Development Review Board
 Minutes of 2014
 Minutes of 2013
 Minutes of 2012
 January 2008
 February 2008
 March 2008
 April 2008
 May 2008
 June 2008
 July 2008
 August 2008
 September 2008
 January 2009
 March 2009
 May 2009
 June 2009
 July 2009
 August 2009
 September 2009
 October 2009
 November 2009
 December 2009
 January 2010
 February 2010
 March 2010
 April 2010
 May 2010
 June 2010
 August 2010
 October, November, December 2010
 January, February & March 2011
 April, May, June, July, August 2011
 September, October, November 2011
Planning Commission
Recreation Commission
Conservation Commission
Cemetery Commission
Stowe Historic Preservation Commission

                                                     Development Review Board       APPROVED 12.1.09

                                                              Town of Stowe

                                                          November 10, 2009

The regular meeting of the Development Review Board was held Tuesday, November 10, 2009 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M.


The following members were present: Charles Lusk, Don Ramos, Brian Leven, and Michael Diender. Absent: Lynn Altadonna and Peter Collotta. One vacancy remains.

Also present: those listed in the minutes book.
5:00 P.M.

Project #:       4097 (Recessed from 10/20/09)

Owner:           Morrill, Arthur H & Lawrence

Tax Parcel #: 8-029.000
Location:        879 Brush Hill Road

Project:          Construct a 100-foot monopole and install nine panel antennas

Zone:              RR 2

Mr. Lusk and Diender said they could not see the balloon, which was flying for identification. Paula Neumann present and representing Stowe Cable Vision; Frank and Marion Kellogg; Mark Hall, Attorney and representative for T-Mobil representative. Mr. Hall said T-Mobile is new in Vt and going from Waterbury to St. Albans. Plans are to construct a monopole (mono color) between 97-100’ high with no guide wires. 3 sets of 3 panel antenna wires 72” tall, 15” wide and 7” deep, and designed to blend in. He stated this pole is 10’ higher than Stowe Cable Vision pole, which exists on the property. Compound 48’ x 48’ with a 6’tall fence for protection. Mr. Hall stated they are seeking to build a new tower, as they have not been able to reach an agreement for lease with Stowe Cable to use their tower. Access the farm area through existing road. Compound to be 48’ x 48’ with a 6’ fence so no access is available. Plans are to have 3- 5’x8’ units on the ground that are battery packs which will last 24 hours. There are no materials kept on the site, no health risks involved. Construction expected to take 2 weeks. Potential co-locators are a possibility. Mr. Kellogg asked about health risk and maintenance. Mr. Hall said they have to meet standards and is radiation is 0.5%, which is allowed. Mr. Hall said maintenance is done by a representative who will come approximately once a month (hoping for once every two months) but the system has to be available 24-7. Marion Kellogg said Stowe Cable Vision often goes to the site several times a day. Mr. Diender asked if they could make arrangements with Stowe Cable and Mr. Hall said they would not be dealing with them. There were 3 letters received from interested persons for the record. There will be no lights on the tower and the tower will be non-reflective. There will be no noise associated with the tower. TJ Goldberg in the audience asked about any health risk. Mr. Charkalis in the audience said there is research, which is n ot conclusive, shows this could be a health risk and suggested more research be done. Ms. Goldberg felt the research has been in and around long enough, concurring with Mr. Charkalis. Ms. Neumann stated she had filed a report for the record dated 11/5/09 basically stating Cable Vision is willing to go ahead as stipulated in the signed agreement. She stated there is no need for an additional tower as Cable Vision is willing to incorporate this one. She also described the location of the tower in the photos, # 1 & 2 as being in an incorrect location. Rick Rothotmmer, Engineer for Stowe Cable stated and explained the location of the new tower will interfere with Stowe Cable Vision reception (testimony on tape which cannot be heard by Barbara). Mr. Hall said that is not true. Mr. Leven asked if there has been any experience with wild life interfering (osprey) and the answer was no, especially with monopoles. Members did Conditional Use Review:        

Mr. Baker stated there was no negative responses from the impact survey; no impact on traffic; Mr. Diender asked about the impact from surrounding areas with having a second tower and members did not feel there would be; aesthetics - there is presently a tower in the area; Mr. Leven commented that when someone expects to see a pristine area, it could be adverse. Mr. Lusk said in the Town Plan it is encouraged. Shared driveway has a 15’ turnaround; landscaping no account. There are lights at the bottom of the utility cabinets but go on automatically (possibly up 6”) Mr. Ramos moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: 4097 with the following: tape 1 side 2 CONDITION:

   (1) The project shall be completed according to the plans hereby approved. Any change to the plans or the propose use of the property shall be brought toth attention of the Zoning AdministratorAny change to the project, prior to its enactment, for a determination if an amendment is required. Mr. Leven seconded the motion with Mr. Lusk, Leven, Ramos, Diender voting in favor. Asbsent: Mr. Collotta and Altadonna. One vacancy on the Board        


Project #:       4110

Owner:           1940 Mountain Road LLC (former Gladys Knapp property)

Tax Parcel #: 6-073.000

Location:        1940 Mountain Road

Project:          Amendments to project # 3828 (new mixed use building) includes changes to windows, façade and site plan.

Zone:              MRV

Present was Mila Lonetto (owner) who explained the various proposed changes i.e. the dormer will be pulled back and the windows being proposed will not have divided lights (due to cost) and the windows on each end have been eliminated. The proposed barn door will now be a closed door; doors in the rear are now centered. Site Plan: landscaping on left corner to have granite curbing and one shrub being removed; parking lot lights will not be put in, although wired if one pole is needed; handicap parking space has been moved for better access; flare at the curb corner may have to be wider (to 24) according to the state requirements; trash receptacles will be relocated (location not determined).

Conditional Review Criteria: Mr. Lusk asked why the Board went to such lengths previously to discuss what the building would look like and now be asked to bring the looks back to something closer that they did not think the building should look like. The windows on the third floor and the dormers were a topic of considerable discussion. Question, would this have been denied originally if shown what is taking place now. Mr. Lusk felt the original was more appealing than what is being proposed. Discussion re: the previous approval and members made comments whether to vote in favor or deny. Ms. Lonetto stated the changes were for financial reasons. Mr. Ramos moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: 4110 wit 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)   Any previous conditions not met shall remain in force.

Mr. Ramos seconded the motion with all in favor with Mr. Ramos, Leven, Diender and Lusk voting in favor. Mr. Altadonna and Collotta not present. 


Project #:        4109

Owner:            Mickelson, Thomas C.

Tax Parcel #: 7-309.010

Location:        1203 Waterbury Road

Project:           Amendments to project # 3782 (Pines Motel conversion) including

             Replacing three-car garage with two two- car garages, attaching   

            Area to one garage and converting existing house to a duplex.

Zone:               RR 1

Tom Michelson present and described the proposed changes as relocating the garage, incorporating a shed for trash. Have removed two car garage and replaced in a different location plus another 2-unit garage in a location 50’ from the edge of Rte 100. Convert the existing 4-bedroom house to two units with lock off apartment (could be converted back to a single family dwelling). New lighting plan, lighting both ends of one garage. (lighting plan on file). Mr. Baker stated the previous approval had a condition that limbs are cut which was done; the dry hydrant is not in (Mr. Michelson disagreed with having to have a hydrant as he felt there was an agreement with the Fire Chief that he had to satisfy the Fire Dept). Mr. Diender asked if there was elevations as to how the buildings will look from the road side and the answer was plans are as presented. Mr. Diender questioned the location of the trash location. It is inside with doors in a small “bump out”. Parking has changed. Mr. Michelson said plans are for a fence/wall in the rear instead of a firewall. Mr. Baker said fences and walls are exempt if not higher than 8’. Mr. Michelson asked members to approve a CO for one of the buildings, as it is to be sold in Feb. Mr. Baker said there are provisions for a temporary CO for 6 months. Parking is now closer to the buildings. Mr. Diender questioned how one would know where to park as there will be no while lines and not apparent. Mr. Michelson responded saying it will be obvious where to park and felt it is designated. Each unit has two spaces to park. There are 3 spaces, which is 65-70’ long in front of the unit closest to the road. Mr. Ramos moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: project # 4109 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 for a determination if an amendment shall be required;

(2)   A dry hydrant shall be installed if required by the Fire Department prior to a CO being issued.

(3)   All previous conditions imposed with the original approval dated 8-19-08 shall remain in force. 

(4)   Mr. Leven seconded the motion with all members present voting in favor.

Tape 2 side

Project #:        4102

Owners:          Back Pasture LLC

Tax Parcel #: 16-021.100

Location:        100 Back Pasture Road

Project:           Amend previously approved building and clearing zones to accommodate constructed dwelling.

Zone:              RR 5

Present were Gunner McCain, Engineer; Steve Benoit and Steve Doncaster. Mr. McCain described the building built on Lot # 1 of Back Pasture subdivision was built outside the building envelope (without approval). Looking to relocate the building envelope (shown on site plan dated 10/1/09) and clearing limits. The original building zone had a 100’ setback from Back Pasture Road and 30’ from Lot # 2. All adjoining owners have agreed to the changes (on record). Mr. Lusk stated he did not want to see the clearing zone expanded. Discussion took place re: any additional cutting and the shape of the line creation. Mr. Benoit testified the clearing zone will not be enlarged and will encompass                                   the already cleared area. The building zone will now follow the tree line and be 300-400’ from abutting property and be rectangular shape. Property is not in the RHOD. Mr. Ramos moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re:4102 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 building zone shall be indicated as building and clearing limits on the recorded plan.

(3)   The applicant shall obtain a new zoning permit from the Zoning Administrator for the amended building location after the plan is recorded.

(4)   All previous conditions for this subdivision shall remain in full force and effect.

Members voting in favor: Mr. Diender, Leven, Ramos and Lusk. Voting to deny: None. Absent: Mr. Collotta and Altadonna.


Attorney French, asked about the area outside the building zone whether or not it will be allowed to remain cleared. Mr. Baker said yes and he will indicate that in the Findings.


Minutes of October 20, 2009: Mr. Ramos moved to approve with minor change, seconded by Mr. Leven with all in favor.


There being no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Leven moved to adjourn at 7:10, seconded by Mr. Ramos with all in favor.

Respectfully submitted,
Barbara S. Allaire

                                             Development Review Board    APPROVED 12.1.09

                                                       Town of Stowe

                                                    November 17, 2009

 The Development Review Board held a meeting Tuesday, November 17, 2009 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M.

Members present: Charles Lusk, Chairman and also Rich Baker, Zoning Director.

Absent: Peter Collotta, Brian Leven, Don Ramos, Michael Diender and Lynn Altadonna.

One vacancy remains.
5:00 P.M.

Project #         4061 (Recessed from 10/20/09)

Owner:           TN Associates

Tax Parcel #: 11-138.000

Location:        4000 Mountain Road

Project:           Appeal of Notice of Violation for TN Event Tent behind the indoor tennis courts.

Zones:            UMR/PUD/MOD/RHOD/FHD


Project #:         4096 (Recessed from 10/20/09)

Owner:             TN Associates

Tax Parcel #:    11-138.000

Location:          4000 Mountain Road

Project:            Confirmation and approval of Event Areas within Topnotch Resort

Zones:                UMR/RUD/MOD/RHOD/FHD  

Chairman Lusk opened the meeting at 5:00 P.M. referencing the above hearings. The applicant for both project had requested a recess of both hearings so that the entire sitting Board could be present. By electronic consensus, and support of the remaining Board members allowed the Chair to move to POSTPONE to DECEMBER 15, 2009.


There being no discussion and staff had nothing to add, the meeting adjourned at 5:05 P.M..

Respectfully submitted,
Barbara S. Allaire