Development Review Board    APPROVED 5.4.10

                                                 Town of Stowe

                                                   April 6, 2010

The regular meeting of the Development Review Board was held Tuesday, April 6, 2010 starting at 5:00 P.M. in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building.

Members present: Lynn Altadonna, Charles Lusk, Brian Leven, Doug White, Drew Clymer. Absent: Peter Collotta. Also present: Rich Baker, Zoning Officer and those listed in the minutes book.

Owner:        Degrasse, Scott & Nuet

Location:     678 Stowe Hollow Road Lots 1 & 2

Map #:         7-217.020

Project:        Amend r.o.w. and easements on two-unit PRD development approved 2/17/1989.

Zone:           RR 5

Present were Scott Degrasse and Attorney Alan Thorndike. Also present were James & Adam Davis, abutting landowners as well as Julio Olimpo, owner of Lot #1. Mr. Thorndike stated Scott owns Lot # 2 . The Degrasses own 3.02 acres off Stowe Hollow Road in the RR 5 district. Mr. Olimpo owns 4.11 acres. Lot # 2 is currently vacant. Lot # 1 is developed with a single-family dwelling and provides access to Lot # 2. The r.o.w does not connect to another r.o.w that has an existing driveway access through the lot shown to be owned by C.M. Rauch. A sewer easement is on Lot # 2 and provides for use by the owners of Lot # 1 (which is now connected to the public sewer. It appears the zoning line shown on the plan is incorrect and when corrected shows the zoning line closer to Lot # 2 than shown on the plan. It appears in order to have the correct setbacks; several huge trees would need to be removed. Mr.Thorndike said they had been in conversation with Jim & Michelle Davis and if they would agree with the plan, the r.o.w could go within the setbacks and the trees would remain. The revised driveway location is further from the dwelling on Lot # 1 and allows for a driveway to be constructed within an area that was previously cleared for a driveway. The driveway must be at least 10’ from the property line in the RR 2 portion of the lot and at least 25’ from the property line in RR 5 portion. It was agreed the setback could be reduced if the abutting property owner agrees to less. Mr. Baker referred to Sec. 3.6(1), which allows that provisions of one district can be applied for the distance of 30’ into any adjacent district when there is split zoning. Mr. Thorndike stated the applicant could comply with the required driveway setbacks of 10’ and 25’ (r.o.w.) unless Jim Davis approves otherwise. Mr. Leven moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law with the following

(1)   All conditions for the approval of Project # S-89-06 shall remain in effect and be part of this approval.

(2)   A revised site plan shall be submitted before the plan is recorded to show a driveway that meets the required setbacks. The zoning line on the recorded plat shall be changed and verified with the Zoning Administrator before the plan is recorded and the sewer easement to Lot # 2 has been eliminated.

(3)   Approval of this final subdivision application shall expire 180 days unless a final subdivision plat has been recorded in the Town Clerk’s office. No land development associated with the subdivision shall be commenced until such time the survey plat is signed and filed in the Land Records.

Mr. Diender seconded the motion with Mr. Altadonna, Clymer, Diender, Leven, Lusk and White voting in favor. Absent: Peter Collotta.

Sonny Davis, in the audience, asked Mr. Lusk who has the right to change the lines in zoning saying when he built his house it was RR 2 and when he went to add on to his house, RR 3 went through his lands (and was never notified). Mr. Altadonna said one has to go to the PC which has hearings and then when approved goes to the Selectboard. Mr. Lusk felt it could have been a situation to correct the zoning lines when the original was not accurate. Mr. Davis was advised to put something in writing addressed to the Planning Commission and submit to Tom Jackman, which constitutes a starting date for any change. 

Mr. Thorndike, returned and asked the Board to reconsider since Mr. Davis has agreed to do it another way. Mr. Baker said the Board is approving a r.o.w. without the abutter approving and this approval meets the standard as written.

Project #:   4164 (RECESSED from 3/16/10)

Owner:       Mink, Graham

Location:   Lot between 500 and 782 Ayers Farm Road

Project:      Construct a single family dwelling in the RHOD  

Zones:     RR 3/RHOD

Present was Gunner McCain representing the Minks and stated the plans show the colors, textures and lighting plans of the proposed dwelling of 2,730 s.f.. Plans are to plantings at the top of the slope to screen the house; additional planting in the corner, hemlocks will remain which provide a visual break as driving up Ayers Farm Road. Plans are to cut the internal trees. Driveway is at 15%. Plans are to keep the hemlocks (which are not directly under the power lines according to Mr. McCain) trimmed and maintained at a height not to exceed 15’. Property is Lot # 20 of 1.7 acres. Driveway will be gravel. tape 1 side 2 Mr. Lusk said an average of 12% is a preference of the Fire Department with a maximum of 15%. Landscaping: Board felt it achieved the purpose when using spruce or balsam trees 6-8 ‘ in height as shown on site plan dated 1/19/10. Building height will be 28’ as measured in the bylaws.

Mr. Diender moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of fact and Conclusion f Law finding the project to be deemed significant and with the following CONDITIONS:

(1)   The application is deemed significant according to the standards in Section 9 of the bylaws.

(2)   The project shall be completed in accordance to the plans approved. Any change to the plans of 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.

(3)   The applicant shall plant 6-8 foot high spruce /or balsam as indicated on the landscaping plan.

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

Project:          Extend approval for Project # 4093 (Evergreen three (3) Lot subdivision

Present: Darrow Mansfield present representing the owners. Mr. Baker stated he had an e-mail from Robert Chase, abutting property owner stating he has no objection to the extension, but reminded the Board and applicant he has a water line main across his property as testified to at the original hearing, 10-09 and approved. Mr. Altadonna moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: project 4165 to extend the approval as requested with the following CONDITIONS: 

(1)   All conditions for the approval of Project # 4093 shall remain in effect and be part of this approval

(2)   Approval of this final subdivision application shall expire in 180 days unless a final subdivision plat has been duly recorded in the off of the Town Clerk. No land development associated with the subdivision shall be commenced until such time as the survey plat has been signed and filed in the Land Records.

Mr. Lusk seconded the motion with Mr. Altadonna, Leven, Lusk, Clymer, White and Deinder voting in favor. Mr. Collotta absent.

Owners:          Bourne, Gary and Irene dba Foster’s Place

Project:           Amend Projects # 3868/3949 to alter number of units and modify exterior building treatment.

Present were Darrow Mansfield and Gary Bourne. Mr. Mansfield stated the intent is to eliminate the commercial space and turn into an apartment, making a total of 24 apartments on the property. Roof to be replaced with engineered trusses that will change the pitch. The roof on the newest wing is adequate since the existing framing

is sufficient so no new structural changes are needed. The second floor decks will be removed. The front porch concept will be eliminated and additional windows will be added to certain units. Exterior stair tower will remain and rebuilt. Building will be sprinkled. Mr. Mansfield stated there would be no change to the footprint of the building or to the building coverage. Overall height of the roof will be 27’ (no change to this). Mr. Lusk suggested members look at the previous Findings/Conditions and determine if they felt there are changes. Board felt there will be no changes to traffic; character of the area could be considered to be improved; shutters will be fixed and a vinyl material; removal of porches felt not to have an impact however, Mr. Diender felt the porches helped to break up the facade of the building but was concerned with the colors and felt the Board should know what will be used. Mr. Altadonna agreed with Mr. Diender and felt it should be addressed to reduce the visual mass. Mr. Bourne said his plans are to have 3 different shades of earth-tone colors for the exterior, using a different color for the middle section. A long discussion took place re: color/materials for the exterior with members agreeing it is a very large and visible building. Mr. Lusk said the Board could specify where and what colors should be used as part of the conditions. Mr.Bourne said he was willing to submit to the 3 different shades at the different levels. Mr. Bourne felt the angle of the building is not seen so much as one gets to the building but more when proceeding north. tape 2 side 1. Mr. Altadonna felt there had been adequate testimony of what is being planned and the applicant had made an effort to minimize the mass of the building. Mr. Diender disagreed. More discussion took place with some members feeling they wished to know specific colors to be used and the location of the colors. Mr. White agreed it is a very large building and referred to the bylaws. Mr. Bourne then said he would be comfortable with the Board specifying earth-tone colors. Continued with Conditional Use Review: no adverse impact on the character of the area; no longer decks visible from Mt Rd but the previous condition (no storage of “things”) will remain as there are small porches; landscaping plan remains; outdoor lighting plan not changed. Mr. Altadonna moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law with all previous conditions, seconded by Mr. Leven. Additional discussion. Mr. Clymer agreed the building is so large and visible he felt it not unreasonable to ask to see specific colors. Mr. White agreed and given that the building is very large and given the guidelines, colors should be presented for the Board to   review. Mr.Altadonna and Mr. Leven withdrew their motions and Mr. Lusk moved to RECESS application # 4168 to MAY 4, 2010 in order that the applicant be given the opportunity to submit to the Board samples of the siding he wishes to use. Mr. White seconded the motion with all in favor. Mr. Bourne agreed to submit and explain to members where /location on the building he intends to use the different colors. Mr. Diender suggested the companies Mr. Bourne is using could give him some assistance in doing this.   

Minutes of March 16, 2010: Mr. Altadonna moved to accept with minor corrections, seconded by Mr. White with all members in favor.

Draft of Rules & Procedures: Members agreed to discuss/adopt at a later meeting.Mr. Lusk suggested Roberts Rules be included.

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 7:30 P.M.