Development Review Board         APPROVED 6.16.09

                                          Town of Stowe- June 2, 2009

The regular meeting of the Development Review Board was held Tuesday, June 2, 2009 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:25.

Members present: Susan Brittin, Charles Lusk, Peter Collotta and Brian Leven.

Absent: Don Ramos. There are two vacancies remaining on the Board.

Others present: Richard Baker, Zoning Administrator and those listed in the minutes book as well as some testifying at the hearings.

5:30: Mr. Collotta moved to go into executive session to discuss communication from the Board’s Attorney, seconded by Ms. Brittin with all present in favor. Mr. Ramos absent.

Project #:      3970 Recessed from                      to 5/19/09

Owner:          Salvas, Joan

Location:       2400 Waterbury Road

Project:          Final approval for a nine (9) lot PRD

Zones:            RR 2-RR 5 & FHD

Present were Dean Salvas and Bill Chesbrough. Mr. Lusk stated the applicant is asking to leave the stone pile in place and have the 9-lot subdivision, which has been approved. Mr. Lusk stated the Board’s attorney states there can only be residential components within a PRD. There is no grand fathering issue in this case because a change is being made so that the entire project needs to be in conformance. Mr. Lusk polled the members who agreed with the attorney’s opinion. Mr. Baker stated it wasn’t an issue of discussion until the final plan came in and then the question became, is it allowed at all. Mr. Baker said the options are to ask for a recess to get their own attorney’s opinion or get approval with which the applicant would have 180 days to comply with conditions imposed. Mr. Salvas asked to continue with the hearing to determine if there were other issues. Bill Chesbrough, Engineer, showed the minor changes in the lot lines; delineated the wetlands area; the mound system is now on lot # 7 as is the top soil pile; water supply system is on lot # 8; stone pile is on lot # 9. Mr. Salvas has agreed to remove the topsoil pile. The turnaround requested by the Fire Department has been incorporated in the plan. Mr. Mansfield, an abutting property owner was present for another hearing but stated he had no opposition to the plan. Final Subdivision: Sec. 4.2 (a): preliminary requirements have been met; adjusted property lines; Fire Department request has been satisfied. Mr. Baker stated in his review, all has been met with the exception of the stone and topsoil piles. Mr. Salvas stated if no one moves in to the project, the topsoil pile is not disturbing anyone and asked that the pile be allowed to remain. After discussion re: the top soil pile, Mr. Baker stated top soil is a part of any construction project , and members agreed that a possible decision could be that “the top soil pile would need to be removed within 3 years of the date of approval or prior to the issuance of a CO”. (2) Discussion re: stone pile: members agreed the stone pile needs to be removed. Suggestions were made that if the applicant were to re-think the application and return re: the stone pile, the 180 days would be extended. Mr. Salvas asked to recess the hearing so he can consider his options and possibly seek his attorney’s advice re: the stone pile. Ms. Brittin moved to RECESS to AUGUST 14, 2009seconded by Mr. Collotta. All in favor.

Project #:       3982 (Recessed from 5/19/09)

Owner:           Estate of Gerard Kirchner

Location:       1333 Waterbury Road

Project:          Construction of StoweElectricDepartmentOperationsCenter

Zones:             RR 2-RR 5

Present were Darrow Mansfield, Mrs. Ely, David Jaqua, members of the Stowe Electric Commission, Attorney Ed French and Kim Brown in the audience. Mr. Lusk stated on advice of counsel, the Board cannot impose a condition of approval relating to open space. The remaining issues were: lighting and landscaping. Mr. Mansfield stated they have met with Mrs.Ely who lives on Farr Road and initially had a concern with the view from that area, and is satisfied re: the additional plantings being added on the corner which will help screen the parking lot from above on Farr Road, evergreens will be planted around the storage garage and shrubs /plantings in the front of the house. Lighting: Mr. Mansfield stated there will be recessed lighting on the front of the building; security lighting on the rear of the garage and shed; general area lighting around the parking lot. The largest fixtures will be 16’ high cut off lights for the storage barn. Mr. Brown, in the audience, said Type E lights are a full cut off- 70 watt fixture and metal halide, 8-10’ (no taller than 10’) and there will be no lights along the driveway. Mr. French stated the closing on the property will take place this week. David Jaqua asked what the coverage of the municipal use is on the entire parcel. Mr. Mansfield said the area being disturbance to build the project would be about 1.4 acres. 19 acres total and will be selling 7-8 acres. Mr. Jaqua asked if there should be an expansion at some future time within the envelope being proposed, what is the process? Mr. Lusk stated any change the applicant would be required to return to the Board for approval. The Zoning Administrator can allow for minor alterations. A subdivision will be required to have the Board’s review, as would any subdivision. Mr. Jaqua said everyone should fully understand that the Board cannot stop this project because of the bylaw required by state statue. Mr. Lusk said there is an implied assumption that any further subdivision (after the 7 acres) would be reviewed by the Board and they could impose conditions at that time i.e. requiring that setbacks be met. Mr. French stated to cut off land which has nothing to do with this project is not relevant to this discussion. Ms.Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: project # 3982 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 implementation, for a determination if an amendments shall be required. Mr. Collotta seconded the motion with Mr. Lusk, Leven, Collotta and Ms. Brittin voting in favor. Mr. Ramos not present and there are two vacancies on the board.

Project #:        3977

Owner:            Mt/ Mansfield Ski Club (Lease Holder)

Tax Parcel #:   14-002.000

Location:         403 Spruce Peak

Project:            Construct addition to Mt. Mansfield Ski Club Building

Zones:              RR 5-SKI PUD-RHOD 

Present were: Attorney Jeremy Hoff, Charles Burnham, Land Planner; Igor            ; Paul Reed, Denise Gutstein and Beth McDermott. Mr. Lusk stated the Board’s advice from their attorney (which was an oral opinion given by staff) is there is no subdivision requirement under the bylaws for a leased parcel of land. The standards the Board can require of an applicant to meet re: a private road maintenance requirements are outside the bylaws. The Board can require a private road meet A21 standards. The Board had asked the Ski Club representative to return and address parking and traffic issues. Ms. McDermott on behalf of the MM Ski Club was present. Jermey Hoff and Charles Burnham present on behalf of Mr. Grayson and Mr. Allrum, clients. Paul Reed presented and stated the parking lot accommodates 160 cars; has been in service 60+ years tape 1 side 2 and there is adequate inner mountain parking depending where one wishes to ski. A Master Plan dated 6-10-08 and an affidavit dated 6-17-08 (most current one) was presented. Mr. Reed said there is no question that the intent of the plan was to pave the road except to exclude those north of the home sites and golf course. Mr. Baker explained how the master plan came to be—there is two uses, day skiers or those lodging units or those choosing regular housing. He stated that is how the Board agreed on a total parking need—2, 445 needed and 3, 048 provided (not counting the single homes etc) in the Master Plan. The Ski Club was not specifically addressed, sated Mr. Baker. Mr. Hoff responded saying he felt this proposal is a different use, a skier/racing use has kids being dropped off with gear, parents driving up Big Spruce Road to drop off/pick up which is different than recreational skiing, will be adding 25 spaces around the building /circulation plan which is not on the plan. Mr. Reed said the parking at the building has not been consolidated but there is a limited number of spaces for a limited number of kids. Most parents leave after dropping off the children, said Mr. Reed. The only time there is additional traffic is when events are being held which has taken place at the mountain over the years. Events hosted on Big Spruce are 6 days during the week (UVM carnival week end days). Mr. Burnham asked if the expansion of the Ski Club building was contemplated in the Master Plan and Mr. Baker said no. Mr. Lusk said he felt the affidavit more or less concedes that when the area is crowded, one parks where they can park. This expansion will accommodate locker storage, stated Mr. Reed, and there is no plan to expand the number of people, which will stay around 200 members. Mr. Burnham said this expansion is 8, 000 s.f. and the building will be about 16,000 s.f. when completed and could not point out a building that size in town. Mr. Baker stated the Board needs to review as a Conditional Use and take into consideration the Master Plan for parking. Mr. Hoff said the Master Plan states the road will be paved except---- with no one contemplating there would be an expansion of this building, a 16,000 s.f. building being at the end of the road. Mr. Hoff said every other road in the resort is paved except this road. Mr. Reed stated they would amend the plan showing the expansion and will work their way through it and do whatever needs to be done. Mr. Baker stated the Master plan only addresses parking. This is not a separate lot but all a part of Spruce Peak. Mr. Reed stated 90% of days the Ski Club functions which is between 11/15 & 4/10 the lower lot, which can take 160 cars, there are normally approximately 10 cars in it. 10-15 days a year the lot may be one-half full. Ms. Gutstein stated she has worked many events and the lot is not 20% full and do not see parking as an issue. She said the parking has been adequate for the races in the past and did not understand the problem of the road with any expansion. Mr. Lusk stated the road used to be in a different location and has been relocated and the people on the road feel this expansion will put an additional impact on the road. Mr.Hoff took issue with the A21 standard which comes out of the subdivision regs and suggested there is a modification of the standards. He felt the Board needs to look at Sec. 3.1 (2), which provides for modification. Mr. Baker said the attorney advised not to look at the sub regs, but review as a Conditional Use. Mr. Igor   ? stated the Ski Club will remain there and do what they do each year, whether the expansion goes ahead or not. Ms. McDermott stated the nature of the addition is to make people more comfortable using it, not to expand the number in the Ski Club. Registration will happen at the Ski Club if the addition does not take place and there is adequate parking capacity. Mr. Collotta asked if there would not be more prestigious racers on Main Street? Igor—prestigious racers come here but there will not be more because the numbers in the fields are smaller. Ms. McDermott stated lockers are an important part of this addition, improving the quality of the building but will not bring more people. Mr. Collotta stated he felt an attractive new building would attract more people. Lockers will take approximately 2,000 s.f. , plus 2 locker bathrooms and utility space. Sec. 3.7 2a2 Traffic on Highways: Mr. Burnham said the adverse impact would be the quality of the road and would be based on the scope of the expansion.. Mr. Reed said 95% of the time the road is frozen solid, the only event that really has an impact is the Fri & Sat event for the UVM carnival. Mr. Lusk felt the bylaws imply is there a high degree of inconvenience caused by the volume of traffic. Mr. Hoff asked if that would include circulation around the building. Mr. Leven said there is a very limited window when the road could be impacted, but the people up the road need to get to their house every day, so one day that this would not happen could create an adverse impact. Mr. Leven said he could make the case it will create an adverse effect, whether or not it will be adverse, he couldn’t say at this point. Mr. Hoff said the MMCo doesn’t do anything year after year and that is a problem, when they have been approached and now they are asking to increase the size of the building by 10,000 s.f. Mr. Leven suggested the possibility of a condition of requiring a grader to come when needed. Mr. Reed responded saying not owning the road or having control of the road, he could not promise without consent, but he would say yes, the club would do that if that were to be a condition. Discussion re: grading of roads. Mr. Lusk felt to add that condition would be impossible to impose throughout the year. tape 2 side 1 Mr. Hoff said they are no opposed to the project in any way, but would like to see the road addressed. Mr. Reed acknowledged there are times when the conditions could be alleviated, and it was his hope that the Homeowners & Club and others involved living in the upper section, get together. Mr. Lusk stated this would be the best solution for all parties involved, including the Board. Ms. McDermott said maintenance can not be addressed and she felt the neighbors have wanted the road paved for a long time and this has nothing to do with the project. The use of the Ski Club will continue to generate traffic. Mr. Lusk said the neighbors are using the argument that the expansion will be undue and the Board gets to address that argument. Mr. Baker suggested the people in the upper section prepare ask their counsel to provide legal arguments to pass onto the Board’s attorney for advice. Part of it is a legal argument, stated Mr. Baker. Some is an engineering issue to some level, traffic volume, 100 cars per day etc and the Board has the right to require special engineering studies from the applicant and bring in the testimony. Mr. Reed stated that has been done and it is A21 standard. Mr. Lusk said he wants to know what a 100 cars a day will do to the road. Mr. Baker said it is being reviewed as a part of the Spruce Peak development. Mr. Hoff said he would like to see the parties get together. Mr. Burnham said a letter from an engineer was presented but it does not address traffic and the possible increase due to the expansion. Mr. Lusk said he felt the Board needs to take into consideration the possibility of a change in use down the road. It was agreed any use would have to come back to the Board. Mr. Leven felt the concerns go to this application and testimony is that there will not be an increase in traffic. He said he was struggling with the :undue: and this is a new situation being created. Mr. Igor--- said the large events are during the week and there is never at one given time 100 cars in the parking lot. Mr. Hoff said the applicant does want to limit the membership. He said all traffic from races is now being shifted from the Mountain to Spruce which is a concern. After little more discussion, Mr. Reed asked that members do a site visit on their own if possible. Ms. Brittin moved to RECESS to JUNE 16, 2009, seconded by Mr. Collotta with all present in favor. Mr. Ramos absent.

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:10. 

Barbara S. Allaire