 90: After review the Board felt it considered a minor under C-2 & 4. Mr. Scofield stated the building will have very dark stain siding; dark gray shingled roof; wineberry windows/black stain; with a light over the main door but under the overhang (75 watt bulb) and flood lights on each corner pointing down and on motion detectors. Mr. Scofield said he was certain there will be other landscape lighting but there is screening in front of the house and on the corners.

It was agreed if there will be lighting of trees, the applicant shall return with a plan. Sec. 4.8 standard. This was not a part of the application, stated Mr. Baker. Pond is so low so if there were to be lights, stated Mr. Scofield, they would barely be noticed. Mrl Lusk asked if there will be any chandeliers in the windows and the answer was yes, but will be shielded. Ms. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: project 4002 and as a minor, 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 return to the Board if any additional outside lighting is to be proposed.

Mr. Ramos seconded the motion with all 5 members voting in favor. 2 vacancies remain on the Board.

Project #:           4005

Tax Parcel #:     7A-155.000

Location:            77 Park Street

Project:               Seeking approval to use a portion of the building as headquarters for Mud City Adventure Youth Programs. (No changes to the exterior of the building).

Ms. Colangeli present as was Heidi Scheuermann, representing the abutters, Anne-Marie and Peter Scheuermann. Mr. Baker stated written testimony was given the Board this night from the Scheuermann’s. Ms. Colangeli stated the property being suggested is at 77 park Street which she has a lease. She wishes to down size her previous operation, only having kids 6-10 years of age. Program will run daily with no more than 12 children. Plans are have children dropped off between 8:30-9:00 AM and bring back between 4:30 & 5:30 at the end of the day. Leave the property between 9-9:30, prior to which there will be some activities outside. There is a 4 unit apartment building, she occupying the entire first floor. For July and Aug. Ms.Colangeli will be living in an apartment over the garage so the 1^st floor can be used for the project. Parking will be 3 spaces in the garage, 5 on the end of Park St and 3 on Stowe Gems side of building. mr. Colangeli stated she is trying to minimize the activity on the property. Plans are to have raised beds tape 3 side 1  Plans are to have a gardening area on the outside (2 raised beds) and craft tables, bean poles etc. Ms. Colangeli stated it is her job to control the kids and the noise. Sec. 6.2 review.

Ms Brittin stated it is in a residential area, 5 days a week and felt it good to have some control of noise. She said the Board needs to be aware of the neighbors as does Ms Colangeli. Ms. Scheuermann asked if the town wants residential places or don’t they, and questioned if this is approved, where will it go? She asked the Board to do anything to mitigate the possibility of eliminating the residential areas and to look at the character of the area. It is a very condensed area, stated Ms. Scheuermann. Ms. Scheuermann stated the noise from the side of the house is very close to the condo units and that was a concern. They will be having Sat AM and Sat evenings (now 7 days a week). Sec. 3.7 Review: Traffic: Mr. Ramos concerned with the traffic and drop offs. Ms. Colangeli stated if her business grows and is successful, she would move because exterior changes would have to be made to expand. There was discussion about the canoe trailer and members did not propose a putting a condition on where that could be parked, although discussion took place, asking why it could not be parked on the opposite side of the building. Ms. Colangeli said there is a large tree in the way which makes it impossible. After continued discussion, no member felt the project offensive and agreed to support for 1 year. Mr. Brittim moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: project 4005 for the period of one (1) year 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)   A maximum of 12 youths between the ages of 6 and 14 years shall participate in the program at any one time.

(3)   The hours of operation shall be limited to 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM every day and 4:40 PM to 9:30 PM two evening a week.

(4)   The approval is limited to the 2009 season that runs from June 30, 2009 to September 7, 2009.      

Mr. Ramos seconded the motion with all members (5) approving.

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:25 P.M.