The regular meeting of the Development Review Board was held Tuesday, May 4, 2010 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M. 

                                               Development Review Board           APPROVED 5.18.10

                                              May 4, 2010- Town of Stowe

Members present: Charles Lusk, Chair; Michael Diender, Peter Collotta, Doug White, Drew Clymer, Lynn Altadonna and Brian Leven (5:30 P.M). 

Others present: Rich Baker, Zoning Director and those listed in the minutes book.

Mr. Lusk announced that there would be a change in the schedule re: TN Associates who would be moved to the end of the agenda.

Project #:       4168 (RECESSED from 4/6/10)

Owner (s):      Bourne, Gary & Irene DBA Foster’s Place

Location:        4968 Mountain Road

Project:           Amend projects # 3868/3949 to alter number of units and modify exterior building materials/colors.

Zone:              UMR

 Present was Darrow Mansfield representing the owners and submitted samples of the proposed colors, samples of materials to be used and the location on the building. There will be 3 different colors, with 2 different materials. Savannah wicker (grade level); sand tone middle clapboard section and white to be used (shakes) at the very top of the building. Mr. Altadonna moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: project # 4168, with the following CONDITIONS:

(1)   This project shall be completed according to the plans hereby approved. 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 materials shall be stored on stairways, no materials (which includes, but not limited to bicycles and barbeque grills) shall be stored on the decks except seasonal furniture, and no clothing, banners, or other items shall be hung on or from the stairs or decks.

(3)   Landscaping shall be restored as depicted on the landscaping, lighting and parking plan (dated 2/198) with the exception noted by the applicant.

(4)   Lighting shall be installed and maintained as depicted on the plan dated 2/1998 except that the existing lighting will be removed on the roadway up to the “Robinson House” in the rear of the property.

(5)   The building colors shall be similar to those represented (5/4/10) and any other colors will require review and approval by the board.

(6)   No building mechanical equipment shall be located on the street side of the building.

Mr. Diender seconded the motion with Mr. Altadonna, Clymer, Diender, Lusk and White voting in favor. Mr. Leven not yet arrived. No one voted no.   

Project:          4188

Location:        Pond & School Streets

Project:           Minor relocation of previously approved historic schoolhouse and minor façade changes.

Zones:             VR20/SHOD   

Present was Chris Carey, Architect speaking for the Town of Stowe. Also present were Don Post and Rose-Marie Matulionis. Mr. Carey stated the building is currently set so the foundation is on the setback line, not the drip edge. Requesting approval to construct a chimney on the rear of the building (where one was originally located) and install window wells. Mr. Collotta asked why the chimney (brick) is being considered from a design and bulk standpoint) and the answer was to restore the building back to where it used to be. Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the project only from an advisory standard, only for the setbacks, as there is no design review under state law. Mr. Carey stated the building was originally 5.5’ from the boundary between the Town of Stowe and the Stowe School District parcel. On the School Street side, the roof extends over the previously approved 10’ setback by 2.4’, making the setback 7.6’ from the School Street r.o.w. The building will be located 3’ further away from the School District parcel changing the setback to 8.5’ from the previously approved 5.5’. The tree at the corner of Bloody Brook will be removed and a maple will replace it. 3 lilac bushes will be planted as a landscaping amendment. Window wells will be 1’ below grade from the bottom of the windows. Mr. Altadonna asked why the building is where it is and Mr. Carey stated the building was moved around quite a bit, with a requirement that it be as close to the setback as possible. The hole was dug without the knowledge of Little River engineers. The Town Engineer felt the setback was from the foundation and not the drip line. Don Post said he was aware the building will not be moved and asked where the 10’ setback is from and Mr. Baker said from the r.o.w. , which includes the back edge of the sidewalk. Ms. Matulonis asked how the new location coincides with the proposed sidewalk to be built? Mr. Baker said it is approximately 5’ from the edge of the road back to the r.o.w. line. The eves are within the front setback which would not affect any sidewalk. Ms. Matulonis said she has great regard for the Historical Society but concerned with the safety of the children and the crossing, saying there is only 10’ of visibility and suggested eliminating 1-2 more parking space. Mr. Baker stated there was a traffic study done with recommendations being made and the issues being raised are Selectboard issues. Mr. Baker did not feel the building is changing the visibility. Mr. Lusk felt there is adequate room for the Town to continue the sidewalk plan and the Board’s review is limited, but did agree another parking space should be eliminated. Mr. Altadonna said only the Selectboard has the opportunity to address the traffic/visibility. Ms. Matulonis asked that landscaping be limited so that additional visibility will not be inhibited. Mr. Post said visibility is a safety issue and his understanding that the parking will now be coming in a little he did not feel there is much room. Tape 1 side 2 Mr. Altadonna asked if there is an issue with snow coming off the roof and Mr. Carey did not think so but agreed to put up a snow fence if required. They are considering moving the handicap ramp for this reason stated Mr. Carey. Mr. Collotta asked if the application requires 2 votes, i.e. the waiver and the addition of the window wells and chimney. (Members agreed to treat as one) Mr. Diender was concerned with the pedestrian traffic and the visibility (read from pg 35 of the Bylaws finding it relevant). Mr. Altadonna felt there is nothing the DRB could do. Mr. White did not feel other issues should be brought up at this time as the building was previously approved and the Board cannot review pedestrian traffic (pedestrian circulation) under Sec. 4413. Mr. Diender stated that traffic has an impact on pedestrian traffic on that road. The Board then reviewed the criteria in order to consider granting a waiver. The red maple will be on the left of the Helen Day Memorial Library and Art Center and the 3 lilacs on the street side of the museum. Mr. Collotta said he would not approve with the chimney there as he did not wish to expand the setbacks when not required. Mr. Carey said they would remove the chimney from the plans. Mr. White moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: 4188 allowing the minor relocation under Sections 3.7(2)(A) & 3.7(2)(B)(7) with the following CONDITIONS:

(1)   The project shall be completed according to the plans hereby approved. 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 is required.  

(2)   All conditions for the approval of Project 3298 and 4001 shall remain and be part of this approval.

   Mr. Clymer seconded the motion with Mr. Diender, Clymer, White, Lusk and Altadonna, Collotta voting in favor. Mr. Leven abstained from voting as he arrived at 5:35 when the hearing was in progress. .   

Project #:       4184

Owner:           Farrow, Kristen McCarthy

Location:        Lower Leriche Road

Project:          Construct a 24’ x 24’ garage with RR 2 setbacks on the RR 5portion of the lot. request setback waiver under section 3.6 (7).

Zone:              RR2/5

Present were Dan Cole and Nancy Flanagan . Proposal is to construct a 24’ x 24’ garage with a master bedroom above. RR 2 setbacks are 50’ (RR 5 is 75’) and the building is proposed to be 78’ from the corner of the building using the RR 2 setbacks. Mr. Baker described the zoning line, saying it is a split zone and when the Planning Commission approved the PRD, they did not consider the internal setbacks. The existing house does not meet the RR 5 setbacks under Sec. 3.6(7)(B). Current lot is 2.5 acres. The garage will be 54’ to the closest pin. The building will not encroach on any setbacks, stated Mr. Cole. The addition will be not be in the driveway r.o.w (driveway serves 2 lots (not a road with setback requirements, stated Mr. Baker. Sudivision Review: setbacks can be met. There will be house (which will have a total of 3 bedrooms) has its own septic and water. tape 2 side 1 Mr. Collotta moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law to approve Project # 4184 granting a waiver for RR 2 setbacks standards. 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. 

Mr. Clymer seconded the motion with all members in favor. No one voted to deny and no one abstained.

Project #:        4187

Owner(s):        Blanton, Jeffrey & Debra

Location:        Tamarack Road

Project:           Create a two-lot subdivision

Mr. & Mrs Blanton present. The total parcel is of 60.3 acres, proposing to subdivide out a 11 acre parcel to construct a new house and relocate the drive to service the new dwelling. The remaining 49.3 acre lot presently has an existing dwelling. A 50’ r.o.w. easement currently exists to the adjacent property (Khosla) parcel on the westerly boundary. Clearing limits and the building envelope are depicted on the site plan. The grade of the driveway will be approximately 3% . Final Subdivision Review: setbacks will be met; plans are for own septic and water on site; driveway will not be going into non-identified wetlands; shared driveway; no natural features to be preserved; the only comments on the Impact Statements was for the purpose of 911, indicating after three homes are built using the driveway, the street must be named for 911 purposes. Mr. White moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: project # 4187 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)   Pursuant to V.S.A. Title 24, Chapter 117, the approval of this final subdivision application shall expire after 180 from such approval unless a final subdivision plat shall have been duly filed or recorded in the office of the Town Clerk --------

(3)   All other pertinent subdivision conditions per zoning regs.

Mr. Clymer seconded with all members voting in favor.

Owner:             TN Associates

Tax Parcel #:    11-138.000

Location:          4000 Mountain Road

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

Zones:              UMR/PUD/MOD/RHOD/FHD

Present representing TN Associates were: Peter D. Van Oot, Attorney; Dan Oberlander; and Rachael; VanWagner.

Chairman Lusk noted for the record a letter submitted dated 4/20/10 from Vt..Campaign to End Childhood Hunger had been received. He then gave an overview of the hearing held 12-15-09, saying the Board had gone into deliberative session to discuss the appeal and emerged without arriving at a consensus because of only 4 members and subsequently been recessed from that date to this date 5-4-10. The question is, is what has been applied for land development or an extension of the use of land; a temporary structure and even if there is a definition of a temporary structure, whether a PUD implies there will be tents as a matter of right; if there has been a change of use and is the erection of the tent in question part of a pre-existing activity and unchanged therefore needs a permit so the ZA could violate.

Mr.Van Oot stated the Chair had all the issues correct and anytime an appeal has been filed, all the issues need to be identified. Mr. Van Oot said the real issue is whether the use of the lower meadow for events involving the tent/improvements is a grand fathered use because it was established before either the approval of the Resort PUD (1999) or the enactment of the Regulations in 1982. The use of the land has been ongoing, tennis tournaments, dog shows; car shows since before 1982 if not before1999. Documentation is on record of the different uses. Mr. Van Oot said it comes down to the question, has there been a use since before 1982 and he said they were not arguing there could not be a continuation of a temporary structure, but the use has been ongoing since before 1982. Mr. Oot stated the Zoning Administrator could require or not require a temporary structure permit, but felt that irrelevant since the use was established before 1982. Mr. Lusk asked new members Doug White and Drew Clymer if they were comfortable going into a possible deliberative session for discussion and both stated they were since they both review all documents which were supplied.

Mr. Leven then moved to go into CLOSED DELIBERATIVE SEESION at 7:20 P.M. seconded by Mr. Collotta with those voting in favor: Mr. Lusk, Clymner, Leven, Collotta, Diender, White and Altadonna. No one voted no or abstained.

At 8:50 P.M. the Board came out of deliberative session with Mr. White making a motion to have Mr. Altadonna draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to DENY project # 4061 and UPHOLD the Zoning Administrator’s NOTICE of VIOLATION. Drew Clymner seconded the motion. Those voting in favor of the motion: Mr. White, Collotta, Diender, Altadonna and Collotta. Opposed: Mr. Leven and Lusk. No abstentions. MOTION CARRIED 5-2

Project #:         4096

Owner:             TN Associates

Tax Parcel #:    11-138.000

Location:          4000 Mountain Road

Project:             Confirmation and Approval of Event Areas within Topnotch Resor

Zones:               UMR/PUD/MOD/RHOD/FHD

Mr. Lusk and Mr. White moved to POSTPONE Project 4096 to May 18, 2010, seconded by Mr. Clymer with Mr. Altadonna, Lusk, Clymer, Diender, White, Leven and Collotta voting in favor.      

Minutes of April 6, 2010: Mr. Leven moved to approve with minor changes, seconded by Mr. Altadonna. All in favor.

Election of Officers will take place at the June 1, 20102 meeting.

There being no further business to come before the board, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M.

                                          Development Review Board   APPROVED 6.1.10

                                                     Town of Stowe

                                                       May 18, 2010

The regular meeting of the Development Review Board was held Tuesday, May 18, 2010 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M.

Members present: Charles Lusk, Chair; Peter Collotta, Brian Leven, Doug White, Drew Clymer and Lynn Altadonna (5:30)

Other present: Rich Baker, Zoning Administrator and those listed in the minutes book.

Note: Application 4154 Talasko & Moeller to establish clearing limits for Lot # 9 of the Basin plan has been withdrawn.

Project #:      4096 – Requesting to further RECESS

Owner:         TN Associates

Location:       4000 Mountain Road

Project:         Confirmation and Approval of Event Areas within the TN Resort

Zoning:         UMR/PUD/MOD/RHOD/FHD

Mr. Lusk explained the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: Project 4061 are not yet available, so the applicant, TN Associates has asked for a recess. Mr. Leven moved to RECESS # 4096 to JUNE 1, 2010 seconded by Mr. White with all in favor. Mr. Diender not present. 

Project #:         4197

Owner:             Mt. Mansfield Co.

Tax Parcel #:   14-002.000

Location:          6101 Mountain Road

Project:             Relocate existing 30’ yurt and reconstruct the existing 40’ x 50’ deck from Spruce Peak to Mt. Mansfield Ski Touring Center.

Present was Rob Apple from Mt. Mansfield Co. explaining that the proposal is to move the 30’ yurt to the base of the Ski Touring Center which will then be used as a shelter for skiers and summer Day Camp participants, plus add the existing 40’ x 50’ deck. (removed from existing location). Sec. 3.7 Review: Location is inside the Ski PUD; no exterior lighting proposed; yurt a recreational facility. Mr. Apple stated he did not anticipate the yurt requiring additional parking as the cars currently using the area come and go at all times of the day with the shared access being used; no landscaping required; no ground surface being disturbed stated Mr. Apple. Mr. Leven moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: Project # 4197 with the following CONDITIONS:

                                                       -2-

   (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.

Mr. Clymer seconded the motion with all members in favor. Mr. Diender was not present.

Project #:         4083

Owner:             Mt. Mansfield Co (Lessee: Mt. Mansfield Ski Club)

Tax Parcel #:   14-002.000

Location:          403 Spruce Peak

Project:             Modifications to parking lot and façade of previously approved addition to the Ski Club Building. (Project 3977)

Zones:              Same as above

Present were Paul Reed and Igor Janveic (? ) Mr. Reed told members Labor & Industry had other requirements they had to meet and Kim Brown, who did the previous drawings, was not capable of taking the project to L& I so Graham Goldsmith agreed to take over, which are the plans before the Board with changes. Mr. Reed stated the length of the building will not change; relative height will remain the same with an increase at the peaks by 3-4’; 2^nd flr dormers remain similar and 3^rd floor will remain as approved; the only place the construction will be seen is from Covered Bridge Condos and will not be seen from a public highway; Mr. Collotta asked about the deck which was approved to the right (south elevation) and Mr. Reed stated it will not be used as a deck, rather more ornamental construction, with a railing and there is no door in that end of the building. Mr. Reed stated if it is decided to use the deck, they will return to the Board for approval.. The building will be sprinkled. Mr. Altdonna arrived at 5:30. There is a shedded deck to the right of the bell tower. Previous Findings of Facts were used for review: no change in traffic on roads and highways; character of the area the same; no water, air or noise pollution; exterior lighting remains the same; pedestrian circulation will have a covered walkway within a central staircase including a lift; exterior lighting plan will not change; landscaping includes no appreciable changes but will leave trees that are noted in place; create a larger drop off area; not having the access there created a ski-in and ski-out situation; parking for year around use which was approved will now be limited to a drop off area for 6 cars; parking lot will be limited to coaches, employees etc; winter parking area will be used in the winter (165 spaces) and people can walk to the building. Fire Department requested a 20’ fire lane. FD is willing to have access to half of the building (as opposed to the whole building since it will be sprinkled, stated Mr. Baker) Mr. Lusk asked if the FD understands the fire lane will be a cul-de-sac in the winter and Mr. Reed said he submitted plans previously and that is why they request a 20’ fire lane. (Mr. Baker said the FD understands the cul-de-sac will be there). Mr. Altadonna asked about the location of the water- hook up (for sprinkler system) for the FD hook up, stressing it needs to be where it is accessible. Mr. Collotta, White and Altadonna reiterated it needs to be where the FD knows exactly where it is. tape 1 side 2 Mr. White said he felt the FD needs to be better informed re: conditions of the previous approval, dated 6/09 which identifies 3 items in which they are involved and questioned

                                                    -3-

 if they (FD) is getting the presentation in order to ask questions. Mr. Reed said they have not taken the opportunity to take the 3 issues to the FD but will.

Proposed ramp will be removed at the entry to the building which has 3 doors with 2 in the older section. Mr. Reed said they would be extending the boulder area by 10’ on the downhill side. Mr. Leven asked about the road going to the upper portion which was controversial previously, and Mr. Reed stated the road, plus the road signs will remain the same as previously approved. Sec. 3.7 (2) (a) (2) Sec. 9 review not changed. Members felt the redistribution of parking to be satisfactory with the 6-car drop off area and with the signage restricting parking in the fire lane. After little more discussion, Mr. Collotta moved and Mr. Leven seconded the motion to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: project 4083 with the following CONDITIONS:

(1)   The project shall be completed according to the plans hereby approved. Any change to the plans or the proposed use of the property shall be brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, prior to it’s enactment, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.

(2)   The application is deemed to be minor according to Sec. 9 of the Regs.

(3)   A Knox Box shall be installed before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued

(4)   The Fire Department shall approve the location of the Fire Department connection

(5)   Signage shall be installed indicating there is no parking in the area of the fire lane.

(6)   The garage roof shall not be used as a deck and no doors shall be added which would allow access to the roof.

(7)   The gravel portion of Spruce Peak Road shall be posted “No Parking” on both sides of the road from the paved section to the Sensation Lift.

(8)   Signage shall be installed indicating that there is no long-term parking in the drop off area.

Voting in favor of the motion: Lusk, Leven, Collotta, Clymer and Altadonna. Mr. White voted no. No abstentions. Mr. Diender not present.

Project #:           4196

Owners:             Sargent, Ashley & Nicholas/Potter, Joseph & Jenning, Janet

Tax Parcel #:     2-060.000/2-060.010

Location:           1728 Stowe Hollow Road

Project:              Create a two-lot subdivision

Zones:                RR 3/RR5

Present was Chris Austin, employee of Charles Grenier and representing the applicants. He stated Potter & Jennings owned 9 acres with an existing dwelling and sold 4+ to the Sargent’s without subdivision permit. Mr. Baker stated the Sargent’s attorney thought the town road creates an automatic subdivision, but in the town of Stowe according to the Regs that is not correct, therefore the reason for the formal subdivision hearing. The Sargent side of the road is RR 3 and the Potter side is RR 5. Mr. Austin said the Sargents do not claim any land on the Potter side of the road. After discussion, it was determined the shortest measurement on the Potter/Jennings side is 140’ and could be looked at as

                                                            -4-

 non-conforming as it does not meet the standard which can be waived under Sec. 5.   Mr. Altadonna said he would be in favor of granting a waiver, since it was known at the time that it was not a subdivision. Board reviewed Sec. 5 of the Subdivision Regs: Mr. Baker stated the farmhouse side of the road is non-conforming/ pre-existing. Buildings on the Potter side pre date zoning. tape 2 side 1 MrAltadonna felt the building zone should be shown on the plat. Mr. Lusk felt landscaping should be shown on the plat. Mr. Leven said he felt the Board needs to be consistent in their approvals when requiring building zones and landscaping. (after discussion, the majority of members felt these restrictions should not be imposed as the engineer provided the setbacks for the house location ). No subsequent development plans. Mr. White 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 this 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) All criteria, which are a part of the subdivision conditions, shall be a part of these conditions.

Mr. Clymer seconded the motion with all members in favor. No one voted no and Mr. Diender was not present.

Project #:            4195

Owners:              Notchbrook III Property Owners Association

Tax Parcel #:      14-021.000

Location:             Notchbrook Road

Project:                Amendment to Notchbook II to establish setbacks per Sec. 3.3(2) of the ordnance

Zones:                 RR5/RHOD

Jeremy Hoff, Attorney for Notchbrook Homeowners and Debbie Martin representing Notchbrook III were present. Mr. Hoff stated the development was established in the late 70’s as a PRD of 19 lots. Of those, 15 have been developed, 2 of which contain the septic system for the condos, leaving 2 lots undeveloped. The approval, when given was silent as to what the internal setbacks should be. Mr. Baker stated most of the existing houses are non-conforming because of the planning Commission’s previous decision and they were treated as pre-existing small lots. Mr. Hoff referred to the guidelines for a PRD and offered a proposal for treating the lots using RR 1 setbacks, i.e. 30’ side yard; 50’ front & 40’ rear. That would not create any non-conformity issues. There exists a 150’ setback buffer around the entire development, stated Mr. Hoff and he said the Home Owners Assoc agree with this proposal and understand they will be bound by it. Lots 5 & 13 are undeveloped and currently owned by the owner of Lot 12. Sec. 12.4(5) (C) ( which establishes setbacks) & 12.4 (3) General Power etc) Standard for Development. Mr. Leven felt all dimensions should correspond with the size of the lots and felt the Board needs to be consistent for the future; Mr. White stated he liked the uniformity; Mr. Altadonna felt that because buildings exist, the proposal is appropriate so all development

appear to be uniforms. Mr. Clymer moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law to approve the amendment and the standards re: the setbacks will represent the RR 1 zone as of May 18, 2010 being 50’ front yard; 30’ side and 40’ rear.    

(1)   This project shall be completed according to the plans hereby approved. 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 implementation, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.

(2)   Unless specifically amended, all conditions of previous approvals for this subdivision shall remain in full force and effect.

Mr. Leven seconded the motion with Mr. Lusk, Clymer, White, Leven, Altadonna and Collotta voting in favor. Mr. Diender was not present. 

Minutes of May 4, 2010: Mr. Collotta moved to accept with minor corrections, seconded by Mr. Altadonna with all in favor. Mr. Diender was not present. 

Mr. Lusk made the motion that this august body appoints Brian Leven, Chairman and Lynn Altadonna, Vice Chairman. Mr. Clymer seconded the motion with ALL members voting in favor. Mr. Diender was absent.

Barbara Allaire will continue as the recording secretary to the Board.

At 7:45 Mr. Lusk moved to go into Deliberative Session to discuss the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: project #: 4061, TN Associates Appeal. Mr. Collotta seconded the motion with Lusk, Leven, Collotta, White, Altadonna and Clymer voting in favor of the motion. Member Diender was absent from the meeting. At 8:00 P.M., members came out of Deliberative Session with no decisions being made.