The regular meeting of the Stowe Development Review Board was held Tuesday, September 1, 2009 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M.
Members present: Charles Lusk, Brian Leven, Don Ramos, Peter Collotta, Lynn Altadonna and Michael Diender (newly appointed members).
One vacancy remains.
Others present: Rich Baker, Zoning Administrator, Justin Rabidoux, Public Works Director for the Town and those listed in the minutes book.
5:00 P.M.
Project #:4060
Owner:Town of Stowe
Tax Parcel #: 7A-003.000
Location: 312 South Main Street
Project:Modification of generator location for the new PublicSafetyBuilding
Zones:VC30/SHOD
Justin Rabidoux explained the town is able to purchase a 150 KW generator and replace the 50 KW, which was addressed in the original approval for the Public Safety Building and was going to be place inside. The new generator is 24’ long and will not fit inside the building. Plan is to place a generator pad behind the Fire Dept apparatus bay and in front of the 2-story Police Office building etc and adjacent to Palisades Street and 25’ from the rear property line. The nearest residence is 140’ to the east and Parker & Stearns is over 100’ northwest of the generator. The generator will produce a maximum of 35 dB(A) at the residential property line, which is below the standards. Mr. Rabidoux indicated sound would go to the west and to the south. The generator will run once a week for approximately one-half hour at 12:00 P.M. Acoustical housing will be used and there are no setbacks involved stated Mr. Rabidoux. Mr. Ramos moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law amending Sec. 3.7 to modify the site plan to relocate the generator using the maximum of 45 dB(A) at the northerly residential property line. Mr.Collotta seconded the motion with all members in favor.
5:20
Project #:4061
Owner:TN Associates
Tax Parcel #:11-138.000
Location: 4000 Mountain Road
Project:Appeal of Notice of Violation for TopNotch Event Tent behind the indoor tennis courts.
Zones:UMR/PUD/MOD/RHOD/FHD
Present were Richard Baker, Town Zoning Officer; Attorney Chris Roy of Downs Rachlin Martin; Dan Oberlander, & Rachel VanWagner, TN Associates. Appeal of Notice of Violation issued by ZA for a tent erected without permit and the appellant felt a permit not required. Mr. Lusk asked the appellant if they had additional information to present at this time and Mr. Roy said yes, (presented the following materials at this time, (1) a letter from Arthur Kreizel dated 7/28/09 & info on the Stowe Open which took place from 1978-1983; 2 photos of the tennis courts/temporary stands etc; summary from Vermont Tent Company showing the number of tents which have been rented by TN since 1976 and Fed Cup web site activities). Mr. Baker described the activities, i.e. the tent was put up in early July and issued a violation on 7/19/09. The Town Attorney replied that the ZA does not have the authority to issue a STAY, which had been requested. Historically in the previous 6 years there have been tents, which have obtained permits (listed). Mr. Baker stated there are exemptions for some tents, i.e. residential use not more than 7 days; tents sales etc. The Selectboard issues special Event Permits but Sec. 8 of the ordinance does not supercede the Zoning Regs. Mr. Baker said he felt the Town has a right to require permits for an event tent. TN felt that because they have had tents in the past, they could move it around within the PUD. Mr. Baker said in this case, TN moved the tent to a totally different area of the PUD. There were tents in the lower meadow but not at this location. TN applied in 2006, got a 1-year approval and the fact they applied implies they felt they need a permit. At that time they did not appeal the decision. Mr. Baker said there were no new letters presented to him with the exception of the Kreizel letter. Mr. Roy said there is no question, TN property located on both sides of the road was used for various events but the lower meadow has been used. He felt in 1982 the ordinance was changed and predates any use of the “temporary “ structure ordinance and the Board can address the facts, i.e. using the same tract of land going back to 1982. Use of the lower meadow has been established. In 2006 TN came which included a structure and got approval for a temporary structure, which is ancillary, the primary to TN not appealing the temporary structure. That goes to the Special Event permit. Not saying the property is exempt from permitting, not saying it avoids regulations and has acknowledged a new structure, which required a permit. Mr. Roy felt there is no change of use and no alteration of an existing structure. Mr.Roy said he was not unsympathetic to the situation the Board is in. Mr. Roy said Stowe’s bylaws refer to temporary structures (do not have definitions i.e. size, length of time one can be up etc) although State statutes do not so he felt there is a lack of standards for a temporary structure. Enforcement is impossible with no definitions and lack of standards, stated Mr. Roy and is difficult to enforce consistently. tape 1 side 2 Mr. Ramos questioned Mr. Roy’s statement of violations within town but said he could not list them (referred to Trapps & Stowehof). The key is the predating the provision at issue, which is the temporary structure, there being no provision for temporary structures prior to 1982. The lower meadow was used and temporary structures have been used in the meadow prior to 1982, the first position taken is that the meadow was used prior to 1982 and is grand fathered. The practical position the Board could take and within their power is to say this is grand fathered, stated Mr. Roy. If someone were to object to that determination, it could be appealed and if not, TN could proceed with the idea that event tents are allowed on the lower meadow. Mr. Lusk asked members if they needed clarification. Mr. Baker stated the lower meadow (for clarification) asked what side is being talked about. The Craft Show area has been used for a long time. Mr. Baker suggested the board read the definition of Land Development, which talks about any change of--- including land. Question is, is it a new use of that land? State law talks about use of land, stated Mr. Baker. Mr. Roy said he was referring to the meadow on the west side of the meadow. Mr. Roy said when speaking of the use of “land” it would be on a parcel-to-parcel basis. There is a portion of the area to the west of Mt. Road, which has been used for events, and then there are portions, which have not historically been used. The Board could hold the hearing open which would give the opportunity to discuss some demarcation of areas which are appropriate based upon historical use for event tents and those areas which have not been used, stated Mr. Roy. He said they are not looking to extend the use but looking to use the area, which has been previously used. Mr. Lusk said the Board does snot have a permit, which has been submitted, but are addressing the appeal. Mr.Roy said TN is already booked for weddings next year and already booking two years out. Mr. Roy felt it possible to define an area, define the things, which could go on in that area and have a one-time approval for that type of activity. Looking to come to a solution and not have to come in every year for approval. Mr. Baker said two years ago he sent a letter to TN asking for a list of historical uses, which was never received. Mr. Lusk asked for comments from the audience, stating the hearing is focused on the appeal. Ted Teffner: understood what the appeal was about- commented in the 2006 hearings, particularly when the extension of time (in hours) was given, the permit was for 2006. At that time, the Chair reminded TN they would do well to think very hard about putting anything there after 2006 as they had not applied for anything and they did not apply. He said he found it amazing with that history, TN would be booking for next year and the year after. Mr. Teffner said it is more about the use and the effect on the neighbors, which is one of the reasons we have zoning. It is the use that matters and the use in the lower meadow is a non-conforming use. He talked about the expansion of a non-conforming use—the use next to the tennis center and then to go in the area to the west, has never been asked for. It is not grand fathered and should be considered as an expansion of a non-conforming use, stated Mr. Teffner. Mr. Lusk asked if the temporary structures are somewhat related to the use. Mr. Baker said the violation was for the use of the tent and felt it is a change of use. Regs refer to the use of land and a structure. Mr. Roy argued the temporary structure that straddles the use/structures, which may be temporary in nature—therefore creating confusion. Mr. Baker said, the issue is the change of use. Mr. Teffner argued that whether or not it is a change of use, it is an expansion because nothing has ever happened in that location. He did not feel that is grandfathered. Ms. VanWagner said they (TN) submitted everything that has happened there through Vt.Tent Company. Mr. Oberlander said they came to the Board in 2006 to build toilets/parking which would accommodate anything there. TN did come back to the Board to limit the curfew to 10 P.M. Ms. Price (?) in the audience said they had been to the meetings previously and were happy to oblige TN re: the curfew but now this goes beyond what they asked for. Mr. Teffner stated he was speaking only for himself. Mr. Baker suggested getting documentation from Vt Tent Co where the tents were located on the west side. Mr. Roy argued about temporary structures and felt they are grand-fathered. Discussion continued with Board members, Mr.Roy and Mr. Baker continuing to make comments (the end of tape 1 side 2 and the beginning of tape 2 side 1). Mr.Roy suggested putting together an application which achieves what TN wishes to achieve and go from there procedurally. Mr. Leven said if it should go to court and the courts should say it is grand fathered, then the Board loses any way to agree to the use or structures. He felt the 2006 is irrelevant. The issue is whether they have the ability to use the area as they wish for weddings etc. Mr. Diender asked why the applicant did not comply with the request of the ZA in 2007-08. Mr. Roy said their attention, with the economy was in another direction. tape 2 side 1 Mr. Ramos said the ZA clearly asked for a resolution and why did it take a notice of violation so ????—“that is what ticks me off”. Mr. Roy said they were willing to work with the Board. Mr. Roy said if an permit application is granted and n ot appealed, regardless of TN’s views of the legal merits, that becomes unchallengeable and subject to going to court, so with respect to whatever area and whatever definition can go on it that area, even if we don’t agree that the temporary structure ordinance is valid, if we don’t appeal that permit and its conditions, they become binding on us (TN) whether we like it or not. Mr. Roy agreed to file an application with a hearing to be held October 20, 2009. Mr. Leven moved to STAY the enforcement of violation until October 20 and RECESS to that date. Mr. Altadonna seconded with Mr. Leven, Lusk, Collotta, Diender and Altadonna voted in favor. Mr. Ramos voted no.
Minutes of August 4, 2009: Mr. Altadonna moved to APPROVE, seconded by Mr. Ramos with all in favor.
There being no further business to come before the Board, themeeting adjourned at 7:30 P.M.
