Development Review Board              APPROVED 6.15.10

                                        Town of Stowe- June 1, 2010

The regular meeting of the Development Review Board was held Tuesday, June 1, 2010 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M.

Members present: Brian Leven, Chairman; Peter Collotta, Doug White, Charles Lusk and Lynn Altadonna. Absent: Michael Diender and Drew Clymer.

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

Mr. Leven thanked members for trusting him with the dubious honor of Chairman. 

Project #:        4212

Owner(s)        Gordon, Douglas & Toni

Location:        Spring trail Lot # 10 (Past Edson Hill Manor)

Project:           Construct a single-family dwelling in the RHOD

Zones:             RR 5/RHOD

Darrow Mansfield, representing the Douglas’s requested a site visit, which he felt would be beneficial for the members prior to a hearing. Members agreed and asked that the house site be staked, trees for removal marked in order that they can determine it to be a minor or major project. Mr. Mansfield said the road is currently in. Mr. Lusk moved to POSTPONE to June 15, 2010 with a site visit to be held at 4:15 P.M. Mr. White seconded the motion with all members present in favor.

Project #:        4207

Owner:            Till Death Do Us Partnership

Tax Parcel #:   7-107.000

Location:         504 Mountain Inn (next to Partridge Inn)

Project:            Construct a new retail/office/apartment building

Mr. Baker stated the applicant is asking to POSTPONE to allow for additional review by the SHPC. Mr. Altadonna moved to POSTPONE to JUNE 15, 2010. Mr. Collotta seconded the motion with all in favor. Mr. Clymer and Diender were not present.

Project #:       4206

Owner:           Town of Stowe

Location:        350 Park Street

Project:           Re-approval of Jackson Arena demolition and reconstruction

                                                       -2-

Present were Justin Rabidoux, former Public Works Director and Marge McIntosh, Recreation Director. Mr. Rabidoux stated the project has town and DRB approval (expires next month and the Act 250 approval expires 10/11/2011 which requires the project be substantially completed. Mr. Rabidoux stated the project and the site plan remain identical as were approved. Board reviewed the previously approved decision. Mr. Rabidoux gave an overview for the new members, i.e. the building will be 36,000 s.f.; same grade; same footprint (majority of the expansion being a second floor used for storage and possible Rec Dept room);   parking lot will be reconfigured with a one-way circulation; will have pedestrian connections, one down to the lower parking lot and the second with a staircase going to the lower level for parking. There will be the ability for parking 73 cars in the rear (next to the Parks Department work area) which will be made available year around. Mr. Rabidoux stated the façade and colors are subject to change at which time they would return to the Board. Total occupancy to be 800-850, including staff rooms, coaches rooms etc. Other events (requiring use of the floor as well as bleachers (up to 1500), would require a Special Events Permit approved by the Selectboard (bleachers accommodate 740 spectators). The 2^nd level to have storage and possible staff room for Recreation Staff and space which does not have a specific use at this time. The ice rink is the first element of the Master Plan, if and when funding is available. The Wetlands Permit has been granted. Act 250 requires more aggressive landscaping along the buffer (across wetlands) of Depot Street. There will be an area of 155 s.f. for a concession area located to the left of the entrance. The project will not exceed the sleep standard (45 dBA) and this project will be 37 decibels overnight sleep from the adjacent house sites. This is an Act 250 condition, stated Mr. Rabidoux. The rink facility will be staffed from 5:30 A.M. – 11:00 P.M. Members reviewed the original Findings of Fact in detail. Mr. Lusk stated the operating noise is one thing, but there is additional noise from the participants and he agreed once it is enclosed, sound probably will not escape. Mr. Rabiodux stated that wad the opinion of Resources ???? (firm which did the noise evaluation) tape 1 side 2 Mr. Lusk moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for project # 4206 , with CONDITIONS from the original approval being restated. Mr. Collotta seconded the motion with Mr. Lusk, Collotta, Leven, White, Altadonna voting in favor,. Mr. Diender and Clymer absent. CONDITIONS:

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

   (2) Special Events that involve over 740 participants shall require approval by the Selectboard using the criteria established in the special events ordinance.

   (3) Sound levels shall be measured, and the report shall carry the stamp of a registered professional engineer, to verify that the noise level from the cooling towers is below 45 dBA at the proposed adjacent house sites. Said test shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued.  

   (4) traffic in the upper lot shall follow a one-way, counterclockwise pattern around the island.

   (5) The rear temporary parking lot shall be made suitable for year around use.  

                                                      -3-

Owner:           1940 Mountain Road LLC dba LLNE

Location:        1940 Mountain Road

Project:           Landscaping amendments to Project # 4110 & 3828

Present was Mila Loneth, owner who gave an overview of the landscaping changes being proposed, the original site plan called for cutting trees down between the Gale farm property and that has been changed so can now save them (the maples); driveway been widened so 2 trees were moved closer to the walkway; roadside have moved the trees closer to ???; cedars planned in the rear will now be pines; granite curb now makes a 90 degree angle. Mr. Lusk stated the trees for the southern screening do not belong to the applicant so at some future time the owner (of Gale Farm) may wish to have the trees/limbs be cut or could change the landscape on their own. Mr. Altadonna moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: project # 4212 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 its enactment, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.

(2)   The original screening shown on the plan approved for project 4110 shall be required, to the extent necessary, at a later date if any portion of the landscape screening on the adjacent parcel (Gale Farm) is remove in the future.

    (3) All conditions of approvals for Projects 3828 & 4100 remain in effect unless modified by this decision.

Project #:        4208

Owners:          Taylor, Robert & Sandra

Location:         Lot # 11 SprucePeak

Project:            Requesting a waiver of front yard setback to 20’ for lot # 11 in the Spruce Peak Planned Community Plat under PUD waivers—section 12.6(4) 9b) (2).

Present was Bill Kules explaining the project as being Lot # 11 of 0.49 acres and located at the corner of the National & Hayride. Previously consisted of 2 separate lots with setbacks of 20’ around the road. When the lots were combined, setbacks in the area, i.e. VR 40 with 30’ along the road were used. Now asking to make the setbacks consistent with the other setbacks in the area and go to 20’.The owner would like consideration to move the house to the north which would provide more of a view ; presently the ski lift is close so skiers would be very close when getting off; view looking to the south would be looking at the chair lift and snowmaking would exist in the rear of their house. Mr. Kules said by moving the house 20’ to the north (which would be allowed by the waiver) makes

the location more desirable. Mr. Baker gave the history of the area, saying the lots, because they were merged went from one zone to another, which made the setbacks bigger, and the time period between when it was approved and now things have changed, i.e. the setbacks in certain districts were changed and he (Mr. Baker) took the conservative approach, i.e. the decision to use the VR 20 setbacks using the old standard and are now asking to use the new standards which is 20’. The adjacent properties front yards are 20’. Mr. Leven felt the standards based on the 2003 setbacks should be used and be consistent. Mr. Lusk stated all he had heard in the testimony is it would be more convenient for the owner and did not see that as a standard to modify or waive. He felt the larger lot comes with the larger setback requirements. Mr. Collotta said he was comfortable with the language which states to “facilitate and encourage flexibility” Mr. White referred to sec. 12.1 (1) pointing to the word “encourage” which he felt made sense for the larger lot and neighbors. Mr. Lusk did not feel that section contemplates giving late development modification in the development of large parcels of land. Discussion continued among members and Mr. White asked where the board would turn to address setbacks. Mr. Lusk said topography would give outside setbacks for the outside boundaries, but there is no guidance for these. At the applicant’ request, Mr. Lusk moved to RECESS to July 6, 2010, in order that there can be more than the 5 members to vote. Mr. White seconded the motion with all present in favor.    

Project #:        4213

Owner:           Colangeli, Christine

Location:        77 Park Street

Project:           Request for permanent permission to operate Mud City Adventure Program  

Zones:            VC10/SHOD

Christine Colangeli was present seeking permanent approval for the use of the 4-apartment dwelling located at 77 Park Street for Mud City Adventures. Hours of operation are from 8:00 A.M. to 5:30 P.M.. Open two nights a week from 4:30 – 9:30 with programs and Ms. Colangeli stated she had approached each of the abutting property owners, including Heidi Scheuermann, property manager for Scheuermann Condo complex, about the permanent approval and received no complaints. Vans are used to pick up and drop off the children. 2-12 children attend. Operations to take place June 15^th – September 15 each year. The equipment is stored in the present garage (attached to the house). Ms. Colangeli asked that she be allowed to be open three (3) nights a week. After a lengthy discussion, she agreed to remain with the 2 nights per week. Previous Findings of Fact were reviewed for the approval. Mr. White moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: Project # 4213, 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.

                                                              -5-

(2)   A maximum of 12 youths between the ages of 6 and 14 years shall participate in the program at any one time.

(3)   The hours of operation shall be limited to 8:00 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. every day and 4:30 P.M. to 9:30 P.M. two evening a week.

   (4) The operation shall run from June 15^th to September 15 of each year.

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

Project #          4096 (RECESSED from 5/18/10)

Owner:            TN Associates

Tax Parcel #:   11-138.000

Location:         4000 Mountain Road

Project:            Confirmation and Approval of Event Areas within Topnotch Resort.

Mr. Altadonna moved to RECESS to JUNE 15 because the decision of project # 4061 gas not been approved.

7:10 Mr. Collotta moved to go into executive session, seconded by Mr. Lusk Both members withdrew their motion in order that the board could review/approve the minutes of May 18, 2010.

Minutes of May 18^th:  Mr. Altadonna moved to approve with minor corrections, seconded by Mr. White with all members present in favor.

Mr. Collotta moved to go into executive session to deliberate. Mr. Lusk seconded the motion with Mr. Leven, Collotta, White, Lusk and Leven voting in favor. Mr. Diender or Clymer were not present.

The members came out of executive session at 7:30 P.M. with Mr. Altadonna making the motion that the Board moved to adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for Project # 4061, as it is an accurate reflection of the hearing. Mr. Collotta seconded the motion. Voting in favor of the motion: Mr. Leven, Mr. Lusk; Mr. Altadonna; Mr. Collotta and Mr.White. Approved 5-0. Mr. Diender and Mr. Clymer were not present. 

                                          Development Review Board                    APPROVED 7.6.10  

                                       Stowe, Vermont - June 15, 2010

The regular meeting of the Stowe Development Review Board was held Tuesday, June 15, 2010 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M.  

Members present: Charles Lusk, Brian Leven, Michael Diender, Peter Collotta, Doug White, Drew Clymer and Lynn Altadonna.

Also present: Those listed in the minutes book and also those who testified under oath.

Project #:       4214 (RECESSED from 6/1/10. Site visit at 4:15 P.M.

Owners:         Gordon, Toni and Douglas

Location:        Lot # 10 Spring Trail

Project:          Construct a single-family dwelling in the RHOD

Zones:            RR 5/RHOD   

Present were the owners, Gordons, Darrow Mansfield and Marcus Gleysteen, Architect. For the record, Mr. Leven stated the Board had just returned from a site visit to the property with all members present. Mr. Mansfield stated the site is 27 acres, lot # 10 on Spring Trail, a private road. At the visit, members saw the lower edge of the clearing zone. Plans are to finish site improvements, driveway, and septic system and construct a single-family dwelling. Plans are to keep the clump of trees behind the house and trees were flagged where the clearing will take place. Trees in close proximity to the house will be removed. Mr. Gleysteen stated the scale of the house would be broken into 3 sections of the 1-½ story dwelling with a 2-car garage. Lowest portion of the house to the highest point of the roof on the down hillside is 31’. Materials to be used are red cedar shingle, shiplap siding, and natural fieldstone, dull battle ship gray. Trees extend in front of the house 100’-150’ (plan to leave trees in front of the house). Colors to be a woodland brown. Glass double-glazed. Maximum of 12 exterior lamps to be used at 100 watts each Plan to use a lower wattage. No security lighting. Mr. Leven concerned with the large window on the second floor (6’ x 5’3”). Mr. Gleysteen stated they do not use reflective glass and there are many trees in front which will block the view to and from this window. Only public vantage points will be Stowe Hollow Road (Waterbury side) and portions of the villas at Trapps, which is not a public vantage point. Board reviewed Conditional Use: no water courses on the property; it was testified that minor clearing to be done; minor visibility; forest management NA; building will not skyline;   

slopes are modest, stated Mr. Mansfield; the trees which are flagged with blue are the ones to be removed with others to stay; no plans to plant additional trees around the house stated Mr. Mansfield; recessed lighting under the overhang in the porch area; low cast lighting in the loft area with no chandelier, stated Mr. Gleysteen; steepest grade to be 7%. Mr. Collotta moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, declaring the application major with the following CONDITIONS:

(1)   The application is deemed significant pursuant to the standards established by Sec. 9 of the Zoning Regulations.

(2)   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 its enactment, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.

Mr. Altadonna seconded the motion with all members in favor.

Project :          4096 (RECESSED from 6/1/10)

Owners:          TN Associates

Location:        4000 Mountain Road

Project:           Confirmation & Approval of Event Areas within Topnotch Resort

Zones:             UMR/PUD/MOD/RHOD/RHD

Present representing TN Associates were Attorney Peter Van Oot and Dan Oberlander. Also present were neighbors Nancy Lavanway and Betty Teffner. Mr. Roy (Downs Rachlin Martin) had submitted a memorandum dated 6/15/10 which was received at 2:00 P.M. Mr. Leven stated the board had not had the time to read the submittal, which includes (1) Request for Reconsideration/Appeal of Notice of Violation for Topnotch Event Tent Project # 4061; (2) TN Associates Application for Designation of Approved Event Area Project # 4096 and (3) Request for Continued Stay of Enforcement. Mr. Van Oot said the immediate request is the reconsideration filed under proof of Chapter 17. (NOV filed 7/15/09) —which has been appealed and in September filed the pending application that the resort events be allowed. Depending on the final appeal, the application may or may not be heard, sated Mr. Van Oot, so was asking the Board to hear the application. If they (Board) decides not to reconsider, then TN will drop the application. Under Chapt 117, state statutes. Mr. Baker cited Title #24 Chapt 4470 dealing with reconsideration, saying the Board has 10 days to decide if they wish to reconsider, either by deliberative session or open the hearing this date (he stated the 3 items being requested). Mr. Van Oot stated he was not asking the Board to rule on any of those issues this date, but asked to continue the application, pending the reconsideration decision. They wish to get through the appeal issue first, stated Mr.Van Oot, which is pending waiting the Board’s decision to reconsider. Mr. Van Oot stated the issues are complex. The reason for the Continued Stay request is the only other option is to appeal to the Environmental Court in which they would request the same stay. Mr. Leven asked if there were to be another violation this summer, would it affect the Violation /Stay from last summer and Mr. Van Oot said, “no, it would be a separate violation” and TN would have to decide what action to take. tape 1 side 2 The Board agreed as was suggested by Mr. Lusk, they could not consider the Request to Reconsider this date. Mr. Van Oot said until the Board acts, there is no purpose to hear the application this date. Members somewhat agreed, and Mr. Leven said the Board has 10 days to act. Mr. Baker said he felt if a tent is put up, it would be a separate violation, and then the Town could take action. It has been recommended not to issue a continued Stay as that would preclude the ZA from doing any type of enforcement. Mr.Altadonna asked the applicant if they intend to erect the tent within the next few days? Mr. Oberlander, “Yes”. Mr. Van

Oot said that is irrelevant as that is not before the Board and further more there is no violation before the Board this date, and it is presumptuous to think there will be a violation where the tent is put up, as the tent can go up and right down. Mr. Altadonna to Mr. Baker: “if they erect a tent, is it the same violation as last year and Mr. Baker said “it is a repeat violation (language in state law) and he would have to discuss action at the Selectboard level. Mr. Baker to Mr. Van Oot: if there is no violation, why would you (TN) ask for a Stay? Mr. Van Oot said the original appeal is sill alive so we can /or not appeal to the Environmental Court, depending on what the board decides re: the Request to Reconsider, that is why TN is asking for the Stay, and is not dependent on what plans there are for this summer. Mr. Van Oot said they are not allowed to argue anything in the motion for Reconsideration, but this allows the DRB to review the narrow legal arguments. Mr. Leven asked if the tent is put up 20’ over from where it was last year, is that a new violation. Mr. Baker: “yes, it is a repeat violation (referred to pg 22 in the Regs). Mr. Baker said the Board could go in deliberative session by e-mail (after receiving recommendations from the Attorney). Mr. Van Oot said this is not before the Board as there is not a violation and may not be a violation, the appeal keeps the Stay in place. Mr. Van Oot said he was only asking to continue the application until such time a decision is made on the Reconsideration. Mr. Lusk said he could not make the decision this date as Findings have to be issued. Mr. White asked how it got before the board this late time, with no warning and said it was received as he was getting in his car to come to the meeting. Mr. Van Oot said it has nothing to do with the meeting tonight, there is a 10 days of limitation. The Board has 10 days to hear it. Mr. White “my point is, it jumped in front of everybody tonight” Mr. White asked how it relates to the application this date and Mr. Baker said the Board had decided in the past to recess the application. Mr. Van Oot said to reconsider, they are keeping the motion to appeal alive. If the board does not Reconsider, they will withdraw the application. Mrs. Lavanway said the attorney keeps repeating the same thing, this has been going on for years and why wait until the last minute? Mr. Van Oot said there is a short period of time by statute whether or not to file. Mrs. Lavanway “ what happens in the meantime?” Mr. Van Oot” I think that is everyone’s concern. Mr.Leven said the Board has 10 days to approve or reject and if the Board decides to reject, the time is very limited. Mr Diender asked if ownership changes within the next week, what happens. It was agreed that was irrelevant. Mr. Clymer said the only decision that has to be made by the Board this date is to act on the recess of the application. Mr. Lusk suggested the Board could grant the Stay only until the decision to reconsider is made. Mrs. Lavanway asked what the point would be to do that? Mr. Van Oot said all they are doing is to keep the Stay out there while the appeal is pending. Mr. White said recessing the application has always been discussed ahead of time, notifying the interested parties and the new act to keep the appeal alive, is the same thing we would expect the Environmental Court to do. It may be appropriate to discuss one more time. Mr. Lusk disagreed saying the Board is expected by the town to make the decisions at this level and not say they can appeal to the court. In order to do that, we need to review the documents presented. Again stated Mr. Oot, if the Board moved to deny the motion to reconsider, we will withdraw and if they agree to reconsider, we will move forward with the application. After continued discussion, Mr. Baker recommended get legal council on the merits of reconsideration; recess the application and ask that an

opinion from the attorney be e-mailed to each member. Mr. Baker advised the Board to never do a Stay. Mr. Clymer said the Board has not had the document in front of them and should act only on the application this date, as this has not been on the agenda and not warned. Mr. Lusk moved to RECESS project # 4096 until July 20, 2010. Mr. Collotta seconded the motion with Mr. Lusk, Leven, White, Clymer, Diender and Collotta. Mr. Altadonna voted No. In answer to Mrs Lavanway’s question, if the Board is to agree with the request to reconsider, it will mean a new application, warned and neighbors will be notified. .

Project #:        4224

Owners:          Saunders, Randal & Moya

Location:         249 Sterling Gorge Road

Present was Paula Beattie from Gordon Dixon Construction. Mr. Baker presented the application in the absence of Mr. Gordon who had surgery. The location is in Sterling Gorge with a PRD development. The previous owner got a 60’ variance to build a garage, which was not built. The new owner thought they had a 60’ variance and Dixon Construction wished to construct the garage, thinking they had the 60’ setback based on the variance. The permit expired and the garage is slightly different than the variance was granted for. Mr. Baker said the request is for a modification of 60’, which is what the variance was for. Gar Anderson, president of the Homeowners Assoc. and developer of the project was in the audience said Lot # 5 is a conservation lot, owned by the Town of Stowe. This lot abuts the gorge, which is conserved. tape 2 side 1 Mr. Anderson said the double setbacks were waived by permission of Tom Watson (Watson Forest) and the town, in order to preserve the gorge and avoid spaghetti lots, and was approved as cluster housing which was never written in the minutes. Plans were never signed or recorded at that time so Planning Commission went the variance criteria. Board reviewed Sec. 5.0(B) Pg 132; Discussion on how to allow for the modification. (B) Only waives the double setbacks. Mr. Baker said it could be done under (C) but has to go back to Sec. 12.4(1) Mr. Lusk feels it does not address this situation. Mr. Anderson said the reason the lots are so narrow is because of the gorge and conserve the open space. Ms Beatti spoke (could not hear what was being said and informed of ). Mr. Anderson said the covenants require that a garage be built (which is irrelevant). Mr. Lusk argued that the “general purpose or objective” does not apply in this case- and felt it a subdivision/zoning reg issue. Mr.Baker said when the subdivision was approved, there were no setbacks established so defaulted to the underlying district. Mr. Diender asked why there was an objection and Mr. Lusk said it is innocuous, but to waive a setback the Board is limited and there is a standard in Sec. 12.4(1). Mr. White said the lot is 3.9 acres, which is in an RR 5 zone. Mr. Altadonna said Mr. Lusk is correct in not setting a precedent but could consider the lot size and review under RR 3 setbacks. Mr. Leven felt the board was still bound by Sec. 12.3 “to achieve the objective” M.r Anderson asked what the definition of open space is and reiterated that the gorge, a natural area was set aside which has a public purpose. Mr. Altadonna felt open space not unique in this lot so did not feel it relevant. Mr.

Lusk stated PRD setbacks would be null and void if open space is the approach. After more discussion, Mr.Altadonna moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: Project # 4224 allowing a 60’ setback based on finding it complies with the original intent of the PRD. Mr. Clymer seconded the motion with Mr. Altadonna, Diender, White, Clymer, Leven and Collotta voting in favor. Mr. Lusk voted no. Vote 6-1

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

(2)   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 enactment, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.   

Owners:      Jolley Associates

Location:     911 South Main Street (Stowe Car Wash)

Project:       Construct a 5’ x 25’ expansion in the rear and change the color of the canopy

Zones:          LVC/SHOD

Present Sean Crumb, representing Jolley Associates present and stated the proposal is to construct a 5’ x 25’ addition to the rear of the property in order to construct a second automatic bay, the existing building would be squared off. All materials will match the existing ones and the door being used will be the same. (2) Canopy: the station was turned over to Irving Gas and asked to paint their canopy the colors of Irving Gas (blue). Mr. Baker, when asked, told him Design Review does not address colors however, when going back to the original minutes of 2001, the color was stated as a reddish brown (# 6 in the decision which had a color requirement. Mr. Baker then notified the owners and therefore the reason for the application seeking a modification of the canopy color. tape 2 side 2 Mr. Crumb stated it is not a requirement to have it blue but is preferred. Conditional Use Review: Members went through all the criteria. Mr. White felt character of the area was the issue by the previous Board, therefore the reddish brown. Mr. Baker told members definition of character of the area has changed and he read it to the members. Mr. Leven felt changing the color would not have an adverse impact on character of the area in the district or on traffic. Mr.Altadonna moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: Project 4227, seconded by Mr. Clymer with all in favor. CONDITIONS:

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

(2) All conditions of approval for Projects BA 7-256-4 remain in effect unless modified by this decision.   

Project #:         4207

Owners:           Till Death Do Us Partnership

Tax Parcel:      7-107.000

Project:             Construction of a retail/office/apartment building.

Zone:                HT

Present were David Wolfgang, Kim Brown and Betty Biedermann, abutting property owner. Mr. Wolfgang said the building would be a mixed use, located on the north end of the property next to Partridge Inn. Access will be in the rear, with most of the two lower floors being built into the hillside. Floors A & B will be retail/storage; floor C to be retail and flr D (top) will be 4 – 2 bedroom apartments. Parking requirements: existing restaurant (Partridge Inn) has 33 seats and requires 39 parking spaces; new structure (12,000 s.f.) with 4400 s.f of retail= 15 spaces; apartments=8 for a total of 72 required and plan shows existing is 75 spaces. The only thing to be removed from the property is the old pool building. Mr. Wolfgang stated all lighting will be recessed in overhang; land in rear of the building slopes down toward the Rec Path with much vegetation. (heavily wooded). Ken Biedermann said they still have space to use on the property and considering putting up a structure. Mr. Brown said there are mature trees half way down the slope, which is a natural screen and felt there would be little visual impact from the Rec Path. Mrs . Biedermann said the land slopes to the back parking lot and she is concerned with run-off on her property and asked that there be additional screening, there is nothing to show the water run off and requested something be on the plans to address the run-off. Mr. Wolfgang reiterated that the slope is away from her property. . Mr. Wolfgang said the slope goes away from her property. Mr. White asked if there were topo lines (Mr. Brown said they have them which were done in the past and no doubt will be required to use from fill at the bottom of the slope). Mr. Wolfgang said he does not plan to pave the parking lot. Mr. Baker the Fire Department responded asking for an alarm panel; fire department’s connection; lock box installed; fire lane to be kept open in rear of building with no parking allowed along the driveway; no grills on balcony (balcony has been removed from the plans).There will be no new curb cut (presently 2). Driveway is at 12%. Mr. Baker told the members they could require a plan for any drainage, stating the Biedermann is lower. Mrs. Biedermann asked that additional screening take place, for noise etc. tape 3 side 1 Mr. Deinder moved to RECESS to July 6, 2010 in order that a site visit can be held that date at 4:30 P.M. Mr. Altadonna seconded the motion with all in favor.

Project #:         4229

Owner:             Spruce Peak Realty LLC

Tax Parcel #:    14-011.000

                                                                                                                         -7-

Location:          211 Liftline Drive

Project:            Subdivide 3.2 acres into four (4) buildable lots plus common area lot.

Zones:              RR5/SKI PUD/PUD/RHOD

Present was Rob Apple representing Spruce Peak Realty seeking to create a 4-lot subdivision on 3.37 acres. Lots to range from 1.22 acres; .82 & .37 acres in size with .9 acres of common land. Lots will be sold. Underground power lines to be within the road. as well as connect to the municipal sewer and water. Proposing a 75’ setback to Rte 108 and buffer of 75’ to Spruce Peak Partnership and proposing 10’ internal setbacks with the houses being clustered. Mr. Apple said the Planning Commission waived the double setback in 2003 and requested the Board to consider doing the same. Mr. Baker said when the SKI PUD was created, there were properties within the ski area, creating holes in the SKI PUD (technically that is the perimeter of the PUD with a hole in it. It is Mr. Stanak’ s (opinion is that the 4 lots are within the sewer district. Board reviewed Sec. 5.1 (1): agreed there are no natural features located on the site with the exception of the scenic views to Mt. Mansfield; some clearing being proposed to finish the driveway; applicant will not be creating the building envelopes; utilities will be installed this year stated Mr. Apple; subject to internal review of the design committee for the company;           

Mr. Lusk stated there is a large area of Larson cleared zone, which extends into the 75’ and is it going to be allowed to grow up and Mr. Apple said, yes. There will be no snow stored in the turnaround per the easement area for fire trucks; Board agreed to the 10’ internal setbacks as part of the general purpose of the PUD. Road will be built to A-21 standards, 20’ wide and be certified by an engineer. Mr. Apple stated the density affidavit continues to be updated, and will include these lots. Mr. Altadonna moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: 4229 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’s attention, prior to its enactment, for a determination if an amendment is required.

(2)    An easement for the turnaround for the Fire Department shall be shown on the recorded plat.

(3)    The turnaround shall be kept free of snow per Fire Department request.

(4)    An engineer shall certify that the road shall be built to A-21 standards and be 20’ wide.

(5)    All other conditions pertaining to the plan with recording.

Mr. Clymer seconded with all members in favor. Vote 7-0  

Minutes of June 1, 2010: Mr. Lusk voted to accept with minor corrections, seconded by Mr. Collotta with all in favor except Mr.Diender who was not present at the 6/1/10 meeting. .