Development Review Board       APPROVED 10.20.09

                                                         Town of Stowe                                                       

The regular meeting of the Development Review Board was held Tuesday, October 6, 2009 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M.

Members present: Brian Leven, Peter Collotta, Charles Lusk, Lynn Altadonna, Michael Diender. Absent: Don Ramos. Also present: Richard Baker, Zoning Officer and those listed in the minutes book.

At 4:15 PM this date a site visit for Project #; 4068, Brush Hill Properties was held with   Mr. Lusk, Diender, Collotta, Diender and Bill Kules, Surveyor attending. Mr. Leven and Mr. Altadonna had previously visited the site and Mr. Ramos was not present. Also attending were Brian Adams, abutting property owner and Bobby Roberts.

Project #:       4068

Owner:          Brush Hill Properties LLC

Location:       Behind Lower Judson Lane

Project:          Tree Clearing within RHOD

Zones:            RR2/RR5/RHOD

Project #:       4082

Owner:           Brush Hill Properties LLC

Location:        Brush Hill Road and Rte 100

Project:           Final Approval for eight-lot PRD (Preliminary Plan Previously Approved under Adirondack Properties LLC)

Zones:             RR2/RR5/RHOD

Present were Bill Kules, Surveyor and Bobby Roberts, representing the property owners.

Seeking an amendment to the previously approved subdivision. (1) Mr. Lusk asked if anyone felt the practical affect of the clearing violates the intent of the bylaw or Town Plan. Mr. Altadonna said if an application had been submitted, he felt the Board, based on what was cleared, would have treated it as a minor. Mr. Lusk asked if Mr. Altadonna felt the same after preliminary approval has been given and the answer was yes since the clearing cannot be observed from town roads. Mr. Lusk asked if the bylaws have been offended and a violation issued. Mr. Baker stated there is a violation, which he issued. There is no plan which has approval. The second request (preliminary approval) has no standard anymore since the plan is not valid. Mr. Altadonna agreed there has been a procedural violation. Mr. Baker said the violation notice was never appealed. Discussion took place re: the different ways the Board could look at what was before them, i.e. consider the preliminary application; approve the amendment and deny the amendment or vice-versa. Mr. Lusk stated he had a difficult time separating the two Projects 4068 & 4082. Mr. Baker said the Board had to act on both applications. Everything remains the same on the final plan except for the clearing, stated Mr. Lusk. Mr. Kules discussed the procedure- if the board approves the clearing under the amendment he felt it was being approved under the subdivision regs. Mr. Baker said no, if the Board approves one area, but then cutting is done, that affects the plan and said the Board has to look at the entire thing. Mr. Kules suggested review under the PUD ?????. Mr Lusk stated the amendment request was being set aside for the present. Mr. Lusk asked members if the final requirements for approval have been met. The Fire Chief (after review with Mr. Baker) agreed the road at 16% is at the upper limit but OK. Mr. Rabidoux has reviewed the plans. Mr. Kules showed members cross-sections of the plan of project 4082 (excluding the new clearing area) and stated Lot # 1 clearing has 65’-80’ trees high and the area will not be seen from public vantage points. Lots 2 & 3 are the worst cases (with most view points below 975’-995’ and no buildings will be seen, stated Mr. Kules. On lot #3, the lot most impacted by the clearing, the rooftop may be seen. Mr. Leven asked where the line was on the plan re: the no-cut zone and suggested the line be put back so no further cutting can be done and reminded members they had discussed replanting a number of trees. Mr. Baker said the storm water plan has not been received and Mr. Rabidoux has asked that he review/approve the plans before construction. Mr.Altadonna asked that the developer assure that with the clearing the houses cannot be seen and asked for an affirmative declaration. Mr. Kules said the site lines from the various points and because of the height of the trees, there will be no impact. When each house is built, they will come back to the Board. Mr. Lusk asked Mr. Kules if and when the road is cleared, the neighbors (Roberts) house would be visible. Mr. Kules agreed the Roberts house may have more visibility from the road than others and Mr. Roberts has agreed to plant some trees. Mr. Lusk said if the subdivision is approved, screening has to be taken into consideration. Screening was discussed with input from Mr. Baker. Mr. Lusk asked members if the clearing that has taken place does sufficiently offend the preliminary subdivision does not warrant final approval? Mr.Altadonna said he was not offended; Mr. Collotta agreed; Mr. Diender agreed except there is a violation. Mr. Baker said the DRB does not have enforcement power, but can require plantings for the subdivision. Mr. Leven said he did not feel there was a substantial change to the plans but was concerned with the possibility of substantial clearing for roads and dwellings. tape 1 side 2 Mr. Diender asked how a buyer knows about the clearing and conditions. Any person applying to construct a house will have to come before the DRB with a site plan; new site analysis, stated Mr. Kules and clearing would be shown on the recorded plat. Mr. Lusk commented that the Board does not accept ignorance as an excuse. Mr. Altadonna asked how the storm water issue would be handled after approval. Mr. Kules said there would be a road agreement/ maintenance etc in the covenants. Mr. Lusk felt it is enough of a change with the clearing, that it offends the principal of granting preliminary approval but if it were to be redrawn and the applicant were to come back, he would probably approve. He did suggest plantings to protect the neighbors from lights along the road. After discussion re: proposed plantings, Mr. Kules described his proposal for the planting of trees: 20 trees, 5-6’ tall, a mix of birches and pines along the 100’ gap in the road. The no-cut line as originally submitted will remain in effect (the clearing that took place will be in the no cut zone). Brian Adams, abutter and in the audience stated he felt the visible impact will be there and it will seen from road, Percy Home Farm and felt there is something available to show the impact prior to when development starts. Mr.Lusk said he could agree but that had been discussed.

Mr. Lusk moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: Project 4082, approving the 8 lot PRD 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 registered engineer shall certify that the private road has been built to A-21 standards before any certificates of occupancy are issued for development. Condition shall be recorded on the plan.

(3)   Twenty (20) 5 foot high trees, composed of a mix of birches and pines, shall be planted along the lower margin of the cleared area adjacent ot the private road. 

(4)   The final plan shall be revised to show clearing limits as originally approved on March 17, 2009 with the exception of the storm water management areas.

(5)   The Stowe Public Works Director shall review/approve the final storm water plans before they are submitted to the state for approval.

(6)   There are additional conditions put forth in the Findings of fact approved.

Mr. Altadonna seconded with Mr. Altadonna, Leven, Collotta and Diender voting in favor. Mr. Lusk abstained. Mr. Ramos absent and there is one vacancy on the Board.

Owner:         Brush Hill Properties LLC

Location:      Behind 54 Lower Judson Lane

Project:        Tree Clearing Within the RHOD

Present were Bill Kules and Bobby Roberts. Mr. Leven asked members if this is a one-time cutting? Mr. Roberts agreed to plant the 20 trees and continue with the no-cut zone so the area will eventually be back where it originally was felt there had been a penalty imposed after an agreed violation. Mr. Leven said there is a violation and felt it needed to be addressed. Discussion how to address the violation issue, either deny or to approve. tape 2 side 1 Mr. Lusk stated the Board has before them a request to approve the tree clearing which already taken place. He felt what occurred offends everything that has to do with anything having to do with having bylaws. Mr. Roberts said he came in previously to address the issue and took ownership of the violation. Mr. Roberts said it was not his intent to come before the Board at the 11^th hour. Mr. Altadonna said the applicant made a mistake and he (Altadonna) did not want to go on record as encouraging a violation, but applicant has apologized several times. He felt in this case, it was in the Town’s interest to approve. Mr. Collotta said he was not sure he could agree, it is a violation. Mr.Leven agreed there is a violation but felt there has been mitigation proposed. Mr. Diender felt the impact is minimal and said he would approve with the mitigation in place. Mr. Baker still has the responsibility of pursuing the violation as he sees fit. Mr. Lusk moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law in Project 4068 with the following CONDITIONS:

   (1) Any change to the proposed use of the property will be brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, prior to its implementation, for a determination if an amendment is required.    

   (2) The application is deemed minor pursuant to the standards established by Section 9 of the Stowe Zoning Regulations.

    (3) Approval is granted for the one-time cut completed in March 2009. NO further cutting of this area is permitted.

Mr. Diender seconded the motion with Mr. Altadonna, Dieneder, Levn, Lusk and Collotta voting tin favor. No one abstained. Mr. Ramos absent. One vacancy remains.

Project #:        4075

Owners:          Beattie, Robert & Josephine

Location:        11 Stagecoach Road

Project:           Re-approval of Project 3436 (Expansion of Nonconforming Use by adding two Multi-family Dwelling Units)

Zones:             RR2/FHD 

Mr. & Mrs Beattie were present. Mr.Beattie told the Board he has completed 50% of the work allowed in the previous approval and became physically unable to continue working on the project. In 2007 the bylaw changed and the expansion was not completed. Under the revised bylaws, the additional units would not be allowed, stated Mr. Lusk. All work is internal. Mr. Diender moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law to approve the extension of the original approval dated 8-2007 to 8-1-2012 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 the enactment for a determination if an amendment shall be required. 

(2)   The Zoning permit shall expire August 1, 2012.

Mr Collotta seconded with all in favor. Mr. Ramos absent and one vacancy.

Mr. Altadonna moved to approve with minor corrections, seconded by Mr. Leven with all in favor.

First meeting in November will be held on the 10^th.

                                                     Development Review Board APPROVED 11.10.09                                                 

                                                             October 20, 2009

The regular meeting of the Development Review Board was held Tuesday, October 20, 2009 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M.

Members present: Brian Leven, Charles Lusk, Michael Diender, Don Ramos and Lynn Altadonna. Absent: Peter Collotta. One vacancy remains. Others present: Rich Baker, Zoning Administrator and those listed in the minutes book.

Project #:        4096

Owners:          TN Associates

Location:        4000 Mountain Road

Project:           Confirmation and Approval of Events Area Within Topnotch Resort

Zones:            UMR/PUD/MOD/RHOD/FHD     

Present were Attorney Peter D. Van Oot and Dan Oberlander from TN Associates as well as others in the audience (listed) . Mr. Lusk, after giving a brief summary of the situation, referred to counsel’s opinion/ advice, saying the arguments should have been raised by TN before prior permits were applied for and in some cases executed, and that puts the Board in a position of not having any reason not to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s violation notice. Mr.Leven felt if the Board were to get through the first hearing, it was possible that the appeal hearing would not be required and suggested staying on schedule. Mr.Altadonna shared the summary and conclusion. Mr. Van Oot said if the Board were to approve the events area for permitted events, the issue of the violation would go away. His understanding was the Board would rule on project # 4096 he (his client) were not prepared to discuss the appeal and felt it would be tabled (although they could address it, stated Mr. Van Oot). Mr. Lusk said he recalled the Board did “stay the enforcement” but felt they should go ahead with the application, which covers the broader issue. Mr.Diender felt previous counsel had suggested having a complete application. Mr. Lusk said he felt the appeal and the application are tied together, based on attorney’s advice. Mr. Altadonna said his memory was Mr.Roy agreed to submit an application for the existing tent and the nature of the “notice of violation” He asked other members their thoughts. Mr. Ramos said his impression was the Board was going to go through the “muddy waters”. The Board then started discussion with Project # 4096. Others in the audience who were sworn were: John & Nancy Lavanway, Mark Plagukis; Beverly Price and Robert Gill. A letter from Ted Teffner dated 10/14/09 was submitted for the record. Mr. Van Oot said the primary focus of what is being presented is seeking confirmation, as it applies to the position they take as being grand fathered, that the Board approve, not structures but the use of certain portions of TN land and related uses (he listed uses in their view as TN designation of a resort PUD, i.e. dog show, tennis tournament, craft shows, weddings etc.). using designated areas either on the lower meadow or within the Inn area of the resort property, Areas which types of events they have had would be approved. He said they are not seeking approval for any structures, neither do they need to seek approval for them as they are grand fathered. He said he felt the areas are use related and not structure related. He continued saying they understand the concerns of the neighbors as they relate to noise, and those concerns pertain to structures and are not tent related. Mr. Oot said they are not applying for structure approval. Would like the Board’s blessing for the types of events, which have previously taken place. Mr.Lusk said the Board is not sitting as attorneys and an argument that a legal base telling the Board that the bylaws do not pass the mustard may have merit, but we (Board) are not competent to rule on the merit of the bylaws. Attorneys look at the bylaws and pass legal muster—we cannot second-guess attorneys, who reviewed the bylaws, both prior to being created, and any amendments. Mr. Oot said he was not trying to ask the Board to act as attorneys, they are proposing a site plan and asking for approval/confirmation for the types of events stated, based on previous and future ones. He said he understood if more than 300 people were to attend a special event permit is required from the Selectboard. Mr. Oot said the site plan is not different than any other site plan for approval. Mr. Altadonna said he thoroughly expected the application to be for a tent, one that exists, on that location through the month of October 2009, basically a repeat of a permit they asked for back in 2006 and felt the Board should not take any action, they do not need a permit to be a PUD, they are a PUD. Mr. Altadonna said TN did not live up to what they said they would do when they were here in Aug/ Sept and do not feel they should have a blanket approval. Mr. Lusk said what they are asking for is not to have to come back to the Board for every activity which takes place, they want to be able to have tents wherever and have activities they want in the locations they have chosen. Mr. Lusk to Altadonna: is that your position. Ans. I don’t think that serves the town of Stowe or the neighbors to make it a blanket approval. He referred to what he felt Mr. Roy suggested, that is the approve the tent he had previously requested and the violation would go away. Mr. Baker: they have put an application in for the areas with the intent to be able to put tents up, using the argument they don’t need approval for the tents, but if the Board approves all or a portion of it with the allowance of a tent, that is the application before the Board. Mr. Leven questioned Mr. Altadonna’s suggestion to possibly consider not requiring an application to do the things they wish to do, but correct the appeal for the violation, and then they would proceed with less restriction than the application sets forth. Mr. Altadonna said he was willing to listen. Mr. Oot said they were not trying to avoid reasonable conditions imposed, but are trying to operate a sophisticated resort/business- there are business reasons why coming back every year for temporary structures is n ot feasible. Mr. Oberlander: there is no question on the prior application for the one year where they had several contracts and preceded the Board’s decision and were forced to return to the Board for the music situation. We are now abiding by the no amplified music prior to 8:00 AM and terminated at 10 PM. All activities are not tents; activities may or may not require tents. Not realistic to come on a year-by-year basis for activities, stated Mr. Oberlander. (gave examples). It is more than likely there will be tents erected. It is possible TN will return to the board at some future time to construct a wedding barn/conference center and then tents would not be required. Mr. Ramos: essentially you are saying you want tents everywhere. The Board has to assume the worst case, which there could be tents in all the areas and address the maximum. Mr. Oot said this is a 100 acre Resort PUD, and have to address what the uses are and the impacts on the neighbors and townspeople, i.e. traffic, noise etc. This has not been an issue and covered under the Special Events Permit. Mr. Altadonna referred to paragraph 415 (pg 59 temporary structures). Discussion. Don Ramos- TN is not acknowledging a tent is not a temporary structure. Mr. Lusk referred to the Town’s Attorney’s letter. He referred to the PUD standard (pg 136 in the bylaw), whether the support services etc are ancillary to the operation of the resort or whether they are inherent, i.e having a wedding etc. Mr. Oot said they have applied for site specific or whether it is a conditional use approval, which he felt was the ZA’s determination (his interpretation of the law) and he did not receive any notification from Mr. Baker that the application was not appropriately submitted. Mr. Oot said he would be happy to either return with more information or the Board could rule on the application in front of them.  tape 1 side 2 Mr. Altadonna referred back to pg 136, then back to pg 59—conditional uses and suggested the plan be approved but when a tent is required, they need to return for conditional use. Mr. Lusk asked if the locations are a matter of right and the Board would not question if this is approved. Mr. Baker said the small things might not be required to come to the Board, and Mr. Oot said the Board should ask themselves what their concerns are—tents themselves do not have an impact, it is the use. Discussion continued. Mr. Oot said the Board has the ability to approve a use, and that is what we are asking the Board to do, regardless if it is non-conforming. We are now saying, we would like to wipe the record clear and seek approval of the uses which may or may not involve tents. Mr. Baker said the request is for approval for a site plan and uses with self imposed restrictions. The bylaws do not address site plan approval. Mr. Leven asked if the board should go through the Conditional Use Review and Mr. Lusk asked what should be reviewed, i.e. reviewing tents as a temporary structure? Mr. Baker felt it a conditional use review where restrictions can be applied under the standards. Mr. Oot said they had not characterized as a Conditional Use application, but as site plan approval and not prepared, however could address it. He would have to discuss with his client. Mr. Baker said the Board does two reviews, subdivision and conditional use, not site plan approval. Mr. Oot suggested after he were to confer with his client, it could be tabled, determine whether to appeal or not and possibly come back for a hearing . Mr. Baker agreed it could be uses within the PUD as some uses existed but some are new which require review. The Board agreed Conditional Use Review is appropriate. Mr. Baker said if the application changes, it would need to be rewarned and he will discuss with the applicant/attorney. After discussion how to move forward, Mr. Lusk moved to TABLE project # 4096 to November 17, 2009 with Mr. Leven seconded and all in favor.

Project #:       4061 (Recessed 9/1)

Owners:         TN Associates

Location:        4000 Mountain Road

Project:          Appeal of Notice of Violation for Topnotch Event Tent behind Tennis Courts

Mr. Lusk moved to TABLE the NOTICE of VIOLATION and STAY the appeal, to November 17, 2009. Mr. Leven seconded with Mr. Altadonna, Lusk, Leven, Ramos and Diender voting in favor.

Project #:        4090

Tax Parcel #:   7A-013.000

Location:         Palisade Street- Southern End

Project:            Amendment to original Subdivision Approval to allow Palisade Street t o be closed at the southern end with a gate.

Present were Betty and Carvel Bevans, representatives; Jackie Lindenmeyer and Debbie Waldman from Palisades. Mr. Leven disclosed to the Board that a member of the Association is his Mother who was present. The Board did not feel there would be a conflict and agreed Mr. Leven could participate in the discussion. Mrs. Bevans described the situation and the reasons for the request for a gate to be placed at the southern end of the road where it abuts the drive behind the Fire Station. Mr. Baker stated approval plans shows the road as being a thruway and stated the Fire Department requested, if approved, the gate be unlocked at all times or with a sound activated device. Plans are to have two posts, one on either side of the road, with a bar across, held with chains. Plans are to have a sign “road closed” with reflective devices on the post. Ms. Lindenmeyer stated the south exit is a much easier way to exit but snow piles up making it difficult to see when entering, and it is difficult to see either way when exiting the north end. Safety is an issue for the Fire Department. Snow removal company has complained that there is no place to put snow—and if there is a gate installed on the south end, there will be less room for snow piling. Mr. Diender asked what the purpose would be to have a gate and Mrs.Bevans said, with the construction of the Public Safety Building the road is closed and there is much less traffic which is being enjoyed by many residents. Mrs. Bevans said there would be no problem for the FD as a gate would remain unlocked as requested and the gate will make it easier for plows. Debbie Walkdman said it has been much safer since the road has been blocked because of construction, as well as quieter and felt most residents like the idea of the gate. Marion Kellogg asked if this would have any impact re: Conservation Commission and Mr. Baker said no, this is a private road. Mark Sgantas, Stowe Fire Department said access is required from both ways, which is challenging at best; gate needs to be unlocked and maintained year around; snow kept away and no parked cars on the road. Mr. Bevans said both accesses are hazardous and the road is used for town traffic, which is destroying the road. The gate would make it less hazardous. James Charkalis: has an office in the complex and his main concern was the removal of snow if a gate is installed. Darrow Mansfield in the audience, said when he worked for the Town, the Planning Commission required the developer to pave the road down to the fire station and the Town Plan suggests ???????. tape 2 side 1. Mr. Altadonna asked if there would be signage and Mrs. Bevans said no additional signs are being proposed, Palisades Street sign exists. Mr. Altadonna attested to Mr. Mansfield’s testimony, Planning 101 objective is not to have a culdesacs as good planning but this would not set a precedent. Mr. Lusk moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for project # 4090 with the following CONDITIONS:

   (1) Any change ot 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 gate shall be left unlocked at all times

(3)    A reflective device shall be installed on each side of the gate

(4)    The gate design shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to a zoning permit being issued

(5)    The gate shall be kept free of snow and remain operable year around

Mr. Diender seconded the motion with Mr. Lusk, Altadonna, Leven, Ramos and Diender voting in favor. Mr. Collotta absent. 

Project #:         4092

Owner:             Castlestone Mansfield Inn LLC

Tax Parcel #:    7-116.000

Location:          1007 Mountain Road

Project :            Re-approval of Mountain Road Resort Reconstruction Project (3518)

Zones:              HT/RR3

Darrow Mansfield present as well as Bob Lansing; Tom & Pat McManis; Gerry Fry and Katie Whittaker. Mr. Mansfield described the project briefly (project # 3518) and stated the plans are identical as previously approved and effective 11-2007 and requested a 5-year extension of the previous approval. Landscaping plan remains as approved, including a pool, which is envisioned. Ms. Tornrose had sent a memo dated 10/20/09 expressing a concern for any proposed access onto Birch Hill Road. Mr. Mansfield stated a road (which was on the first application) was not approved and is not being proposed. It was stated there has been no change in the Zoning Regs, which would affect this extension. Mr. McManis asked Mr. Baker if the plans are identical to those approved and the answer was “yes”. He felt a 5-year approval was too long as things do change. The Board went through the Conditional Use criteria briefly. A motion was made by Mr. Ramos and seconded by Mr. Altadonna to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: project # 4092 which expire October 20, 2014 with the following CONDITIONS:

(1)   Any change to the plans or the proposed use of the property shall l be brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, prior to its implementation, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.

(2)   All conditions of the approval of Project # 3518 shall remain in effect and be part of this approval with the addition of the following condition: # 11; A zoning Permit for this project shall expire on October 20, 2014.

Voting in favor: Lusk, Altadonna; Diender; Ramos and Leven. No one voted against. Mr. Collotta not present and one vacancy on the board remains.

Project #:         4093

Owners:           Evergreen Properties of Stowe LLC

Tax Parcel #:    6-011.010

Location:          Corner of Luce Hill and Trapp Hill Roads

Project:             Requesting to create a three (3) lot subdivision

Zone:                RR 5

Present on behalf of the applicant was Darrow Mansfield and in the audience was Robert Chase. Mr. Mansfield stated the applicant owns 70.4 acres, (54 acres & 16.6) acres at the corner of Trapp Hill and Luce Hill Roads. Where the development leaves Trapp Hill Road, proposing a 500-600’ new subdivision road with a common drive of 1650’. Proposing to create three (3) lots; Lot 1: 25 acres; 2= 14 acres and 3= 32 acres. Plans are for a fire pond. Utilities will be underground; have water and sewer title from the town (r.o.w from Trapp’s) but Mr. Mansfield said they may not use them. Property is totally in the RHOD and completely treed and not visible except for the meadow. tape 2 side 2 Mr. Mansfield suggested that Lts 1 & 3 house sites be determined by the Board at the time of application so no cutting is being proposed. Mr. Mansfield said they would like to construct the common driveway and gravel it. Lt 2 is the meadow. Mr. Baker stated he had walked the property and did not feel one would see anything if cutting was done for the drive, but did feel selective clearing would be required for the house sites. Fire Department requires a fire pond and turnarounds 12’ x 50’. Mr. Chase, in the audience, expressed his concern that he has a waterline running across the property (in the deed that the water rights remain) which at times he still accesses and uses the water at various times. Mr. Mansfield stated that is true and he is aware of the line and they will not interfere with the water rights in any way. Mr. Lusk stated this would be a matter of record. Mr. Altadonna moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: 4093 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 only clearing to be done at this time is for the common driveway and the lot owners will be required to return to the Board for approval of clearing zones when the properties will be developed. A note shall be added to the recorded plan stating this development restriction.

(3)   The fire pond and dry hydrant on Lot # 2 shall be installed before any zoning permits are issued.

(4)   All turnarounds shall be at least 12’ x 50’

Mr. Ramos seconded with Mr. Lusk, Ramos, Leven, Altadonna voting in favor. Mr. Collotta absent.

Project #:         4095

Owner:            Banley Investments II LLC

Tax Parcel #:   6-086.000

Location:         1799 Mountain Road

Project:            Seeking approval to continue Farmers Market for 2010 and 2011

Zones:              MRV/FHD

Helm Notterman, a member of the Board for the Farmer’s Market and requesting a 2 year approval. He stated the Police Department are satisfied with traffic control which implemented cones and additional parking and signs. Mr. Notterman agreed parking arrangements for Red Barn Shops and JCOGs goes for one (1) year and said any approval could be contingent on receiving the letters after the one year. Mr. Lusk stated it is possible sidewalks will be installed within the next two years. (Mr. Diender said it will be 4 years). Total parking capacity is much larger than needed, said Mr. Notterman . Vendors are not allowed to park at the Red Barn Shops (only for customers). Jim Goldsmith, Blue Donkey restaurant sent a memo stating their parking lot can no longer be used. Darrow Mansfield present representing the Blue Donkey and stated the parking arrangement will not be extended, but agreed it may be difficult to control totally and said he felt it will self-enforce and any issues could be worked out. Mr. Lusk felt the enforcement should not be left to the landowner. Mr. Nottermann said they do not need the parking and are not using the spaces. Mr. Altadonna 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 implementation, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.

(2)   The approval is granted for the 2010 and 2011 seasons.

(3)   Copies of the 2011 parking agreements shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator before the start of the 2011 season.

(4) Unless specifically amended herein, all conditions of the previous approval for the Farmers Market shall remain in force and effect.

Mr. Ramos seconded the motion with Mr. Altadonna, Ramos, Leven and Altadonna voting in favor. Mr. Lusk voted No. Mr. Collotta absent.

Project #:          4097

Owners:            Morrill, Arthur and Lawrence

Tax Parcel #:    8-029.000

Location:          879 Brush Hill Road

Project:             Construct a 100’ Monopole and install nine (9) panel antennas

Zone:                RR 2        

Mr. Lusk moved to POSTPONE project # 4097 to November 10, 2009 because of the lateness of the hour. Mr. Ramos seconded the motion. Mr. Hall (?) for the applicant suggested flying a balloon the afternoon of the hearing for neighbors and members to observe the height. All in favor of the motion to POSTPONE.  

Minutes of September 15, 2009:  Mr. Altadonna moved to approve as written, seconded by Mr.Diender with all in favor.