The Development Review Board held its regular meeting on Tuesday, January 5, 2010 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M.
Members present: Charles Lusk, Peter Collotta, Brian Leven, Michael Diender and Lynn Altadonna. Other present: Richard Baker, Zoning Administrator as well as those listed in the minutes book.
5:00 P.M.
Project #:4122
Owner:Robbins, William & Jane (Recessed 12/1/09)
Tax Parcel #: 9-038.030
Location: 520 Partridge Hill Road
Project:Appeal of Permit # 4113 to construct a single-family dwelling
Zone:RR 5
Mr. Lusk explained the reason for the appeal by the Robbins is they do not feel showing of ownership was supplied at the time of applying for a permit and Mr. Baker should have required a storm water management plan. Upon advice from counsel, the ZA is constrained to do nothing but what is within the bylaw. Attorney Chris Nordle, representing the Robbins, felt that a storm water management plan should have been submitted and was concerned with how it can be monitored and its representation of the original plan. Mr. Baker did a site visit, which indicates the driveway is built, no soil disturbed, and a storm water management plan was given to Mr. Baker. Mr. Altadonna moved to DENYappeal # 4113 based on the Board’s Attorney’s submission and information submitted by the attorneys. Mr. Collotta seconded the motion with Mr. Lusk, Leven, Diender, Collotta and Altadonna in favor.
5:10
Project #:4130
Owner: George Thompson Trust
Tax Parcel #:11-050.000
Location:2760 Weeks Hill Road
Project:Construct cabin in RHOD (already moved to this location)
(1)The application was deemed minor pursuant to Sec. 9 of the bylaws
(2)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 is required.
(3)The upper portion of the hedgerow indicated on the modified site plan shall remain in place.
Mr. Collotta seconded the motion with all members in favor. Two positions remain on the Board.
5:30
Project #:4144
Owners:Collins, Richard & Robert
Tax Parcel #:7-259.000
Location:745 South Main Street
Project:Convert Pizza Shop to automotive service by replacing entry door with overhead door and window with door.
Zone:LVC/SHOD
Mr. Lusk stepped aside as Chair stating he is friends of the applicants. Brian Leven, Vice Chair took the Chair position. Present was Robert Collins. The application has been before the SHPC who recommended approval. Mr. Baker said the Town Public Works Director asked that future proposed sidewalks be taken into consideration, particularly how it will affect parking and the entrances. Some members felt they could not hold an applicant responsible for what the Town may or may not do in the future. Mr. Colllins said there would be no tow trucks and no parking of cars involved. Customers will drop their cars off and pick up later in the day—not storage of vehicles. Simply doing light repair, oil changes, with 1 lift operation. Mr. Collotta asked where the snow will go if the spaces are used for parking. Mr. Collins stated there has never been a parking problem. No additional lighting involved. Conditional Use Review took place. No affect on the character of the area; hours of operation 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.; noise discussed with Bodo Liewehr, abutting property owner stated his house has apartments whose tenants who sleep late and he was concerned with noise, amount of cars going and coming, especially in the summer when the overhead door will be open. tape 1 side 2 Mr. Collins agreed with Mr.Liewehr’s concerns. Chris Carey, neighbor in the rear of the property asked that storage in the rear of the building not be allowed, as there has been parts, engine blocks etc. in the past and Mr. Collins said his plan is to have things gone. There is vehicle access to the rear of the building. There are no plans to change the access. Mr. Baker stated there are no guidelines for parking re: automotive service. Future sidewalks were discussed re: curb cuts. Mr. Coppock, in the audience offered his opinion and said the Board should continue its review under the bylaws as any future sidewalks/curb cuts has no relevance to the application. If the town had submitted a specific plan, the Board would need to address it but in this case none has been submitted. Mr. Leven agreed. No additional landscaping or screening is planned. Mr.Diender 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 conditions of the SHPC letter of Project Recommendation are made a part of the approval.
(3)Only one vehicle lift shall be permitted.
(4)No automotive bodywork shall be permitted.
(5)No external storage of automotive parts is permitted except in dumpsters.
(6)No vehicles associated with the automotive service use shall be stored in the rear of the building.
(7)The noise from automotive repairs shall not be audible at the property line from 5:00 P.M. thru 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Collotta seconded the motion with Mr. Leven, Collotta, Diender and Alatadonna voting in favor. Mr. Lusk abstained and two vacancies remain.
6:15 P.M. BREAK
6:25
Project #:4118 (Recessed from 12/1/2009)
Owners:Whistlepig LLC
Tax Parcel #:6-108.000
Location:Between 563 and 712 Barrows Road
Project:Create a seven (7) lot subdivision
Zones:RR2/RR5/RHOD
Present were Darrow Mansfield, Kim Brown and Jim Goldsmith for the applicant. Al Coppock, adjacent property owner was present. All members were present at a site visit dated 12/6/09 at 2:00 P.M. Mr. Mansfield explained some changes to the plans i.e. 47 acres, split by Barrows Road with 7 parcels of land, 3 on the west side (essentially frontage lots) and 4 on the east side. The east side will have a new development roadway built to A21 standards. Lot 4 frontage is at 10% grade with lot # 4 the steepest grade of 12%. Each of the sites has individually drilled wells with combination individual/shared wastewater disposal. Lots 3 & 4 have been relocated into the RHOD zone. Building zones have been changed on lots 3 & 4 and house sites relocated. Lots 5 & 6, each include 1-acre for the house sites and meet the zoning standards. Mr. Mansfield described the topography of the land, including wetland areas with some building sites and photographs depicted the perspective of the property. Mr. Mansfield stated 50 trees would be planted (combination of street trees/ plantings also around the new road which would start in the spring. Mr. Mansfield agreed that lots 3 & 4 owners would be required to return to the Board for their landscaping. Mr. Altadonna asked if there is any notable wildlife and Mr. Mansfield said the areas being proposed for development do not have any areas mapped for wildlife. Mr. Coppock asked for an explanation re: size, location, height, kinds etc of the landscaping trees which were indicated on the plans, which Mr. Mansfield described in detail including some trees 10’ in height. tape 2 side 1 Mr. Coppock asked about the existing size of some trees and stated particularly on the west side of the property there is a significant issue of deer crossing the road as well as turkeys and questioned if there are not deer yards. Robert Hickey, property adjacent to proposed Lot 1 testified to deer always crossing through the trees as well as wild turkeys and bear. Mr. Lusk asked the Board to start preliminary review of Section 5.1 (Subdivison regs and what remains to be discussed).
Character of land for subdivision--; (discuss)
Natural and scenic features: (discuss)
Board satisfied at this time the lots meet the zoning standards
Building sites/other improvements (discuss)
Setbacks/. preserved areas- (discuss)
Historic resources- do not exists
Rural character.- (discuss)
Rural landscape (discuss)
Screening /landscaping (discuss)
Traffic- not an issue at this time
Municipal facilities – no demand
Lot configuration/ building sites- (discuss)
Energy conservation (discuss)
More info on Lot # 7- (discuss)
Private enforcement has a 25-year life- (Board wants it to be in perpetuity)
Mr. Mansfield said there is a pond (?) and a high yield fire hydrant at the high school.
Ridgeline and hillsides- discuss RHOD
Screening /forest cover- (discuss)
Building site limitations
Cluster/planned development/open space –(discuss)
Issue of curb cut (discuss)
Road design- Board somewhat in agreement with road design
Character of land for subdivision:
Mr. Altadonna said meadows are always a topic of discussion and then the town, in its review, asks the developer to plant trees. This is a rolling meadow in a very visible location, stated Mr. Altadonna. Mr. Coppock said this is a preamble for the larger discussion of the appropriateness of this development in this location. The Board needs to have one consolidated discussion regarding this development in this meadow, part of it lead by clear indications under the general standards for subdivision which outlines development without undue adverse impact on rural character of the area --------. That is the key to the discussion, stated Mr. Coppock. He continued saying what drives the discussion of planting additional trees is trying to use landscaping to soften something perhaps the Board did not want to do in the first place. He also commented that most of Spaulding development is back off the road. Mr. Coppock said there is nothing on this meadow and it has been consistently hayed. Mr. Mansfield stated his perception of the character of the property is that he has tried to layer in restrictions on the property, it is open and not agriculture at the moment, at least in production; preserving areas of the wetlands and there area areas not suitable for development because of the elevations. We have been sensitive to the visual change. No prime agricultural soils and zoned for development in RR 2 & 5. Mr. Mansfield stated the character of the area is residential including the high school. He said it is hard to farm because it is rolling. Mr. Altadonna stated the east side of the property is unique and asked about the substructure. Mr. Coppock stated predominately underneath is huge mounds of clay on the property with a high yield well which taps into an underground aquifer. Easterly side adequate for septic stated Mr. Mansfield and agreed there is a high yield well. Natural Features: Mr. Lusk felt there could be a problem with house site on Lot # 2 next to the road, and felt it needs to be smaller. He indicated he would like to review the building sites more closely. Once the building zones are established, except for the RHOD, the Board does not see the application for houses. Mr. Mansfield stated the house site for Lot 2 drops off from the road. Kim Brown said the cross section shows the heights. Mr. Mansfield stated no doubt most houses will have walk –outs as they are built. Mr. Leven asked the distance from building # 2 to Barrows Road and the answer was 250’. Mr. Coppock suggested the Board discuss the house locations on the westerly side which are more visible and come into play when discussing Sec. 5.1 (2). Cars park along the road taking pictures, particularly during foliage, the meadow is extraordinary and is truly a scenic vista in town. Mr. Coppock questioned with the height of the 2 buildings, to what extent will they block the vistas up the hill and suggested the Board should look to see if they will skyline. Mr. Mansfield referred to the Town Plan, saying this property is not preserved. Mr. Coppock said if that were the case, then none of this section would be required. The Board would only deal with scenic vistas if they were in an area in the RHOD—in fact these standards apply to all properties in town and he felt it an obligation of the Board to review under Sec. 5.1 (2), scenic vistas. When the RHOD section was created, this section was not taken out, stated Mr. Coppock. He felt it comes into play specifically with Lots 5 & 6. tape 2 side 2 Mr. Altadonna said there is a combination of the barn up the hill, the hillside and where the hill drops off in the front. Mr. Mansfield felt it is a matter of degree when it comes to scenic vistas. He did not think of hillside/meadows as scenic vistas although he said they should not be ignored completely. Mr.Leven felt it would be difficult to find properties in Stowe who not have some views. Mr. Lusk felt Lot # 2 could be moved more to the easterly side of the knoll (the location that most interrupts the scenic vista) and suggested the Board have a closer look on what goes on with large lots with large building zones, they need to know what the end product will look like (Mr. Mansfield said he would take another look at the building zone for house # 2) . Mr. Lusk stated he had difficulty singling out this particular vista when it comes to the two houses. Mr. Coppock stated, once approval is given, there is no opportunity to visit the issue of landscaping and indicated it is difficult what to require unless the Board knows where the house sites are. He said he would like to think the only way the Board would approve a development like this in a wide open meadow would be with a comprehensive/thoughtful landscaping plan and did not know how it would be done with the building zones not shown on the plans. Mr. Diender felt the location of the house sites to be important. Mr. Lusk said if this is approved, it is incumbent on the Board to know what the product will look like and Mr. Collotta said he agreed and could not determine what it will look like until a landscaping plan is submitted. Mr. Leven said the building zones are small but buildings 3 & 4 are in the RHOD where landscaping will be required. Focus is with Lots # 1 & 2- Lot # 1 house site is driven by common sense but Lot # 2 is a subject for landscaping review. Discussion followed for a time more. Mr. Coppock asked Mr. Mansfield the future of Lot # 7—which had not been not been addressed and the access had been changed. Question, is it going to be remain undeveloped, is it going to be a common lot? Mr. Mansfield said they have established a 30’ r.o.w. with a Forest Management Pedestrian access and lot # 7 will remain undeveloped. Undeveloped in perpetuity asked Mr., Coppock? Mr. Altadonna said if there is to be building on that lot, the applicant would have to come back to DRB. Mr. Coppock stated the Board needs to craft a condition re: lot 7 (or any other property) if they choose to require that any future plan has to come before the Board. Mr. Collotta then moved to RECESS to JANUARY 19, 2010, seconded by Mr. Lusk with all in favor.
8:15
Project #:4143
Owner:Stowe Electric Department
Tax Parcel :7-308.000
Location:1333 Waterbury Road
Project:Create a two(2) lot subdivision
Present were Darrow Mansfield, on behalf of Stowe Electric Department and Bobby Roberts (in the audience). Mr. Mansfield stated Stowe Electric owns 19 acres on Route 100 south and would like to subdivide one lot- Lot # 1 being owned by the Stowe Electric Department and Lot # 2 is the new lot of 8 acres. The access road serves the SED lot and would be used for lot #2. There is an approval for the Electric Department office building/garage on lot # 1. Property line is the existing stone wall. There is a common leach field area, but the two fields are separate (Lot # 1 pumps up to Lot # 2) and a drilled well. Below the stone wall towards Rte 100 is the driveway which is between 6-12%. There is no area above the stone wall for a certain distance that can be developed, stated Mr. Mansfield. The house site is across from the wetland area and goes back to a wooded Sec. 5.1 Reviewed: The lot measures 2-1 stated Mr. Mansfield (depending on where it is measured) and is an 8 acre parcel. Mr. Baker stated the Fire Department wants a maintenance agreement for the pond/dam (located partly on the abutting property of Michelson) and they, the FD will install a dry hydrant. After discussion, Mr. Mansfield offered to ask Tom Michelson to share in any maintenance. Mr. Lusk asked why there is no building zone shown on the site plan. Mr. Mansfield said it is a lot, and felt it should be up to any future owner to propose a building site. There is no way to clearcut down the bank, stated Mr. Mansfield. Mr. Altadonna felt a building zone should be shown. Mr. Roberts asked if would be possible to get approval and then return with the house location after speaking to neighbors etc? Mr. Baker suggested not allowing that would be like giving a partial approval. Unlimited clearing should not be allowed, especially if it is a natural area. Mr. Mansfield stated there would be no clearing on Lot # 1 except for the driveway/infrastructure. Mr. Roberts suggested the Board limit the clearing to 50%. Mr. Leven moved to RECESS to JANUARY 19, 2010 for submission of the clearing zone and pond/dam maintenance. as cutting on a 20% slope.
Review/approve Minutes of 12/19/2009: Mr. Leven moved to accept with minor corrections, seconded by Peter Collotta with all in favor.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M.Respectfully submitted, Barbara S. Allaire
Development Review Board APPROVED 2.16.10
Town of Stowe
February 2, 2010
The Regular meeting of the Development Review Board was held Tuesday, February 2, 2010 starting at 5:00 P.M. in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building.
Members present: Peter Collotta, Brian Leven, Doug White, Drew Clymer, Charles Lusk, Lynn Altadonna and Michael Diender.
Others present: Darrow Mansfield, Jesse Goldfine, Jim Goldsmith and Scott Keyes.
5:00 P.M.
Project #:4149
Owner:Covered Bridge Associates LLC
Tax Parcel #: 11-254.200
Location: Brook Road - Covered Bridge Phase III
Project: Request for additional tree removal to the north and east of building # 12
Zones:RR 5/RHOD
Paul Reed was not yet present and Mr. Baker described the proposal saying the applicant would be asking for a site visit. Board passed over awaiting a representative. Mr. Reed.
Arrived and suggested the members do a site visit. He said any public view corridor would be from Rte 108 which has to be satisfied under RHOD district. Mr. Reed felt it would be a minor consideration. Members agreed to meet FEBRUARY 16, 2010 at 5:00 P.M. at the intersection of Covered Bridge & Brook Road. The hearing will be continued back at the meeting room at approximately 6:00 P.M.
5:10
Project #:4061 (Recessed from 1/19/10)
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
Project #:4096 (Recessed 1/19/10)
Owners: TN Associates
Tax Parcel #:11-254.200
Location:400 Mountain Road
Project:Confirmation and Approval of Event Areas within Topnotch Resort
Zones:UMR/PUD/MOD/RHOD/FHD
The applicant had asked to postpone to March 16, 2010 because Mr. Oberlander would not be available until that date. Mr. Altadonna moved to POSTPONE to March 16, 2010 (both warned hearings) at the applicant’s request, seconded by Mr. Diender with all members in favor. The first meeting was held 9/1/09 at which time a STAY was issued until 10/20; at that date recessed to 11/17; postponed to 12/15; recessed to 1/19/ recessed to 2/2; postponed to 3/16.
5:25
Project #:4118 (Recessed from 1/19/2010)
Owners:Whistlepig Enterprises LLC
Tax Parcel #: 6-108.000
Location:Between 563 and 712 Barrows Road
Project:Create a seven (7) lot subdivision (Preliminary Approval)
Zones:RR2/RR5/RHOD
Present were Jim Goldsmith, principal owner: Jesse Goldfine and Scott Keyes (?).
There were e-mails passed back and forth prior to this meeting, one being from Allan Coppock requesting a recess- one passed from Darrow Mansfield to Mr. Coppock etc. Discussion took place among members and Mr. Lusk asked if all had read all e-mails (including the latest) Mr.Lusk stated he wished to make certain that all, including the applicant, had the same literature. Mr. Goldsmith pointed out he is the principal and he was not present at the last meeting, but his wife was and made it very clear when they would be available, he did not request a postponement. Mr. Lusk asked members if they felt there was anything to discuss re: material provided by e-mail. Mr. White stated he was present to participate in the hearing and info did not matter; Diender, Collotta, Leven also agreed. Mr. Lusk felt there was a very important issue which goes to the fact that notification of neighbors/interested parties as a requirement and when someone who might or might not have been able to be present is given a representation which he believes is authentic, he need not worry about taking any action as to finding an agent or returning himself has any merit to it. Is that the opinion from everyone (other than myself), asked Mr. Lusk. It was stated by Mr. Diender that Mr. Coppock had the opportunity to have legal representation or someone else to be present. Mr. White stated , if someone were going to be present, this would be the time. Mr. Mansfield stated that discussion happened within the last few hours, about noon this date, it was learned Mr. Coppock could not be present and apparently there was a breakdown in communication. Discussion continued. Mr. Collotta moved to continue the hearing, seconded by Mr. Leven. Mr. Leven referred to paragraph 4 of the Rules of Procedure. The motion was then withdrawn.MINUTES of 1/19/2010 reviewed in detail: Mr. Leven moved to approve with corrections, seconded by Mr. Altodonna with all in favor. Mr. Lusk listed possible conditions/issues which were left to be discussed/ resolved. Mr. Mansfield showed modifications and stated the 50’ r.o.w. been moved slightly so that whatever the future use of Lot # 7 could have an appropriate driveway; will not be used and the building zones on lots 1-4 have been adjusted (noted the reason for each and described on the site plan, including ; tape 1 side 2 Landscaping) which follows the previously representation. Mr. Diender asked when the lots are sold, who has the responsibility for the Forest Management Plan, Lots 3 & 4 will come back prior to a house being built stated Mr. Mansfield. Mr. Baker, for the record, said to Mr. Mansfield the plans require updated revision dates on each. Mr. Altadonna asked if homeowners will be restricted from future landscaping and Mr. Mansfield said no. Mr.Collotta asked if there will be a restriction on the size of the houses and the answer was no, other than what the bylaws stipulate. Board started review of Sec. 5.1(2) (B): Members agreed to wait until addressing landscaping. Fire Department has not responded as yet. (c) setbacks from natural features, and Mr. Leven asked what the natural features are—is the meadow a natural feature. He felt the project has been well designed. Mr. Altadonna felt it is not a nice smooth meadow with the house sites taking advantage of the rolling terrain. Mr. Lusk felt the contour lines create the scenic quality and they have they been incorporated Mr. Mansfield stated swailes are present so tried to design the house sites with those in mind as does the road. He continued saying there will be very little grading done as the building zones are now focused. Mr. Diender stated it is important that the contours remain and felt a grading plan should be submitted. Mr. Mansfield said he will be doing that for final approval. (Sec. 5.2(3)(C) Mr. Goldsmith stated the building envelopes/houses sites are limited and houses are not going to be built for someone who does not want to live in a meadow and the contours of the land will not be changing. We would lose any economic functionality not to take advantage of the sites, stated Mr. Goldsmith.Preserving Areas: Mr. Baker stated there are conservation areas but asked if owners could decide to do anything else, i.e. in the meadow etc. Mr. Altadonna felt owners should be able to plant with no further restrictions, i.e. number of trees. Wetlands have their own restrictions so felt there was no need to add additional ones. Mr. Collotta said the meadow is the key feature and felt the homeowners should be limited to planting on the house sites and to leave the meadows clear. Mr. Lusk said if the meadow is going to be guaranteed to remain clear, conditions need to be imposed, but he was reluctant to tell homeowners how many trees they could/would plant. Mr. Clymer said if the Board agrees this is a rolling meadow and scenic, then the Board has the responsibility to protect it. He felt planting could be required but was undecided at this point. Mr. White said the house sites have been defined and he was comfortable not to set restrictions for the planting of trees/cutting trees down. Mr. Lusk said trees in the meadow could help mitigate what the houses will look like. Sec. 5.2(3)(A): Mr. Mansfield showed graphics of the ridgelines as done by Kim Brown (and described) He said Lots 5 & 6 are comfortably beneath the ridgeline and will not skyline. Sec. 5.2(3) (B) Pg 20: Mr. Collotta said he did not see how one can put homes as indicated and not create some kind of detraction from the natural features. tape 2 side 1 Mr. Baker said he felt this section is where landscaping comes into play. Mr. Leven said the rolling meadow is not the focal point, but the panoramic view is, so anything placed there is going to detract from it. Mr. Baker said if the building sites are smaller, and the landscaping lessens the impact of the building site, those two things together reduce the overall visual impact, if there is a focal point, the impact of the meadow. Mr. Lusk said there is no question this sec. (3)(B) could be used to deny this as well as other subdivision applications, the question is, are we prepared to do this? Mr. Clymer said if members could agree that the building zones, landscaping and other conditions could be imposed, then the meadow/rolling terrain could/would be preserved. Mr. Altadonna said the trees are not in the building zones. Mr. Leven said it will change the visual quality but did not know if it diminish it—it will look different and felt the Board was doing everything it can so it will not look worse. Mr. White said he was comfortable without adding more conditions under (3) (C). The Forest Management Plan will take place with no more than 50% of the basal area and no clear cutting. Mr. Goldfine & Keyes left the meeting at 6:50 P.M.. There is a forested backdrop beyond this land which rises above the dwellings, stated Mr. Leven. (4)(C): Mr. Altadonna said the structures will be 100 yards from the road and the trees proposed to be planted soften the impact. Others agreed.
A letter dated 1/22/10 from Mr. Mansfield refers to Sec. 5.3(8) requesting an exemption of the open space requirement was referred to. Mr.Mansfield stated he felt the conservation zones achieve all of the goals in the regs and protect the most prominent hillsides and natural features on the new lots. Mr. Mansfield stated the intent is to protect the wetlands, slopes and have a conservation area. page 22 (8.) and as set forth in Sec. 5 was referred to. Mr. Lusk stated hunters park beside the road, and if there is no open space designation, then the highway could become a trespass issue. Mr. Leven said he felt designating open space does not mean open to the public. Mr. Diender said there is plenty of open space in the area for the public , i.e. school etc. Mr. Altadonna said the size of the parcels etc do not seem to be crying out for areas for children to play and agreed with allowing the exemption.
BREAK 7:10
Returned 7:20Mr. Leven said he felt the road bisecting the area would complicate where one would put open space and felt the rationale in the letter was a reasonable request. Mr. White said the applicant has set aside 12.7 acres which will be conserved and those acres are suitable for recreation. Sec. 5.4 Roads: the board concluded that the application met the standard for road lay out, access; no scenic corridor no street lighting being required; storm water management plan will be submitted.
Tape 2 side 2 After additional discussion, Mr. Leven moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: Project 4118, including the exemption of open space under Sec. 5.3(8), with the following CONDITIONS:
(1)Any change to the plans or the proposed use of the property shall be brought tot he attention of the Zoning Administrator, prior to its enactment, for a determination if an amendment shall be required;
(2)A final subdivision application shall be filed with the DRB by the owner of record, or its agent, authorized in writing, within six (6) months from the date of conditional use approval of the preliminary layout. If the subdivision application is not submitted within such period, the Board may require resubmission of a preliminary layout. The application shall be accompanied by the final subdivision plat and information , as described in Sec. 4.2 of the Subdivision regs, and shall address any conditions or changes which may have been included as part of the preliminary plan approval.
(3)The proposed landscaping shall be planted at the time of construction of the road.
(4)The final plan submittal shall include a maintenance management plan for the proposed landscaping.
(5)A Fire Department review shall be submitted with the final plan submission.
(6)No development shall occur on Lot # 7, and the proposed driveway to Lot # 7 shall not be constructed without approval by the Board. A note shall be added to the
recorded plan stating these development restrictions.
(7)The Board will require, as a condition of approval, that a registered engineer certify that the private road has been built to A-21 standards before any Certificates of Occupancy are issued for development. Said condition shall be noted on the
recorded plan.
(8)The final plan submittal shall include a stormwater management and soil erosion and sedimentation control plan that will satisfy state requirements.
(9)The final plan shall show all transclosure locations and proposed landscaping to screen them.
(10) Any construction on Lots 5 and 6 shall not be allowed to skyline.
Mr. White seconded the motion with Mr. Leven, Clymer, White, Altadonna, Lusk and Diender voting in favor. Mr. Collotta voted no. No one abstained.
Mr. Lusk said he would like the Draft of Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law be sent the members electronically but reviewed/approve at the February 16th meeting. Members agreed. Mr. Baker reminded members testimony is closed but they could go into deliberative session at the meeting. (members discussed this, what is public information, and how to proceed).
There being no further business to come before the board, the meeting adjourned at 7:50 P.M.
