Development Review Board
                                                    September 6, 2005
                                                       Town of Stowe
 
The regular meeting of the Stowe Development Review Board was held Tuesday, September 6, 2005 starting at 5:00 P.M. in the Banquet Room of the Akeley Memorial Building.

Members present: Allan Coppock, Chairman; Ed Izzo, Francis Aumand and Susan Jury.
Also present Bryant Brink, Zoning Administrator. Absent: Larry Jones and Chris Walton. The Board has one vacancy. A list of those attending is in the minute book on file.

5:00 P.M. OTHER BUSINESS:

Lake Mansfield Trout Club re: Condition # 2 of the approval: Dean Economou present described the storm water management and erosion control plan. He stated a silt fence would be used with bales of hay; a 6” plastic pipe to run below grade and will flow into the meadow. The upper portion of the project has a ditch and water will run into a catch basin. These measures will remain in place until such time the roof is on and the area backfilled, stated Mr. Economou. Mr. Izzo moved to accept Site Plan A 1.0 as satisfying condition #2, seconded by Mr. Aumand with all in favor. 

Chamandy re: Condition # 2 of the approval addressing the wall and stair lights for the tennis court. There will be 36 lights with a total of 540 watts installed according to Sheet A-O and attached cut sheet. Mr. Brink explained the location of the proposed lights as being inside the brick wall, which has steps going down. Mr. Aumand moved to accept based on the louvers being installed in a down cast position as satisfying condition #2. Property located in the RHOD. Mr. Izzo seconded with all in favor.

Gill, John re: Condition # 2 of the approval requiring the applicant to submit to the Board a narrative describing the tree cutting on the property. Location: Robinson Springs and in the RHOD. Mr. Brink stated the applicant asked to present a plan instead of a narrative, which would be easier to understand. Mr. Brink described the view shed analysis and plan. Mr. Aumand moved to accept as satisfying condition # 2 based on Plan A-1.0 dated 5/17/05, Ms. Jary seconded with all in favor.

Town of Stowe/Swiss Pot re: Condition # 3 of the approval requiring an updated parking calculation. Mr. Brink stated that there are 26 parking spaces as required in the decision.  Mr. Aumand moved to accept as presented, based on a memo from Cliff Johnson, Director of Public Works dated 7/27/05, seconded by Ms. Jary with all in favor.  
 
Application #:      BA 7-273-2
Property Owner: South Main Street Ventures LLC
Overview:            Amend site plan and revise parking plan
Tax Parcel #:       7-273.000
Physical Location:   954 South Main Street
Zone:                        RR –1
Mr. Aumand moved to POSTPONE to OCTOBER 18, 2005 at the request of Peter Anderson by memo dated 8/31/05
Mr. Izzo seconded the motion with all in favor.

Application #:          S-05-23
Property Owners(s)Stonybrook Homeowners Association
Applicant:                Paul Percy         
Overview:                The request is to subdivide 62.83 acre parcel into 16.4 and 46.42 acre lots.
Tax Parcel #:           6-027.000
Physical Location:  Corner of Bouchard and Luce Hill Road
Zone:                        RR-2, AG-PRD and MOD
Mr. Aumand moved to POSTPONE to OCTOBER 18, 2005 at the applicant’s (Paul Percy) request. Ms.Jary seconded with all in favor.

5:20 P.M.
Application #:         S-05-09
Property Owner:    Syn-Cronomics of Canada, Ltd.
Overview:                Requesting approval of preliminary layout for a five (5)-lot subdivision, Winterbird Phase III. RECESSED from July 5, 2005 to August 3, 2005.
August 3, 2005 RECESSED to September 6, 2005.     
Tax Parcel #:           7-1115-000
Physical Location:   Route 108 and Winterbird Ridge Road
Present for the hearing were: Hal Stevens, Attorney; John Stuart, Engineer; Terry Boyle and Cindy Knauf, Landscape Architects.  Mr. Stuart stated he had submitted a site plan on 8/23/05 that shows the depth of parcel # 41 to be 181.2’. Drawing 1 of 11 dated 8/6/05. TRAFFIC: Mr. Stuart described the trip generation (info dated 7/21). He described   the level of service in the A.M. and P.M. re: levels of service A, B & C. Mr. Stuart stated the conditions are stable with all levels and level C is satisfactory with or without the additional 5 lots. Mr. Coppock stated it was his opinion that the addition of 5 residential units would not result in a significant increase in traffic. Mr. Stuart discussed the numbers he used for trip generation including using 1 car per unit. Mr. Izzo said he did not believe there would be only 1 car per residence. Mr. Stuart agreed but said that on average between 8-9 A.M. only one car would leave each house. Mr. Coppock asked if the members felt there will be a degradation of traffic on Birch Hill Road and members said “probably not”. LANDSCAPING:  Present to describe the landscaping were Cindy Knauf and Terry Boyle. Ms. Knauf stated they had chosen species that grow naturally in the area, i.e balsam firs, maples etc, all having different textures and the range in size has been increased to 6-12’. White spruce to be used does not grow naturally in the area. 6 additional trees have been added to the plan since the previous hearing. Ms. Knauf said she has blended the planting in clusters to represent a forest effect. Mr. Coppock showed the members a colored version of the site plan.  After doing a site visit, and being confused by all the different lines showing cleared areas, he had colored in the clearing limits for the infrastructure and the building envelopes for the structures so as to better understand the plan. Looking at building zone for lot #36, Mr. Coppock stated, it appeared, after the bull dozers get finished, there will be a corridor approximately 200’ in width and 800’ in length. That is a very large clear cut and the question is, will the planned reforestation be of the scale which will ameliorate the visual impact of that much clearing, stated Mr. Coppock.  tape 1 side 2 Mr. Boyle (who had done cross section of the views) said it was the first time he had seen the clearing area in question. Mr. Stevens said the Board is only looking at the clearing of the infrastructure and the building envelopes are reviewed later under the RHOD. Mr. Coppock stated that it has to be the Board’s expectation that the building envelopes will be completely cleared. Mr. Stevens did not disagree. Mr. Stuart said there are still 65’ trees along the 50’ strip. Mr. Coppock stated a substantial portion of the tree cover is hardwood, and he said as he walked downward, and parallel to Simmons Lane, it gets thinner and thinner and there is a bigger and bigger view off through the trees. Mr. Boyle responded saying it may be transparent when on ground level but from off site it will not be. Mr. Coppock “ my concern is the reforestation of that area. If it were to be shown that there is a large portion of the clear cut which will not be seen from off site then I would be less concerned.” Mr. Stevens suggested asking Mr. Boyle what will be seen with the clearing and before the replanting and what will be seen after.  Mr. Boyle described the size and height of the trees around the area as seen from Rte 108 and around the cul-de-sac. He was not certain about the trees along Simmons Lane and the road. Mr. Stevens said for the record, “are you referring to the sewer line cut looking up the Mt. Road?” Mr. Coppock answered it is not just the sewer line cut it is where it starts at the retention Mr. Boyle said he was not familiar with all the area and could not give an opinion about that at this time. Mr. Coppock suggested Mr. Boyle take another look. Mr. Stevens asked the Board to look at Ms. Knauf’’s current proposal. Ms. Knauf (after returning from a brief time revising the plan to include additional plantings) stated for the record the number of trees to be added, the height to be a 12’ maximum. Mr. Stevens asked Ms. Knauf if she is a licensed landscaping architect and she responded, yes, and Mr. Stevens asked in your opinion would that plan you just described, remediate the clearing? Ms. Knauf, “It would”. Mr. Coppock said to Mr. Stevens that Mr. Boyle’s comment was he is not quite certain exactly what you may or may not see up through the corridor, so to ask Cindy if it will remediate is getting the cart before the horse since it is not known what will be seen and to what extent.  Mr. Coppock suggested the applicant (and Mr. Boyle) return to the Board with a colored plan showing the area to be clear-cut, the view shed lines and the dimensions of the building envelopes.  Mr. Izzo stated his concern is lots 36 & 40 and worried about the clearing and destruction of the tree line. It will be clear-cut and have a. significant impact, stated Mr. Izzo. He said the Board cannot approve something like this in the RHOD zone. He felt this could have a massive impact later on. Mr. Coppock said the Board would be remiss if they approved a subdivision in RHOD zone that would result in the creation of a lot that could not be developed under the RHOD regulations and members agreed.  Mr. Stevens asked the Board if there was something else that could be done. Mr. Boyle then described the vantage points and Mr. Coppock said, “are you testifying the entire length of the road from the cul-de-sac will be invisible?” Mr. Boyle: “from the viewpoints, yes”. Mr. Coppock to Mr. Boyle: “are you saying that the clearing will be invisible from off site” and Mr. Boyle said, “I would have to do a cross section of that area”. Mr. Coppock said he was concerned with what will be seen from Cape Cod Road (cross section 3) and the clearing area on lot #40. Mr. Boyle said the canopy at the top of the ridge is quite full. He said he felt there is a buffer along Simmons Lane down to Rte 108, which should screen the clearing itself but will need to do a cross section starting at the lower end of lot #40 and up to lot #36.  Attorney George Stearns, representing Simmons Lane property owners, asked when the height of the trees being proposed is 5-to 10 or 12’, how many will be in what range of height? Ms. Knauf agreed to be more specific. Mr. Stearns said Simmons Lane property owners primary concern right along has been that a huge amount of clear cutting will be required to produce the requested subdivision. The plans do not show the full length of the access road and he recollected there will be a huge amount of cut and fill and the plans show 120’ of clearing back in that area. Mr. Coppock asked Mr. Boyle if his analysis went the entire length of the road and he responded saying that it went to the height of land. He agreed to look at the highest peak. Mr. Stuart explained some of the clearing area (the plan in front of the Board stops at the height of land) and did not go as far as where it starts to pitch back down. Mr. Boyle said he used the property line to lot #37. Mr. Coppock asked that before the next hearing for the project, Mr. Boyle show exactly what areas he did analyze and that his sections should go to the highest point of land. Jennifer St. Sauvier asked what the board would be looking for when Mr. Boyle returns. Mr. Coppock said the concern is the view from off site. Mr. Stearns said not only is the concern off site but the regulations say there should be no negative adverse impact on neighboring properties and there will be from the amount of clear cutting being proposed. A length of 625’ and proposing to replant 28 trees shows no protection, stated Mr. Stearns. Mr. Stevens objected, saying that Mr. Stearns was testifying as a witness. Mr. Coppock asked Mr. Stearns if he was asking a question? Mr. Stearns:“I am making an observation on behalf of my clients that the distance appears to be 625’ and the planting of 28 trees along 625’ will provide no screening protection to the property owners. The proposed planting stops prior to the 2 additional lots”. Mr. Stearns said if the project is approved, more and larger trees should be placed along the full buffer zone. Mr. Stevens objected saying the DRB is a quasi judicial board. The rules of evidence apply and the evidence should come from witness and experts who are trained in their fields. He continued, saying that for Mr. Stearns to get up and offer an opinion that this will have an undue adverse impact, without one expert to back that up and to make other representations of fact is inappropriate and he requests that the Board not accept any of that as evidence. He asked that everything Mr. Stearns had said be stricken or be understood that this is not evidence before the Board but argument for which there is no basis. Mr. Coppock “ I agree that the board should treat Mr. Stearns comments as being representative of his clients opinions and not as evidence. No one here believes that George’s expertise is that of a landscape architect (Mr. Stearns said his comments were not intended as evidence). Mr. Coppock “the neighbors could easily have gotten up and made the same comments and they would be entitled to do so. The fact that their counsel did so for them does not render it as a presentation that should be stricken, rather the Board will take it for what it is, an opinion on the plan that the applicant has presented. Mr. Stevens said he accepted the ruling and withdrew the objection. Mr. Stearns stated he represents all property owners along Simmons Lane and felt he was entitled to represent them at these proceedings and comment on their behalf as to their observations re: what the impact in this subdivision would have on their property. It is argument on behalf of my clients.”  Mr. Stevens: “my argument is there is no evidence to base his arguments on without his client being here to state what they think and be able to cross examine the client. You don’t argue unless there is evidence to argue about”. Mr. Coppock responded saying they are entitled to discuss the plans that the applicant has presented.  Pall Spera, a neighboring property owner said he is speaking for himself rather than the neighbors and said it has been their contention from the beginning that this is an extremely fragile parcel of land. We recognize that a property owner has the right to do with his property what is appropriate. We have said from the very first hearing, stated Mr. Spera. He said he has spoke of the possibility of having part of the parcel become a part of the town forest. Mr. Spera said, all he and his neighbors are suggesting is that the integrity of the neighborhood be maintained. He spoke of the severity of the cut and the height of the replacement trees. Mr. Spera is concerned and realistic and encourages reasonable use of the property but reiterated the issues and concerns.  Mr. Izzo moved to RECESS S-05-09 to OCTOBER 18th 2005. Ms. Jary seconded with Ms. Jary, Mr. Izzo, Coppock and Aumand voting in favor of the recess. Mr. Walton and Jones were absent. The Board has a vacancy. 

6:50 BREAK

7:00 P.M.
Application #:        Z-05-134
Property Owner    Kramers, Peter D.
Overview:               Requesting approval to place a pre-fabricated too shed delivered assembled on the lot.         
Tax Parcel #:          7-115.300
Physical Location: 383 Winterbird Lot B
Zone District:         RR-3 & RHOD
Present for the property owner was Jonathan Kohler who described the location of the property, off a private drive off Winterbird Road and past Lot A to Lot B. He said it will be well out of view from all roads and but visible from the turn in to Lot A. There are septic easements on the lot and permanent easement for the road. There will be no foundation for the shed, materials will be architectural shingles , black shingled roof with red cedar siding to match the house. tape 2 side 1. Mr. Brink described the location and the view (from the house). He felt it will not be seen from any public vantage point due to the trees and the residence blocking the view to the northwest. He suggested members treat as a minor. Mr. Kohler said there are plans for interior lighting only to accommodate storage, as well an extension of the alarm system. Windows were requested the applicant had no elevations. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: Z-05-134 treating as a MINOR with the following CONDITIONS:
(1) Any change in 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) There shall be no exterior lighting.
(3) The applicant shall provide the Zoning Administrator with finished elevations showing the dimensions, stating colors of roof and siding and location of the windows. 
(4) The location of the shed shall remain in the location as depicted on the approved site plan. If the owner (applicant) should desire to change the location, he shall return to the Board for approval.
    (5) Lighting under Sec. 4.4 of the Zoning Ordinance shall remain in force.
Mr. Aumand seconded with Ms. Jary, Mr. Coppock, Izzo and Aumand voting in favor. Mr. Walton and Jones were not present. One vacancy on the board. 

7:10 
Application #:         BA 7-005-1A
Property Owner     Gristmill Builders (Brendan O’Reilly)
Overview:                Seeking to amend previous approval to include as built roof vents at Jasmine Restaurant.           
Tax Parcel #:          7-005.000
Physical Location:  1128 Mountain Road
Zoning District:      HT
Mr. O’Reilly was before the Board because the ventilators on the roof were not what was approved and in order to get a C.O. he is asking the board to approve what is there. Mr. O’Reilly stated the present ventilators evolved during the design build process and after designing the roof, Labor & Industry and ventilation people asked they be put where they are. Mr. Izzo stated the Board would never have approved the plan had those vents been presented at the original hearing. Mr. Coppock said the building was approved with the ventilators in the locations on the plan. He commented that you shouldn’t approve after the fact something that you wouldn’t have done up front-otherwise you would be rewarding an applicant for misleading the Board. Mr. O’Reilly stated they raised the bar with the quality of work and were not trying to slide through. Mr. Izzo said we approve (or disapprove) based on what is presented on the plan and the testimony. Mr. Coppock said he would have a very hard time approving as an amendment something he would not have approved in the first place. Mr. O’Reilly said drawings a lot of times misrepresent what is built. Had he known they were to be that big, I would have had a problem. Ms. Jary asked about Sec. 8.6 (1) and does that come into play. Mr. Coppock stated Conditional Use Sec. 4.7 (B)(2) is pertinent. Mr. Aumand said he was troubled by the applicants getting a permit and then coming back to the Board to amend. He asked how something could be crafted so not to create a perception that one can make a mistake and then there is no sanction for the DRB. Mr. Coppock said the Board does not want to get into a position where it is easier to ask forgiveness rather than permission. Don Marsh, Engineer and in the audience said most projects that come before the Board, are not in detail and cautioned the Board not to set a precedent that requires a full mechanical design in your process. Mr. Coppock responded noting that every permit says, “any change in the plans or the proposed use of the property shall be brought to the attention of the Z.A., prior to its implementation, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.” The responsibility is on the applicant to bring changes to the Board. Absent that we expect that the representations that are made to the Board at the hearing remain true. Mr. Coppock said if one builds without getting permission for a change, then you run the risk of finding yourself in the position Mr. O’Reilly is in, which is asking for a change that some members feel they would not have approved originally and now will not approve.  Mr. Aumand suggested a recess to allow the applicant to return to the Board with a plan that clearly shows the changes. Mr. Coppock suggested that Mr. O’Reilly find a way to mitigate what has been done. Mr. Izzo stated the Board is very concerned about the ventilators being in a different position. Mr. Izzo said it is a difficult position to put the Board in the and moved to RECESS BA 7-005.000 to OCTOBER 4, 2005, seconded by Ms. Jary with Mr. Coppock, Izzo, Aumand Ms. Jary voting in favor of the recess. Mr. Walton and Jones were not present. A vacancy remains on the Board.
  
7:40
Application #:         BA 11-138-8
Property Owner(s) T.N. Associates
Overview:                Proposal is to demolish 20 hotel rooms and existing outdoor pool. Construct 3,566 sq. ft. of restaurant space with basement and two outdoor pools, fountain and gardens.   
Tax Parcel #:           11-138.000
Physical Location:   4000 Mountain Road
Zoning District:       UMR (Upper Mountain Road)
Present were Donald Marsh, Engineer; Amy Olson, Dan Oberlander, CEO and Tom Hengelsberg, Architect. Ms. Olson described to the members the project as being adjacent to the lobby area. 20 hotel rooms will be demolished and they will construct a new dining room and spa building of 3500 s.f. Plans are to remove the L-shape pool and construct two pools, a lap pool(1950 s.f.) and a quiet pool (630 s.f.) Mr. Hengelsberg described the location and architecture of the plans stating he is working with the existing grade to minimize the amount of cut and fill required. Height of the new building will be 18’ above grade all the way around. The restaurant (a semi-circular building) will have a wooden front elevation with windows, a sliding door and the lower portion stone. The lower portion of the rear of the building will be painted clapboard and the roof material to be copper which will match other renovation made. He described the landscaping (site plan on file) as using stone with some terracing with trees of 4-7’ being saved.  A 5’-7’ stone wall will be around the perimeter of the pool. tape 2 side 2 . Ms. Olson said sewer allocation of 216 gal. and water allocation of 243 gal. have been approved per letter dated 8/16/05 from Clifford Johnson, Director of Public Works. Storm Water approval has been received (need copy).  Mr. Marsh described the existing waterline which will be relocated back by the retaining wall and the sewer will be connected in a different location. Described the erosion control measures to be taken during construction. Mr. Marsh stated he met recently with the Fire Dept. and received verbal approval with conditions that: the sprinkler system be connected to the municpal system (this has been done); they establish and maintain a 25’ fire access lane in the rear of the spa which will remain open year around and a provide a logical location in conjunction with the F.D. for an outdoor gas shutoff . (Board needs a letter  from the F.D.). Storm Water: Mr. Marsh stated the additional impervious area is minimal and most of the surface area water will run over grass with the building roof drains going into the storm drain and then into the pond below. Mr. Marsh stated there is a collection system along the driveway which has been installed. The new backwash from the pool will go into the sewer system as it does from the existing pools. Mr. Aumand noted the plan is not explained very well and he did not understand the changes to the restaurant. It appears the existing restaurant will remain and they are adding 75 seats. Ms. Olson explained the changes which to be made which include moving the real estate area, Bistro etc. Mr. Aumand said he did not see the total number of seats under tab 1. He said this gets into the parking calculations as well as waste water (Ms. Olson said there will be a net of 54 new seats). Mr. Aumand said it appears to read that a 75 seat restaurant is being added to what already exists. Parking:  Ms. Olson presented the parking plan approved in 2002 as being 207 spaces required. When the tent came in front of the Board, the numbers were taken without any reduction. Mr. Coppock said when the tent application came before the Board it was asked the number of participants, not seats. Representation was 300 people could conceivably be in the tents at one time. Discussion continued re: parking. Ms. Olson stated there are now 258 spaces. Proposing an overflow area across the road at the tennis center. Mr. Coppock stated the handicap spaces need to be striped noted that the 38 space lot above the spa is not available for the public (used for construction trailers etc). Mr. Coppock made a comment that the trailers across from TN have been on the premises a very long time. A Resort PUD and standards in Sec. 18 in the Upper Mountain Road District. It is a permitted conditional use being the expansion of the restaurant use and reduction of lodging. Building height of 18’ complies.  Sec. 4.7. (1) Applicant has the standard letter dated 8/21/05 from the Stowe Electric Dept, based on the demolition of the west wing with the usual condition of 1 year. Mr. Coppock said since February, the board has mirrored approval based on the Electric Dept letter with a one year life. A letter from the Fire Dept is required. Letter submitted from Police Chief Kaplan dated 8/3/05 finding no significant impact. Water (243 g.p.d) and sewer (216 g.p.d)  approval on file (dated 8/16/05). Sec. 4.7.2 (2) It was testified to that no new net addition of traffic trips based on the deletion of 20 rooms and the addition of 54 seats. Mr. Aumand stated there needs to be a clear indication of how the applicant gets to 54 seats. He said it needs to be made clear how the numbers were arrived at. Mr. Coppock stated in his opinion the proposed change does not change the use of the property. The Board needs the setbacks indicated on the site plan. Because of time constraints,  Mr. Izzo moved to RECESS to SEPTEMBER 20, 2005, seconded by Ms. Jary  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 
                                                  Town of Stowe
                                              September 20, 2005

The regular meeting of the Development Review Board was held Tuesday, September 20, 2005 starting at 5:00 P.M. in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building.

Members present: Chris Walton, Acting as Chair in the absence of Mr. Coppock, Susan Jary, Larry Jones and Francis Aumand. A vacancy remains on the Board. Others present; C. Bryant Brink, Zoning Administrator and Scott Monroe, Stowe Report as well as those listed in the minute book.

Absent: Allan Coppock and Ed Izzo who was absent having had knee surgery.

OTHER BUSINESS:

S-05-5 Cullen, Jill Moffitt: Proposing to subdivide an 11 acre parcel into two 5+ acre single family residential lots. A condition of approval was that the applicant should submit a copy of the proposed driveway agreement which Mr. Brink submitted. Mr. Jones moved to accept as satisfying the condition, seconded by Ms. Jary with Mr. Jones, Aumand, Walton and Ms. Jary voting in favor. Mr. Izzo and Coppock were not present.

5:10 P.M.
Application #:        BA 11-138-8
Property Owners: T.N. Associates
Overview:               Demolish 20 hotel rooms and existing outdoor pool. Construct a 3,566 sq.ft. restaurant with basement and two outdoor pools, fountain and gardens. RECESSED from September 6, 2005
Tax Parcel #:          11-138.000
Physical Location:  4000 Mountain Road
Zoning District:      UMR (Upper Mountain Road)
Present for the hearing were Amy Olson, John Marsh, Engineer and Dan Oberlander C.E.O. A memo dated 9/7/05 was submitted from Don Marsh to Wendall Mansfield, Fire Chief outlining the conditions, as he understood them, and Ms. Oslon said that Mr. Mansfield confirmed the letter. Ms.Olson stated that an amendment to the storm water permit is not required since the previous application anticipated this project.  Conditional Use Review Sec. 4.7. Letters on file from Stowe Electric Dept, a one year ability to serve letter which confirms that TN is swapping one service for another service, a letter from the Fire Chief, Police Chief and Water and Sewer approval letters. Ms. Olson stated the restaurant and space are being constructed specifically for guests. Mr. Aumand stated re: the 54 seats, there was some uncertainty as to what is to be included, i.e. elimination of one restaurant and adding another. Ms. Olson explained the elimination of the seats and Mr. Aumand said he was satisfied with the explanation. Parking Sec. 21: Ms. Olson submitted the following as parking: Required: 280 spaces. Ms. Olson stated they are using the percent reduction and shared parking provisions which are provided in the bylaws.  
    Hotel rooms- 72             50 spaces (30%)
    Employees-    77            54 spaces (30%)
    Restaurants    261 seats 44 spaces (50%)
    Conference    150 seats 35 spaces (30%)   
    Spa- 40 partisicpants-16 employees, 4 chairs 23 spaces (30%)

Tennis participants        16       4 spaces (30%)
Tent  -300 participants            70 spaces (30%)
                                   Total:  280 spaces
                                   Total required without tent: 210 spaces
Provided:
Hotel Lot: 84
Spa Lots                      54
Tennis Center              13
Employees areas          62
Tent Pavilion Parking 68      
            Total                281 spaces
Total provided without tent 213 spaces
Note: All condominiums have their own required 2 spaces per unit.  Ms. Olson stated that valet parking is used when there is a large event and is assumed no additional trips on the road are anticipated. Mr. Brink stated he felt the Board could agree to accept the reduction in the number of parking spaces and use the shared use provision. Storm Water Management: a letter from ANR says no additional permit required. Ms. Jary asked about erosion control during construction. Mr. Marsh stated jute matting would be used as will hay bales. The area is quite flat and surrounded by a grassy slope so is not a significant threat. Mr. Marsh said nearly all run off would go into the storm water system where it will get extensive treating. Mr. Aumand stated under Sec. 4.9 (1) (B) site development procedure which says the Board agrees to the shared use parking, to the reduction in spaces and accepts the parking plan. The handicap spaces will be striped as was pointed out at the previous meeting by Mr. Coppock. Mr. Aumand moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: BA 11-138-8 with the following CONDITIONS
(1) Any change of use or the proposed plans for 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 approval encompasses all previous conditions re: the 9-7-05 Engineering Services letter re: Fire Department approval.
(3) The standard letter from the Stowe Electric Department stated they could provide service for one year.
(4) The applicant shall provide for the Board’s review a set of elevations.

Mr. Jones seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Jones, Walton, and Aumand voting in favor. Mr. Coppock and Izzo were not present.

TENT PARKING PLAN CONDITION # 2: Mr. Aumand moved to accept the parking plans as was submitted this date as satisfying condition # 2of the tent approval. Ms. Jary seconded the motion with all present voting in favor.

5:35
Application #:         S-05-22
Property Owners:  Wykoff, Elizabeth and David
Overview:               Proposal is to subdivide a 10.17 acre lot with a residence into two (2) five acre lots. RECESSED from August 16, 2005.
Physical Location:  840 Barnes Hill
Zoning District:      RR 5
Present were David Wykoff, Peter Garrity, Hydro geologist, from LeFavour, P.C. Mr.  Garrity explained the proposal and location. Applicant was present for more clarification of the plat. The building envelope is shown on the site plan, as is the mound system and wetlands. Mr. Garrity stated the watercourse would not interfere with the wetlands. Mr. Walton asked about the cleared/wooded area. Mr. Garrity stated he has not visited the site but thought it was wooded. Mr. Brink said there has been no clearing, and the forest is thicker on the edge of the wetlands. Mr. Wykoff stated there will be some thinning and removal of some dead trees and showed on the plat where this will be done. He stated there would be no clear cutting outside the envelope. There is a deeded r.o.w through the existing road to the Nichols pond. A new driveway entrance off Barnes Hill Road will be constructed and a curb cut from the town is on file. 150’ isolation protection distance from the Henzel spring shown on the site plan. Michael Henzel, an abutting property owner, was in the audience and stated the road goes close to the proposed building location. Mr.Wykoff stated he couldn’t use the r.o.w according to the covenants. Mr. Wykoff said the width of the wetland is about 35’ (in answer to Mr. Henzel’s question). Mr. Jones stated the size of the lots is not what the application states, should be Lot #2 = 5.1 acres and Lot 1 is 5.2 acres. Ms. Jary asked about the storm water run off plan. Mr. Wykoff stated they will have one, but as far as water on the road, that will not happen. Culverts are shown on the plan. tape 1 side 2 . An ability to serve letter is on file from Stowe Electric Department. Sec. 5.1 reviewed. Utility lines will be underground. Lots meet the standard in dimensions. No reserved strips. No landscaping planned at this time, just general clearing, stated Mr. Wykoff. A letter is on file from the Fire Department. Mr. Henzel stated he has concerns that the wastewater could eventually go into the pond. Also the wetlands may be larger than shown. He said it is a large area where their spring is located. Mr. Brink said he had walked through the wetlands and said it is fairly dry. Mr. Henzel stated in the spring it is very wet and muddy. Mr. Brink said there are isolation distances from any spring, but no isolation distances from ponds that he was aware of. Mr. Garrity stated the disposal system is designed to not interfere with the wetlands but if anyone wants to challenge this, there is a process. He asked Mr. Henzel the condition of his spring and Mr. Henzel’s answer was “it is working”. Mr. Garrirty stated treated effluent by design should meet any water or surface water standards. The water will eventually go into the pond.  Ms. Jary moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: S-05-22 with the following CONDITIONS: 
(1) Any change in 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 standard subdivision conditions are included
(3) The application shall be amended to show the correct acreage.
(4) All easements and row shall be shown on the final plat
(5) No development that will require electric service will be allowed until the applicant obtains a Stowe Electric Department letter that is not limited in time. 
(6) Mr. Aumand seconded with Ms. Jary, Mr. Aumand, Walton and Jones voting in favor. Absent were Mr. Izzo and Coppock. 

6:10
Application #:        BA 11-255-6
Property Owners: Covered Bridge Associates, LLC
Overview:              Revise the location of building # 13, minor building elevation changes, and revise clearing limits.
Tax Parcel #:          11-255.000
Physical Location:  Brook Road
Zoning District:      RR-5 /RHOD
Present at the hearing were Paul Reed and Ken Biedermann. Mr. Reed explained this is Covered Bridge development phase III. Mr. Aumand stated he had visited the site. At the present time they will be using the existing road, with a new one being constructed in the fall with material which will come from the construction of the condo building on lot # 13 as part of the fall construction plan. Mr. Reed stated they are asking to amend the approval that was obtained for buildings 13 & 14. Mr. Reed explained that building #13 is being turned uphill with the southeast end being brought forward and pivoted 20’ downhill. There are no tree cutting issues, not talking about landscaping (but will return in the spring with a revised plan), stated Mr. Reed. He said the plans have omitted sky lights and chimneys. They will return and give the configuration of any fireplaces (if owners choose one.).The windows (sky lights) will change with different owners (some have already requested them) and Mr. Reed said they will return for those. Mr. Reed stated he is not asking for approval at this time for sky lights or chimneys as they do not know where they will be located. The plans dated 9-05 have changes from the view side, having added dormers. Mr. Jones stated building # 13 is in the RHOD and has been the subject of the Board’s concern right along. It has the greatest view so the applicant needs to return to the Board for approval of any sky lights and chimneys prior to construction. Mr. Reed stated they have added dormers, and the buildings differ in number of dormers on each. Not changing the format with the sliding doors. The garage on the end towards unit # 30 and toward the south end has had 10’ added to allow for two cars. Mr. Reed stated the clearing limits as part of the application have been retracted. Mr. Jones asked, if by turning the building, has the impact on the viewshed been increased. Mr. Reed said no, he did not think so as the building is still facing south. There is a large tree mass which will not be changed. The intent is to save trees. Mr. Aumand said when visiting the site, he did not find any evidence or indication the view will be adversely impacted by this building. Same materials as previously stated will be used. Mr. Reed said the lights on the side of the building will be critical so will return with a defined lighting plan which has to be managed. Mr. Biedermann stated it has already been approved. Mr. Aumand moved to accept the changes presented as an amendment to the previously approved decision with the original conditions remaining in force.  Mr. Jones seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Aumand, Jones and Walton voting in favor. Mr. Coppock and Izzo not present.  

BREAK 6:30

6:40
Application #:         BA 7A-048-1
Property Owners:  Carriage House Condominium Association
Overview:               Requesting a change of use from retail
Tax Parcel #:          7A-048.000
Physical Location:  112 Main Street-Unit # 6
Zoning District:      VC-10  
Present and representing the owner was Bryce Simon, Olson & Simon PLC, who explained that the existing retail will remain but they are seeking to change a portion of the space from retail to office. The condo presently has a front retail shop, back area and upstairs. The rear and upstairs part of the unit are now used for storage for the retail. The back area and upstairs area will return to office. Mr. Simon stated the owner will return later if there is any further change proposed. The plan (which accompanied the application) shows the sections as B & C which will be changed to office space. Mr. Brink stated that when last permitted, it was all dedicated to retail. Mr. Simon said the owner would like to get it permitted for retail and office. Parking reviewed: Mr. Jones said the regs require one space for every 300 sq. ft of gross floor area excluding storage. In this case most of the area is used for storage, so Mr. Jones asked what that does to parking. Mr. Brink did not think there is dedicated parking for that building. Mr. Simon felt it would be very difficult to come up with a parking plan for the building. Mr. Aumand said as retail, it serves the greater good of the community with short term parking whereas office space, which also serves the greater good of the community has different parking patterns, as offices tend to have employees, which because of their long term parking would take away spaces that could be used for retail. This could have an adverse impact on the downtown, however, he (Aumand) in reviewing the bylaws further, questioned whether the particular use of parking spaces in the Walking Village district is addressed in the bylaw. Mr. Aumand said if the Board cannot point to that in the bylaws with regard to how public parking is used, then it may be a non-issue. tape 2 side1  Sec. 4.7 review: Mr. Brink stated since the use is not known, it would be difficult to review and suggested asking the applicant to withdraw the application until such time as there is a use specific as there are parking issues. Mr. Simon said he would like the process to go forward, amend the application to be for retail and/or office use and he did not think that the type of office is a relevant concern under the bylaws as they pertain to parking. There are points that need clarity for the general proposal, stated Mr. Simon. Mr. Brink agreed and when approved as office, it could be conditioned that the applicant return with the specific use because of parking. Mr. Simon said it is within the Village walking district and did not think it would be practical for a plan when talking about a lot of unknowns. Ms. Jary pointed to Sec. 21.3 (d), Mr. Aumand felt there should be a parking plan and would like some historical intent of the walking district as it pertains to retail/office. Ms. Jary moved to RECESS to November 1, 2005 in order that the applicant’s representative can make changes to the application, provide a floor plan and come up with an argument for the parking. Mr. Aumand commented under parking regs-banks, office, retail stores etc are held to the same standard so the Board needs to know how the previous parking requirements were established. He said his previous comments may not be valid under the bylaws, but he still has a concern.  Mr. Simon will need to establish a reason why he does not have to meet the requirement. Mr. Jones seconded with all in favor. Mr. Coppock and Izzo not present.
 
7:00
Application #:       Z-05-146
Property Owner:    Stafford, Marilyn
Overview:              Proposing to enlarge and winterize porch, add dormer, enlarge existing dormer, add windows and skylights to historic building.
Tax Parcel #:          7A-189.000
Physical Location: 58 Sunset Street
Zoning District:     VR-20
Present was Olivier Garret. Mr. Walton read the letter dated 9/20/05 from Tom Jackman, representing the Stowe Historic Preservation Commission stating that the parties had met on 9/14/05 re: the renovations on the house which is a contributing building within the Stowe Village Historic District. Although the Commission had no specific objections, they asked Mr. Garret to return with plans drawn to scale re: (1) raising the roof on the porch seemed to not allow for enough clearance between the roof and the windows on the proposed dormer to allow for proper flashing of the roof and (2) the proposed windows on the dormer did not appear to be large enough to meet state building codes for egress. The Commission requested the DBR postpone their hearing until after the 9/28/05 meeting between the applicant and the SHPC. Mr. Garret responded that elevations which would address the SHPC had been received this date and asked to proceed. Members agreed with Mr. Walton it would be better to get SHPC input first since additional changes may need to be made. Ms. Jary moved to RECESS to November 1, 2005, seconded by Mr. Jones with all in favor.   

7:10
Application #:          BA 7-145-6
Property Owner:     Stoware Common, LLC
Overview:                Change of use to former Gigi’s Deli (now Benjamin’s of Stowe) applying for Vermont Liquor License.
Tax Parcel #:           7-145.000
Physical Location:   618 South Main Street
Zoning District:       LVC & RR-2
Present was owner Rudy Laine seeking to serve beer and wine. Hours of operation are: 6:00 A.M. –3:00 P.M. Monday thru Saturday. Mr. Walton said when going over the information, Gigi’s was approved for 9 seats and Mr. Laine stated he has 7 counter bar stools and 17 seats at tables =24 seats. He stated he was told this was originally approved. Mr. Walton said, after reading the previous Findings of fact, the restaurant prior to Gigi’s was approved for 24 seats and Gigi’s 9. Mr. Aumand said the way the findings read, the approval was for 24 seats, in the complex, which has since closed and replaced with retail. The 24-seat restaurant was in a larger physical space than Gigi’s, stated Mr. Aumand. Members felt a parking plan would be required. Mr. Laine said there is a plan for Stoware Common but did not know if there are individual spaces allocated. He said there are 4 on the side and 3 in the front. The requirement for 24 seats is 8 spaces plus one for each employee, of which there are 6 =14 total. Mr. Laine stated that employees park in the rear on the lower level. Members agreed a parking plan for Benjamin’s would be required.  Sec.4.7 review. Mr. Brink felt approval from Stowe Electric, Sewer, and Water Police etc. would not be required in this case, many criteria not applicable. Hours of operation already specified. Mr. Walton asked if there are plans for any live music, stating he did not want to get into another Bert’s situation downtown. Mr. Laine said the only music he will have is a CD or radio. Mr. Aumand asked why this application is before of the Board. If before the Board because of expanded space, that is one thing, stated Mr. Aumand, but if before us because of the whether there will be alcohol, is not an issue for the Board. Mr. Brink “said it is up to the Board, but having a place that is serving into mid afternoon as a deli and then change to serving beer and wine, I think is a change in use and thought the Board might like to look at it.” Mr. Aumand said he was concerned with precedence. He felt the greater occupancy of the restaurant is an issue for the Board as well as the expanded use, i.e. parking, traffic etc, but not the liquor license. Mr. Walton felt that parking alone allows the Board to take up the issue, but agreed the liquor license is for the Selectboard. Parking: this was discussed and a parking plan will be required. The rest of the criteria were found to be met. Mr. Aumand stated he is cautious of the Board serving as another liquor license review, but felt it properly before the Board as an expanded use, increase seating, parking etc. Ms. Jary moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of fact and Conclusion of Law re: BA 7-145-6 with the following CONDITIONS:
(1) Any change in 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 applicant shall return to the Board with a parking plan showing 14 designated spaces and a handicap space for Benjamin’s. 
(3) Mr. Jones seconded the motion with Ms. Jary,  Mr. Walton, Aumand and Jones voting in favor. Mr. Izzo and Coppock were not present. 

7:25
Application #:       BA 7A-133-3
Property Owner:   Town of Stowe
Overview:              Seeking to amend existing site plan to permit the construction of an exterior carbon air scrubber.
Tax Parcel #:          7A-133.000
Physical Location: 56 River Road
Zoning District:     VR-40
Present was Cliff Johnson, Director of Public Works for the Town of Stowe who explained the proposal as being 2 exterior air-scrubbers (each 12’ high) on a concrete pad 16’ x 28’ located on the extension of River Road as a part of the sewer plant. The reason is to improve the air quality from the sludge process which is causing a nuisance to the neighbors.
Mr. Johnson stated there will be other things added to the process but they will be internal to the existing plant. The plans have been reviewed by the state which is ready to certify that the standards can be met. Now in the process of determining the cost and plans are to start construction next year. Setback requirements are met. Mr. Johnson said there are no neighbors nearby the construction. Exterior duct work will be underground until it hits the scrubbers and then will come into the air. Mr. Johnson felt in the winter the building and scrubbers may barely be seen from Rte 100. There will be no additional lighting, no clearing of trees and no landscaping being proposed. When asked if there will be noise, Mr. Johnson said there will be noise from the blowers which are not operating now but will again when this is implemented. The motor will be encased in a box to help alleviate the noise since the motor will run continuously. Mr. Johnson described the noise as a low hum. Members discussed the noise issue after Mr. Johnson said it will be heard, especially at night. Mr. Jones suggested retaining jurisdiction so that if noise should become an issue, the Board could require additional measures to limit the impact. Screening discussed. Mr. Johnson said there are not a lot of evergreens in that location. Mr. Jones asked if a color, other than white could be used. Mr. Johnson said he would inquire from the manufacturer. Mr. Aumand said he was less concerned with aesthetics (one is looking at a facility designed for some form of treatment) but more concerned with noise. Felt strongly that the Board needs to retain jurisdiction over noise which may be undue.
 (note: side 2 of tape 2 is blank)tape 3 side 1  Mr. Johnson said the property line is the centerline of the river. Mr. Aumand moved to AMEND the previously approved application for the construction of the sewer plant facility and 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 Board shall retain jurisdiction for one (1) year following the start up of the proposed application to determine if any baffling is needed to mitigate the noise problem.  
Mr. Jones seconded with Ms. Jary, Mr. Aumand, Jones and Walton voting in favor. Mr. Izzo and Coppock were not present and a vacancy remains on the Board. 

7:45
Application #:         7A-034-11G
Property Owner:    Ampersand Properties
Overview:                 Proposing to construct 3 three (3) bedroom condominiums on revised Lot 6. Building to be identical to adjacent condominium building.         
Tax Parcel #:          7A-034.00
Physical Location:  Depot Street
Zoning District:      Village PUD  
Present Ken Biedermann representing Ampersand Properties stating the site plan has been revised so that all lots have now been joined into one and owned by the Homeowners Association. This building will be located between the Mansfield House and building # 6 of the Depot Street condos. Each condo requires 2 spaces for parking, a total of 12,  which will come out of large parking lot in the rear (107 spaces) , by way of an easement. The Town of Stowe will retain the use of 40 spaces. Mr. Biedermann stated all colors and building material will match building # 6. Mr. Walton asked if the Board has an issue with the buildings looking the same. Mr. Biedermann said the architect felt they should remain the same. Mr. Aumand felt they should be the same and other members felt the same or had no comment. Mr. Aumand moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: 7A-034-11G. Same lighting plan to be used as was presented in BA-7A-034F. Ms. Jary asked about erosion control which Mr. Biedermann described and said the state has reviewed and approved the run off for the entire property. Mr. Brink and Jones felt that if there is a commitment for the entire project from Stowe Electric then no new letter is needed. Mr. Aumand read the letter dated 7/28/05 from Stowe Electric committing to serve 11 townhouses and 2 commercial buildings. Mr. Jones seconded with Ms. Jary, Mr. Aumand, Jones and Walton voting in favor. Mr. Coppock and Izzo not present. 

There being no further business to come before the board, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Barbara S. Allaire