The regular meeting of the Development Review Board was held Tuesday, February 16, 2010 starting at 5:00 P.M. with a SITE VISIT at COVERED BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT off Brook Road.
Members present: Charles Lusk, Brian Leven, Doug White, Lynn Altadonna, Michael Diender and Drew Clymer. Also present: Rich Baker, Zoning Administrator and Paul Reed. Absent from the site walk and the meeting was Peter Collotta.
Members returned to the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building at 5:45 for the continuation of the hearing for Project # 4149
Owner:Covered Bridge Associates LLC
Tax Parcel #: 11-254.200
Location: BrookRoad-Covered Bridge Phase III
Project:Request for additional tree removal to the north and east of building # 12.
Zones:RR 5/RHOD
Mr. Lusk stated the hearing was a continuation of the site walk. Mr. Reed stated 3 buildings have been constructed and the proposed cutting is trees in front of building 12 but according to Mr. Reed, there will be no view by the naked eye from the two public highways, Brook Road and Route 108. #’s marked for trees 5,6 & 3 on the previous approved site plan have been removed and there are 6 trees existing which block the view, very close in proximity to the trees which were removed. There are trees below the meadow, which protect the view from the roads, and the trees, which were previously planted, will remain at a 25’ height, stated Mr. Reed. Mr. Lusk commented that there will be other projects come before the Board asking to take down trees for the view and it is his hope that future Boards will require replanting. Mr. Reed stated the wetlands are predominantly below the trees to be removed. Sec. 9 RHOD. The Board agreed the proposed project be considered as a minor under Sec. 8.4(3). Mr. Leven moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: project # 4149, resembling the previous Findings of Fact with the exception of paragraph # 7.
CONDITION:
(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 for a determination if an amendment is required.
Mr. Diender seconded the motion with Mr.Leven, Altadonna, Lusk, White, Clymer and Diender voting in favor. Mr. Collotta absent. No one voted no.
6:10
Project #;4118 (Deliberation of Draft Decision Only)
Owner:Whistlepig Enterprises, LLC
Tax Parcel #:6-108.000
Location:Between 563 and 712 Barrows Road
Project:Create a seven (7) lot subdivision
Zones:RR2/RR5/RHOD
Allan Coppock and Darrow Mansfield were present in the audience.
Mr. Lusk stated testimony for the hearing had been closed. Mr. Lusk asked if any member felt the discussion of the proposed draft of the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: Project # 4118, should take place in deliberative session and all said no, therefore the deliberation took place in the open (public). Members took the draft, starting with page 1 It was noted the draft was sent to members electronically. Mr. Leven asked if it were necessary to go through the draft in detail, feeling if any member had a concern/comment on any one section/paragraph or line, it could be brought up. Members agreed, including the Chair who proceeded to go through each section seeking comments (if any) from members. Mr. Lusk questioned the sequence in the Sub Regs re: Sec. 5.1(2) and Sec. 5.3, feeling the Planning Commission should be look at this for the next redraft. Sec. 5.1(13) Mr. Lusk said it was his understanding that something would be put in the findings about any future development on Lot #7 as to future Boards reviewing. Mr. Baker said anything on Lot # 7 would be required to come back to the Board for an amendment. What if they did not want to build on Lot 7 but use the density, asked Mr. Lusk. He felt clarification should be included for future Boards re: the standards Mr. Baker said it would require coming back to the Board. This was discussed. (conclusion was amended pg 4) tape 1 side 2 Mr. Lusk asked under what condition one would vote no against an exemption and felt members , if they were to vote against, should have a reason in mind. Mr. Lusk stated Stowe Middle School and High School are not public recreation amenities. Members continued to review section by section at which time Mr. Lusk asked Board members if all wanted to continue section by section. Following discussion, Mr. Altadonna then moved to approve as amended on 2/16/10 with the following CONDITIONS:
(1)Any change to the plans or the proposed use of the property shall be brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator for a determination if an amendment shall be required.
(2)The owner of record, or his agent, authorized in writing within 6 months from the date of conditional approval of the preliminary layout, shall file a final subdivision application with the DRB. If the subdivision application is not submitted within such period, the Board may require resubmission. The application shall be accompanied by the final subdivision plat and information, as described in Sec. 4.2 of the subdivisions regulations, 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 submitted shall include a maintenance plan for the proposed landscaping.
(5)A Fire Department review shall be submitted with the final plan.
(6)No development shall occur on Lot # 7, and the developer shall not construct the proposed driveway to Lot # 7 without DRB approval. A note shall be added to the recorded plan stating these development restrictions.
(7)No zoning permits shall be issued for Lots # 5 & # 6 that result in sky lining above the ridge.
(8)A registered engineer shall 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.
(9)The final plan submittal shall include a storm water management and soil erosion and sedimentation control plan that will satisfy state requirements.
(10)The final plan shall show all transclosure locations and proposed landscaping to screen them.
Mr. Diender seconded the motion with Mr. Altadonna, Clymer, Diender, White, and Leven voting in favor of the motion. Mr. Lusk voted to abstain. No one voted against. Mr. Collotta was absent.
Minutes of February 2, 2010: Mr. Lusk moved to approve with minor corrections, seconded by Mr. White with all in favor.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 7:15 P.M.
