Development Review Board        APPROVED 8.4.09

                                                    July 21, 2009

The regular meeting of the Stowe Development Review Board was held Tuesday, July 21, 2009 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:0 P.M.

Members present: Susan Brittin, Charles Lusk, Peter Collotta, Brian Leven, Don Ramos and Alternate member Lynn Altadonna. Also present Zoning Administrator Rich Baker as well as those listed in the minutes book.

Minutes of July 7, 2009: Mr. Collotta moved to accept with minor corrections, seconded by Mr. Lusk with all in favor.

Project #:       4024

Owner:          Cabral 2004 Family Trust

Location:        Near end of High Ridge Road

Project:           requesting approval to create a two-lot subdivision of Lot A 10.58 acres for a building lot acres and 50.44 acres for future development.

Zones:             RR3/RHOD

Present were Darrow Mansfield and Rachel VanWagoner representing Cabral Associates, Matt Percy from Percy Inc. Susan Brittin, Board member, recused herself from participating, as she is an abutting property owner. Mr. Mansfield stated the Cabral family controls the property and acreage is 61 acres. Proposing to create a 10.58 acre lot (A 1) to build a dwelling and 50 + acres which will remain open for future development with no proposal at this time. The building zone (in interior of the lot) as shown on the State Master Plan sheet sp1 well as clearing limits with the building in the . The septic system will be on the adjoining lot with a well on site and approved by the state. Mr. Mansfield stated the lot is completely wooded at this time but the house will be set on a terrace area with a hill in the background. It is possible one can see a house from Stonybrook and Trapp’s from their parking lot but visibility of a dwelling will be at a minimum. Mr. Mansfield stated the lot has been logged over the past years but is of a mixed forest with some evergreens. Ms.Whittaker, who lives on Birch Hill, asked if Birch Hill Road will be used for trucks etc for the development of this lot and Mr. Mansfield said yes, with the driveway to this lot will coming off Birch Hill Road. When asked if there is habitat on the site, Mr. Mansfield stated this lot falls outside the State Master Plan pertaining to deeryards etc. Mr. Mansfield described the clearing plan, which he said would be limited to the house site area (which will be coming before the Board since it is in the RHOD zone. Ms. Brittin asked if the driveway to any proposed house will go through the habitat area and Mr. Mansfield said, “it will not”. Sec. 5 reviewed in detail. There are Class 3 wetlands behind the house site and covenants are on the entire Cabral property. Building site located on the plan. No negative impacts were given on the Impact sheet. Mr. Mansfield stated there would be no clear cutting done. Mr.Leven moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law 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) No development shall occur on Lot 2 without further review of the Board. A n ote shall be added to the recorded plan stating this development restriction.

   (3) Before cutting for the driveway and views, the ZA shall inspect the site and confirm that the proposed cutting is in compliance with the decision. Upon completion of the inspection, the ZA shall issue a zoning permit for the proposed work. The ZA shall then inspect the site again upon completion of the cutting to confirm that the trees proposed to remain have been left intact. A CO shall be issued upon completion of the clearing. Mr. Ramos seconded the motion with Mr.Lusk, Mr. Collotta, Ramos, Leven and Altadonna voting in favor. Ms. Brittin did not participate therefore did not vote.

   (4) Other conditions as written in the decision.

Project #:        4022

Owner:            TN Associates

Location:         4000 Mountain Road

Project:            Requesting to amend approval for construction of exterior tennis courts (Project 3500)

Zones:              UMR/PUD/RHOD/FHD     

Present were Darrow Mansfield and Rachel VanWagoner, representing TN Associates. . Mr. Mansfield described the 4 outdoor courts as being northerly of the indoor tennis center. After describing the project, i.e. the chain link fence around, no lighting, a replacement of 2 existing courts plus 2 new ones. Mr. Mansfield stated they are asking for additional time but there will be no changes from the Board’s approval dated 7/24/07 and effective 8/31/07. (actual permit expires 9/26/09 stated Mr. Baker. Mr.Lusk referred to the minutes of 7/24/07 for testimony given and was accepted. Members discussed the subject of extensions/time frame and Mr. Altadonna shed some light as to what the Planning Commission proposed (and got approved) for extensions which was 5 years or whatever the Board agreed on. Mr. Ramos referred to a letter the neighbors had submitted referring to the wedding tent, which is in violation. Members felt that was not before them at this time and a separate issue. tape 1 side 2 Mr. Teffner said there used to be 3 basis for reviewing again i.e. have the bylaws changed, have conditions changed and has the situation in the neighborhood changed. Mr. Lusk said the review was conducted under the bylaws at the time; as far as the neighborhood changed it changed in the light of the fact that a permit had been issued for a project therefore it would not be pertinent. Mr. Teffner said the approval is going to expire and the applicant wants to extend and it used to be if the bylaws have changed, it was a basis for opening up another review. Mr. Baker said the vested rights only go to the expiration date and would want to look to see if the ordinance has changed. Members started review under Sec. 4.7. and item by item. No negative comments on the impact statement. Members agreed there were no changes to the conditional use review from the previous hearing and approval. John LaVanway, in the audience, asked if the courts were for TN’s use or for events as his family lives on Brook Road. Mr. Mansfield said there is no proposed change of operation. Mr. Lavanway said when there is an event people park on Brook Road because they don’t want to pay to park. He asked if there would be loud speakers. Betty Teffner, in the audience, asked if the tennis courts are for tennis only? Mr. Mansfield said, that is correct. He also said there will be no loud speakers in answer to Mr.Lavanway’s question. Mr. Lusk said the courts are wrapped in landscaping so does not lend themselves to spectators. Ms.Teffner said if they put a tent up and have another activity going on—that is an issue. She was concerned that they do what the permit allows rather than something else. Review continued. Mr. Lusk said the courts will be used primarily for resort members and guests and not intended for use by the general public. Mr. Lusk said Preservation of the lands north of the courts shall remain the same. This was a condition previously.   Ms. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: project 4022, including all information for the project under project # 3500 with the permit expiring 12/31/2015 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’s attention, prior to its enactment, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.  

(2)   The previously submitted materials, testimony and minutes (7/24/07) related to this project are considered part of the record for this decision.

(3)   The Zoning Permit for this project shall expire December 31, 2015.

Mr. Ramos seconded the motion with Ms.Brittin, Mr. Ramos, Collotta, Leven, Lusk and Altadonna voting in favor. No one voted against.

Project #:         4023

Owner:             TN Associates

Tax Parcel #:   11-138.000

Location:          4000 Mountain Road

Project:             Requesting to extend approval for TN Resort expansion project (Project 3091)

Present were Darrow Mansfield and Rachel VanWagoner. Mr. Mansfield described the project , new entrance removing the existing west wing, new 90 seat restaurant new main building, Pub, etc. He said the Board previously granted a 2-phase permit. “An ability to serve” letter has been received from the Stowe Electric Department. With the agreement the following minutes are part of this meetings record and part of the Findings dated 11-4-2006. 4-19, 2006; 5-9-06; 5-18-06; 5-23-06;7-11-06; 8-1-06; 8-15-06; 8-29-06; and approval given at a special meeting dated 9-26-06.  Mr. Collotta asked about the previous condition re: the Gill property in relation to when the work should be done near his property. It was agreed as a condition of this approval it will be done within 6 months from the starting date of construction. tape 2 side 1  Board reviewed Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law dated 11/4/06. Mr.Teffner asked about the site plan shown and stated it was not like the plan which was approved. He asked that any approval for a wedding tent be removed from the plan to be approved. (discussion on page 2 of the final minutes dated 9/26/06). Mr. Baker said that could be made a condition and the board agreed.

There was a change in the bylaws re: the density in the UMR allowing more density. Density chart has been updated. No change in the lighting plan. Discussion took place re: retaining jurisdiction over lighting and the Board agreed if it meets the plan submitted and approved, they would not keep in as a condition. tape 2 side 2 Ms. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: project # 4203 approving to 12-31-2015 and referencing the Findings dated 11/4/06 and conditions. CONDITIONS:

(1)   Any change to the plans or the use of thepropeorty 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 previously submitted materials, testimony and minutes dated 7/24/07 relating to this project are considered part of the record for this decision.

(3)   The proposed work on and adjacent to the Gill property shall be completed within six (6) months from the commencement of construction.

(4)   This decision does not include approval for any event tent.

(5)   Other conditions as indicated by numbers 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 and 13 in the previous decision included. 

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:15 P.M.