Development Review Board
Town of Stowe
October 4, 2005 The regular meeting of the Development Review Board was held Tuesday, October 4, 2005 starting at 5:05 P.M. in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building. Members present: Allan Coppock, Ed Izzo, Susan Jary and Francis Aumand .
Members absent: Chris Walton and Larry Jones. There is one vacancy on the Board. Others present: Listed in the minute book. Application #: BA 7-005-1A
Property Owner: Gristmill Builders, Ltd.
Overview: Amend previous approval to include as built vents at Jasmine Restaurant.
Tax Parcel #: 7-005.000
Physical Location:1128 Mountain Road
Zoning District: HT RECESSED from September 6, 2005. A 4:30 site walk was held at the property preceding this hearing with Mr. Coppock, Izzo, Aumand and Ms. Jary present as well as Darrow Mansfield, Brendan O’Reilly, John Lupien and Heidi ??? ??, Landscape Architect. Mr. Mansfield explained the issue being the 3 hoods as built on the west elevation of the building. Mr. Mansfield said that a structure could be built on the top of the building, but because the vents exhaust flames a structure would need to be large, so their recommendation for relief is a landscaping plan. The plan would raise the ground up to the level of pavement (approx. 4’), creating a platform. In the corner by the Rusty Nail there would be 5 trees, 20’ tall minimum. Add 2 deciduous trees (maples) in front of the site (which would be limbed up to 6’), creating a modest view of the building, through the bottom of the trees. The hoods will remain as currently painted. Mr. Coppock asked if there are landscaping plans for the corner of the driveway (there were trees shown on the plan for that area), and Mr. Mansfield said not currently as Mr. Johnson, Director of Public Works, had told him that area is going to be torn up in the spring in order to make storm water improvements. Mr. O’Reilly stated that originally they planned to do something to that corner, but after talking to Mr. Johnson, decided not to and the trees shown on the plan are not being proposed at this time. Sec. 4.7(2) B (2) is the area of the bylaw to be addressed. Mr. Coppock stated the applicant has applied to amend the original application to include the vents as built and to include the landscaping as a way to mitigate the visual impact of the vents. The Board agreed the issue is the aesthetic impact in the area. Mr. Izzo said the Board has certain responsibilities to the town and if it had been presented originally with the vents as built, he would not have voted to approve it. He continued, saying that to allow them would set a bad precedent; the vents are very visible and have a negative visual impact. He said the entire building is visible from the road and there needs to be another solution. Mr. Izzo said the Board tries to maintain the integrity of the town. “This is a beautiful building and you have done a good job, but it is not what was approved”. Ms. Jary: “ I can’t say I would not approved originally, but would like to know if Labor & Industry requires them to be in the location they are.” Mr. Coppock stated: “I share Ed’s concern and had theses vents been on the original plans I would have had a difficult time voting to approve. If the Board had voted no at that time, the applicant would then have had the choice of appealing that denial or reconfiguring the inside to allow the ventilators to be put on the back, or perhaps some other alternative.” Mr. Coppock also noted that at the original hearing, the applicant stated they would make an effort to put these vents on the rear. Mr. Coppock said that the only way to deal with this is for the applicant to seek an amendment, these changes cannot simply be ignored. The applicant needs to satisfy the Board that what they are proposing and what is built can be approved under the bylaw. Mr. Coppock felt the landscaping on the corner by the Playhouse could be effective, and questioned quired whether the 2 maples on the extension of the berm would have any effect. He said he understood the town’s wish to reconstruct the corner going to the property, but felt that is a very significant view of the project, a companion view of the one coming down the road. He said he would want to see that landscaping included in the plan and the Board could possibly require a bond which would insure that, after the town’s project is complete, the required landscaping would be installed. Mr. O’Reilly concurred about the maples, and said there are 20’ clumps of maples in the rear of the property which, according to Green Mt. Landscaping, could be moved up front. Mr. Mansfield stated that View A west-plans call for filling in the corner up to street level with 3 evergreens 15-20’ high. Mr. Aumand stated that the standard the Board needs to apply is that the project does not have an undue adverse effect, and he said there is no question in his mind it will have an effect, the question being, will it be undue. The situation is complicated by the fact the Board did not have the opportunity to review this aspect of the project in the beginning. Now the Board has to come up with and approve a mitigation plan for the ventilators which were put in place after the fact. We could have asked questions in the beginning and the answers could have led to an approval that would have addressed the vents versus their “undue adverse effect”, stated Mr. Aumand . Mr. Aumand said he concurred with Mr, Izzo and is troubled that the applicant is before the Board after the fact. He said he was concerned with traffic on the roads and highways in the vicinity. It is an important intersection and would like to have the Police Dept’s comments re: the affect of the proposed landscaping on traffic at the intersection. Mr. Izzo continued his concerns and said he had not heard why they cannot be moved, there has to be a way to move them. Mr. O’Reilly said the goal is to mitigate the effect under the bylaws. We want to block the view of the hoods from the Mt. Road using landscaping. He felt this would allow the view of the building, enjoy the landscaping etc. He asked if the Board felt the landscaping proposed would block the hoods? Mr. Lupien stated the size and location of the vents were dictated by the fire code. We would have had to demolish and reduce some living space on the second floor, stated Mr. Lupien. Mr. Izzo: “ I know it could have been done and they should not be there, they were not on the original plan as submitted”. Mr. Coppock explained to the applicants that there were only 4 Board members present, and it was doubtful approval could be obtained tonight. He offered the applicants the opportunity to recess the hearing until the next meeting when there might be additional members present, and at the same time, allow the applicants to consider modifying their proposal, having heard the Board’s concerns. Mr. Coppock stated there is no promise at a recessed hearing you will get more than 4 members. Mr. Mansfield stated there is no economically viable way to move them. Mr. Coppock said he did not think the Board had heard coherent reasons why no other options are available or why as Mr. Aumand stated, the plans were changed. Item #12 in the Decision states the applicant would attempt to relocate the vents. The March 8th minutes also say the applicant is working to get the vents off the roof. Mr. Izzo moved to RECESS to OCTOBER 18, 2005. Ms. Jary seconded the motion with Mr. Coppock, Izzo, Aumand and Ms. Jary. Mr. Walton and Jones were not present. 5:55
Application #: BA 14-002-27
Property Owners: Spruce Peak Realty LLC
Overview: Relocate the temporary sales Preview Center building and office trailer.
Tax Parcel #: 14-002.000
Physical Location: Spruce Peak Parking Lot
Zoning District: SKI-PUD
Present was Rob Apple representing the applicants. tape 1 side 2 Mr. Apple stated that as part of the original application for the sales building, a temporary moveable building was approved (7/03). This approval (given by then Zoning Administrator Darrow Mansfield) was given as a being of a temporary nature. The Chair of the Board, at the time, questioned that determination, and the Zoning Administrator then asked the applicant to submit an application for the relocation of the building by September of 05. The building is now in the Spruce Peak parking lot, where it will remain for a maximum of 2 years. Mr. Apple said he was asking for approval as a temporary building and also for approval as a real estate office, as a new use, since no such office had previously been located at Spruce. Mr. Apple stated that in addition, he was requesting an amendment to the application for another temporary structure, a 16’ x 45’ building, to be placed on cinder blocks (originally built to hold a model hotel unit but never finished) and attached to the end of the double wide sales trailer to provide for additional sales space. Mr. Coppock asked when the double wide got approval to hook onto the Preview Office. Mr. Brink stated he approved it on 10-04. Mr. Apple stated the buildings will remain in the northern edge of the main parking lot sitting on cinder blocks. No earth excavation to be done. The buildings, with a 5’ breezeway to connect them, will be 105’ long. Mr. Coppock stated that a real estate office a conditional use in an RR zone only if it is a part of the SKI PUD. Mr. Coppock reminded members that when the original plans were approved, the Board required that as changes to the Spruce area came forward, the parking plan would have to be updated, reflecting any changes in the required parking need as well as any increase or decrease in the parking areas. Mr. Apple stated he will provide the Board with a plan which will show that the parking being displaced will be more than made up of with the grading on the south in the approved wetlands area. The laid out area of building E will be available for parking use this winter. Mr. Apple stated the Town has decided the trolley system will now be free, and the Resort will also be encouraging ride sharing. Sec. 4.7 reviewed. The Preview Center is 1,648 sq. ft. and the doublewide 1,440 sq. ft. plus the 5’ connector. Mr. Apple stated the Resort has an ability to serve letter from Stowe Electric for the first phase of development and will be operating within that approval. Mr. Coppock stated the building will not be seen off site. Mr. Apple stated the building has been painted a “Stowe brown”, consistent with other buildings. Mr. Coppock asked how long the building will be in the location and Mr. Apple said, 2 years or less. Mr. Aumand moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: BA 14-002.27 noting the use is allowed under Sec. 18.4 (3) in the SKI PUD 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) Parking calculations for the entire site, shall be submitted for the Board’s review.
(3) A revised site plan on Sheet A3 shall be submitted showing how the temporary sales office will be added to the Preview Center building by the connector.
(4) A copy of the existing ability to serve letter from the Stowe Electric Department shall be submitted for the record.
(5) Approval is for a two (2) year period. Ms. Jary seconded the motion with Mr. Coppock, Izzo, Aumand and Ms. Jary voting in favor. Mr. Walton and Jones were not present. One vacancy remains on the Board. Application #: Z-05-147
Property Owner(s): Estey, Alison & Guffey, Matthew
Overview: New door, windows and siding for front of existing residence.
Tax Parcel #: 8-042.000
Physical Location: 1511 Taber Hill Road
Zoning District: RR-5 & RHOD
It was determined by the Zoning Administrator that the application was not properly before the Board as it is not in the RHOD zone. 6:30
Application #: S-05-25
Property Owner: Feldman, Janet
Overview: Two lot subdivision. Lot 1 to be 8 acres with existing house and Lot 2 remains as 67 acres of open land.
Tax Parcel #: 8-043.000
Physical Location: 1668 Taber Hill
Zone: RR –5 & RHOD
Present were Darrow Mansfield and Paul Reed, representing the applicant. An amendment was submitted showing 20 acres to remain with the existing house and a new 55 acre lot to remain as open land. Mr. Mansfield explained the entire 75 acre parcel with house was subdivided last year from a larger piece. There will be a retained r.o.w. across the property by an existing woods road. Mr. Mansfield stated there are no current plans for development of the 55-acre parcel (Lot 2A). The present Feldman house has an existing new septic system; the house that Nancy Lang built on parcel 3 (part of the previous subdivision) has its own septic and each of the two homes will have an approved replacement area. The easements are shown on the subdivision plat. Mr. Reed stated a portion of the northeast corner of lot 2A is in the RHOD. Mr. Mansfield provided the members with a pre-filed narrative, dated 9/21/05, which the Board reviewed. There are class 3 wetlands on the Lot 2A. Mr. Reed explained that the land is in the Current Use Program. Mr. Coppock stated a great deal of this review will happen again, if and when any development is proposed on Lot 2A. tape 2 side 1 Mr. Jary moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law 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) No building or infrastructure construction of any kind is allowed on Lot 2A until such time as the applicant satisfies all standards set forth in Sec. 5.1
(3) Lot 2A shall be identified on the plat.
Mr. Aumand seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Coppock, Izzo and Aumand voting in favor. Mr. Jones and Walton not present at the hearing. 6:45 Break 6:55
Application #: BA 6-121-8
Property Owner: Trapp Family Lodge, Inc.
Overview: Relocate and renovate the 1,800 sq. ft. facility known as the Annex.
Tax Parcel #: 6-121.000
Physical Location:Trapp Family Lodge
Zoning District: RR-5 & RHOD
Present for the hearing was Hans van Wees, representing Trapp Family Lodge, Inc.
He explained the so called “Annex” of 1800 s.f is located across from the Fitness Ctr. building. Proposal is to move the building 8-10’ southeast and away from the road, which will drop the structure 2’ in elevation when a foundation is put under it. Plans are to renovate the interior to office space as well as create office space in the new basement. Changes on the south elevation will add a window and move the door to the center. West elevation: will remain the same. East elevation: adding a balcony and replacing existing windows. North: existing window to be moved. They will replace the electric heat with alternative heating. The only exterior lighting will be a fixture next to the door on the lower level. 4-5 parking spaces will be created in front of the building (not for employees) but for visitors or time share owners. Parking spaces at the top of the road could be used for service entrance people and/or for guests/visitors. 3500 s.f. of office space being proposed. Water and sewer will be on municipal systems. Plans are for the addition of one bath on the lower level (one exists on the first level). Members reviewed the non-complying section of the bylaws Sec. 5.2(2) which limits a building to the expansion of 50%. Zone RR- 5. After discussion, Mr. van Wees stated they have a choice of not moving the building and renovating it where it is, or as Mr. Coppock suggested, limiting half the basement into crawl space (not as useable space). A basement would be allowed but when it comes to using it, it has to be no more than 50% of the aggregate floor space, stated Mr. Coppock. Mr. van Wees stated they will probably not move the building, just renovate. Mr. Izzo moved to RECESS to OCTOBER 18, 2005
to allow the applicant to explore the options. The Board will need parking calculations; and a copy of Town water & sewer approval to reflect new bathroom. Ms. Jary seconded the motion with Mr. Izzo, Aumand, Coppock and Ms. Jary voting in favor of the recess. Mr. Walton and Jones not present. 7:15
Application #: 7-237.01
Property Owner: Shea, Gertrude
Overview: Proposing a 9 lot subdivision
Tax Parcel #: 7-237.000
Physical Location: 351 Sylvan Park Road
Zoning District: RR 1, 2 & 3
Present were Charles Burnham and John Pitrowski, Trudell Consulting firm, Dean Ramono and ????. Mr. Coppock explained that the application that was submitted was for PRD approval and final plat approval for the subdivision. However, due to an error, only the PRD portion was actually warned. He said that the members will do the PRD review tonight and then start the final plat review on a preliminary basis. The legal hearing and decision on the final plat will taking place at the 11-1-05 meeting. Mr. Pitrowski stated they are still waiting for final permits and said the plans have changed slightly from those submitted, i.e. sheet SP 1 revised 9/30/05 which shows the storm water plan being revised and the addition of ponds. Some conditions at the preliminary layout approval were: certifying sewer and water available (letter to serve submitted); a letter from Stowe Electric Department stating the ability to serve for the one year period received. SP 1 shows the clearing limits and the wetlands being delineated. Mr. Pitrowski stated SP 1 & 3 show the clearing limits. Limits will be ½ to ¾ acres within the building envelope and driveway of each home. Selective clearing may occur at the determination of the lot owner. Clearing outside the building envelope will not exceed ¼ acres, stated Mr. Pitrowski. The intent of that is they do not wish to return to the Board when someone wished to put up a small shed in the backyard etc. and they need to clear an area to do that. Mr. Coppock noted that the covenants do not refer to any clearing limits at all.
PRD review: Sec. 17.1 There are 26.5 acres which would allow for 12 lots and seeking approval for 9 (with 8 homes being proposed- one lot to remain as open space). No multi family dwellings being proposed. Mr. Pitrowski stated they wish to reserve any density rights to any future project therefore the declaration. Proposing 8 units (Mr. Burnham stated not applying for the 10 multi family units). Mr. Coppock stated that any change to the density beyond these 8 units would require an amendment of the PRD. Mr. Coppock stated that in the past the Board has required that in order to amend a PRD, you will need the approval of all the landowners within the PRD. The Board’s counsel has concurred in that view. Mr. Pitrowski said there would be covenants that landowners would sign that would acknowledge and perpetuate the owners right to come back to amend the PRD. Mr. Coppock stated that the applicant is requesting approval for 9 lots with 8 units of density, and were you to decide to do something different, you would have to return to the Board and seek to amend the PRD. Mr. Pitrowski said “ that’s correct, we would do that as there is no specific plan.” Mr. Burnham stated the applicant is looking for acknowledgement of the 10 units of density. Mr. Coppock said there is nothing the Board does that guarantees future rights. The Board cannot guarantee the landowner rights to something that he did not seek approval for today. Information included by the applicant as to total acreage and current permissible lot sizes does not constitute a guarantee by the Board. Any future density would depend on the applicable zoning regulations at the time of application. tape 2 side 2 Sec. 17.3 Double setbacks provided as shown on sheet SP 1. 26.5 acres of land. Not using any RR 1 land for density. Will apply for municipal water and sewer (actually a Fire District for the water) Open land (lot # 9) will be owned by the Association. The majority of wetlands is on Lot 9 and the roadway (a 50’ r.o.w) is a part of lot 9. No recreational facilities, swimming pools, tennis courts etc. on lot # 9. A copy of the water & sewer approval needs to be on file as part of the PRD approval. Members agreed the standards of development and open space were addressed and it was the testimony of the applicant that they had been met. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law which grants a PRD, 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) A copy of water and sewer approval shall be submitted for the file.
Ms. Jary seconded the motion with Mr. Coppock, Izzo, Aumand and Ms. Jary voting in favor. Mr. Walton and Jones were not present. PRELIMINARY for FINAL PLAT: Mr. Pitrowski stated the clearing limits have been shown. Mr. Coppock referred to the draft covenants, pg. 5 #14 re: the building zone. Mr. Pitrowski said they did not want to require any landowner to return to the Board if they wanted to clear a bit of land. Mr. Coppock said the language used appears to be allowing the homeowner to cut outside the building zone and the established clearing limits. Mr. Burnham stated the Homeowner Assoc. is not going to keep track of what is being cleared, that is in the covenants, and thought any approval given by the Board would have language to restrict clearing. Mr. Burnham said he would be more comfortable taking out any clearing language. The Board suggested that the modify the general notes on SP 1. Building zones, building envelopes and drainage are shown on the plat. Before any building/construction on Lot # 9, the applicants/owners will be required to return to the Board with an application for approval. Fire pond, dry hydrant and pullout for the Fire Department are shown on the plat. There is no lighting being proposed as part of the subdivision. Mr. Pitrowski stated the storm water discharge plans have been submitted to the state, but approval has not yet been received. The application has been warned for NOVEMBER 1, 2005 meeting. Mr. Pitrowski asked that they be first on the agenda at the 11/1/05 meeting and Mr. Coppock said he had no problem doing that since the error in appropriately warning this item was not of the applicant’s doing. 8:10
Application #: S-05-28
Property Owner(s): Lipsky, Jed & Anna
Overview: Amend development agreement to create clusters 4-A through 4-E as residential condominiums resulting in 6 parcels.
Tax Parcel #: 7A-132.000
Physical Location: 123 Mountain Road
Zoning District: VC-30 Application #: 7A-132-4
Property Owner(s): Lipsky, Anna & Jed
Overview: Proposing to tear down existing motel wing and construct 19 condominiums in five (5) buildings with a new maintenance barn.
Tax Parcel #: 7A-132.000
Physical Location: 123 Mountain Road Mr. Coppock stated he would open up both hearings simultaneously, although separate decisions would be rendered. Present were Mr. Lipsky, owner; Darrow Mansfield of Mansfield Ventures and Malcolm Appleton Architect. Mr. Lipsky stated he had been before the Board a year ago with a preliminary outline for redevelopment of the property. He continued, giving a background of the property and the reasons why it is not viable to continue in the present configuration. Mr. Mansfield stated the site is 5.2 acres and currently operates as an 18 room inn, a restaurant with 180 seats (100 inside and 80 on the patio) and the separate motel building with 21 rooms. The proposal is to tear down the motel building; eliminate 2 rooms in the upstairs of the inn, and eliminate 80 seats from the restaurant. Plans calls for a street to be developed between the inn and the new buildings. There are six residential buildings being proposed, plus a maintenance barn. Phase I will be the infrastructure (sewer, water, power, stormwater) next year and start construction of the first building in the spring of 2006. This will add a net of 12,075 s.f. of building coverage. Mr. Mansfield stated they are seeking to amend the subdivision plat to allow each building on its own parcel of land. Lots (units) 3A & 3B) are already on their own lots. Mr. Lipsky felt there will be one master association. Mr. Mansfield stated they have met with the Stowe Historic Preservation Commission who have given their approval (will need a copy for the file). Mr. Appleton stated some of the buildings will be on the uphill side of the new street and have been raised up to allow for designated parking for one car underneath the unit and one car on the driveway to that unit. tape 3 side 1- The balance of the parking is on grade and will total 90 spaces including the garages. The north side (opposite the Inn) of the property will have buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Opposite side of the street is the Inn, a new building adjacent to it and the 2 existing structures. A variety of architecture will be used (this was discussed with the Historic Preservation Commission who were particularly interested in what the project will look like from Route 108). Height of the buildings will be within the guidelines of the Zoning Bylaws and Mr. Appleton stated they will be built back into the hillside. The siding will be wood clapboard or vertical siding (colors to be “historic earthtone”) with asphalt shingles. The new “Annex” building will have a total of 12 rentable hotel rooms (no kitchens) and will be part of the Inn with access through the central corridor. Plans are for 13 townhouses. The restaurant will be 102 seats (could be 50 on the patio in the summer and 50 inside, or a combination thereof). Mr. Lipsky stated he has met with all the neighbors and received mostly favorable comments. Mr. Mansfield explained the project is in VC 30 which allows the use of VC-10 density in this circumstance. The property is approximately 80,700 sq. ft. Applying VC-10 density for the uses, there will be a balance of 3,000 s.f. The property will be more complying than it is today, stated Mr. Mansfield. Mr. Coppock noted that 2.2 acres are in VR 40 (not VC-40 as indicated in the narrative). Plans are to construct 90 parking spaces, leaving a reserve area of green space for 21 cars. Anticipate some walking traffic. Mr. Mansfield asked the Board to retain the 50% credit per Sec. 21.2. (This will be discussed at a later meeting) Mr. Coppock stated the Board is aware of the difficulty with the current parking on the site, and will discuss any reduction in numbers of spaces. Mr. Lipsky said he would like to be granted the 50%, because the number of restaurant seats is being reduced, and any further reduction would impact the viability of the restaurant. He said there may be ways for staff to park elsewhere. Mr. Lipsky stated he had received a “letter to serve” from Stowe Electric Department, granting a one year service. There will be an increase in the allocation of water and sewer and he is waiting for an approval letter. Mr. Izzo moved to RECESS to S-05-28 and BA 7A-132-4 to November 15, 2005. Ms. Jary seconded the motion with Ms, Jary, Mr. Izzo, Aumand, and Coppock in favor. Mr. Walton and Jones were not in attendance. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara S. Allaire Development Review Board
Town of Stowe
October 18, 2005 The regular meeting of the Development Review Board was held Tuesday, October 18, 2005 starting at 5:00 P.M. in the Banquet Room of the Akeley Memorial Building. Members present: Susan Jary, Ed Izzo, Francis Aumand, Chris Walton and Chair, Allan Coppock. Absent: Larry Jones. There remains a vacancy on the DRB.
Also present: Bryant Brink, Zoning Administrator, Scott Monroe of the Stowe Reporter and others listed in the minute book. Other Business: Mt. Mansfield Winter Academy: Condition # 3 of the approval required that a scaled parking plan be submitted. The Board review the plan submitted (dated 10/4/05). Mr. Izzo moved to accept the plan as satisfying the condition, and subject to the limitation that there be no more than 40 cars on site at any one time. Mr. Walton seconded the motion with all in favor. Mr. Jones was not present. Awand, Howard & Linda re: private cemetery: Condition # 3 of the approval for a private cemetery for 2 burial sites required a Quitclaim deed and a map signed and filed with the Town. This was done and signed by Donna Adams, Chair of the Cemetery Commission. Mr. Walton moved to accept as satisfying the condition, seconded by Mr. Izzo with Ms. Jary, Mr. Izzo, Walton, Aumand and Coppock voting in favor. Mr. Jones not present. 5:10 P.M.
Application #: S-05-09
Property Owner: Syn-Cronomics of Canada, Ltd.
Overview: Requesting approval of preliminary layout for a five-lot subdivision. Winterbird Phase III. RECESSED from September 6, 2005.
Tax Parcel : 7-115.000
Physical Location: Route 108 & Winterbird Ridge Road
Zoning District: HT, RR-3, RHOD Present were: John Stuart, Engineer; Hal Stevens, Attorney, Mr. Boyle, Landscape Architect and Cindy Knauf, Landscape Designer. Mr. Stevens stated the Board’s concern at the previous meeting was how the development would impact the view of the ridgeline from off site and he asked to work through the criteria through testimony. Mr. Stuart referred to drawing 1 of 11 revised 10/11/05. The retention basin on Lt. 36 has been moved to allow for less clearing of the lot. The larger retention basin has been moved closer to the utility easement for the same reason. Plans are for 3 retaining walls, each 1’-8’ in height made of stone boulders, one added west of the cul-de-sac and the other 2 along the main road which will limit tree cutting. The existing drive follows the existing logging trail with a common drive servicing lots 37, 38 & 39. Mr. Coppock made note that the current hearing was for subdivision approval, not for RHOD approval, and that any permit would not forestall the need for full review under Sec. 16 for individual structures. Mr. Coppock said the Board’s review of this application was under the Subdivision regs, although the RHOD guidelines would provide some of the same information. Mr. Steven said he understood that review is under Sec. 5.2. Mr. Stuart said there is a Forest Management Plan for the unused lot. Mr. Aumand asked about the letter from John Buck, Fish & Wildlife Dept. that was previously received re: deer habitat. He said the letter was conditional and went into detail about the issue of deer habitat and when trails were to be used etc. Mr. Stuart did not feel this project would have a negative impact. Mr. Stuart stated that Lt #41 was not up for approval but the wetlands have been identified on that lot. He stated the building envelope on Lt. 36 has been made smaller by 15’ so that the house will not be on the hillside, which would have required more cutting. Mr. Stuart stated by the addition of the retaining walls and moving of the retention basins, they are now able to save large clusters of trees. (Plan 2-1P dated 10/18/05). The rocks from the excavation of the road will be used in the walls and the other materials will be used in constructing the road. There will be no stockpiling of material, stated Mr. Stuart. He said the roads will not exceed a 12% grade. Mr. Aumand again referred to the letter of 1/7/04 from John Buck, which specifically says that trail use is not permitted during the winter. Mr. Stevens said that language is in the Conservation Easement and restricts the use of the trails from December 1 through April 15. Mr. Aumand felt the 1/7/04 letter was more restrictive than the covenants (he read the letter aloud). He asked that the wording from the letter be used in the covenants (conservation easement). George Stearns, Attorney for the Simmons Lane Property Owners asked what happens if the other surrounding parcels are sold; what happens to the protective covenants on these lots. Mr. Stevens replied that the conservation lot would remain the same for the parcel of 9 acres. Mr. Stearns asked how many trees and size would be saved as the result of moving the basins and building the retaining walls? Mr. Stuart said he did not have a count but 307 trees will be in the buffer and along Simmons Lane. Mr. Coppock asked how much clearing area would take place for the retaining wall. Mr. Stuart responded saying an area 25’ x 70’ in one area and 50’ x 60’ long in another area. Mr. Boyle referred to sheet P1 dated 10/18/05. He described the potential views from various areas after doing a site walk of the lots. P 2 described visibility at the intersection of Sinclair Road and Mayo Farm Road, and he said one may see the hillside, but as one gets closer to the site, the background disappears. He stated the tree covering would not be changing. There will be a clearing of approximately 20’ in width for the sewer/storm water. The building height is to be no more than 35’ to the top of the highest roof. Mr. Izzo to Mr. Boyle: “is it your testimony that from vantage points 4 & 7 there will be no impact as far as visual impact-no cutting of trees” Mr. Boyle to Mr. Izzo: “if you look closely you will see a dent in the tree line”. Mr. Izzo: “no impact re: views?” Mr. Boyle: “correct. It is ½-1 mile distance and there is an ascending site line so the foreground trees will block any visibility”. Tape 1 side 2. The development will not be visible at all, stated Mr. Boyle. The trees on the uphill side are 55’ tall and the buildings would be no more than 35’. Mr. Coppock asked if there is a written plan prepared to maintain the trees which would be planted. Mr. Stuart referred to the Forest Management Plan, which includes the property being discussed. Drawing # 8 shows the trees which are to be removed. Mr. Coppock stated there needs to be language in that plan which states that those trees damaged during construction shall be replaced. Mr. Stearns asked to have clarified the 20’ sewer line easement and the 100’ width. It was noted where the storm water retention basins is includes the sewer line easement. Cindy Knauf referred to Plan L2 revised 10/13/05. Plans are to plant 115 trees, native evergreens 6-8’; 8-10’ and 10-12’ in height (in various locations) i.e. along the woods edge avoiding the ledge areas. The 50’ buffer will be supplemented with mostly evergreens (on Simmons Lane and the east side) as well as other areas along the driveways to lots #36 & 40. There are trees being proposed along the main road to the cul-de-sac and the driveways to lots 37 & 39, as well as trees proposed along the sewer line and the larger retention basin. Mr.Coppock questioned the addition of only 10 trees on the westerly side in a 325’ length as being sparse planting. He applauded the use of stonewalls in the project. He felt having so few trees could be an issue from one site. The total length of the buffer is 600’ with the addition of only 37 trees. Ms. Knauf stated they will be larger trees. Pall Spera from the Simmons Lane Group stated he felt more trees would be needed; a 600’ stretch is a long way. Mr. Stevens asked Ms. Knauf if she felt screening has been addressed and if there will be an adverse aesthetic impact and she replied, “no impact”. Mr. Stearns said, if approved, the owner’s request trees along both sides of the property buffer be at least 10-12’ high. Mr. Stevens said he felt the applicant has addressed the Simmons Lane concerns. Mr. Coppock responded that the issue is the need for landscaping and screening to limit visibility from on and off site. He noted that if the subdivision plan were approved, specific building plans would still need to be reviewed under the RHOD. Mr. Coppock said that at that time, if it should turn out the visibility concerns have not been adequately addressed, the Board will have the opportunity to take another look before anything is built on these sites. Mr. Coppock said, if subdivision approval is granted, the Board is making no guarantee as to the structures on the site and no guarantee of further approval of any development. The Board will get another look at the plans after the infrastructure is in place. Mr. Izzo said he did not believe the statement that no visible impact will take place. He said the area is very fragile and did not feel the land should be developed into 5 lots. Mr. Aumand stated he liked the idea that the Board will have another “cut” at the area and Ms. Jary agreed. Mr. Izzo referred to Sec. 5.2 1,2 & 3 as being very specific. Jennifer St.Sauveur asked Ms. Knauf if different sized trees would be better and Ms. Knauf said there are 2 different sizes being used. Mr. Spera thanked the Board and applicants for their efforts. He suggested a better use be made of the property with less subdivision and larger lots. He questioned Lot #41 being created. Mr. Coppock responded saying Lot #41 has been removed from consideration as a buildable lot and would be prohibited from development under this approval. The only way, stated Mr. Coppock, that restriction could be removed would be through the subdivision process and the applicants seeking an amendment. Mr. Coppock stated that, in drafting a motion for this application, we will try and cover the conditions as best we can; however, as this proceeding has gone on for quite a while, with many issues being covered, there may be additional conditions imposed that were not part of this evenings motion. Mr. Stevens said the applicant accepts that. Mr. Aumand moved to move to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Decision re: S-05-09 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 prohibits any development of Lot # 41
(3) The Board shall retain jurisdiction over landscaping and screening.
(4) The Conservation Lot covenants shall be drafted so to be specific to the 9 acre lot being approved.
(5) The Forest Management Plan shall be specific to the parcel being approved and address the issues that may arise during construction.
(6) The Conservation Covenants shall be drafted in a manner, which addresses the John Buck letter dated 1/7/04.
(7) The standard Stowe Electric Department “ability to serve” letter shall remain in force until such time as notified there is adequate power to serve applicants. Scott Fitzgerald stated, after being asked, that cutting will start during the winter months and finish in the spring.
Ms. Jary seconded the motion with the appropriate conditions, with Ms. Jary, Mr. Coppock, Aumand and Walton voting in favor. Mr. Izzo voted against the motion. Mr. Jones was not present and the Board has a vacancy. 6:45 BREAK 6: :55
Application #: BA 7-005-1A
Applicant (s) Gristmill Builders, Ltd.
Overview: Seeking to amend previous approval to include as built roof vents at the Jasmine Restaurant , RECESSED from October 4, 2005.
Tax Parcel #: 7-005.000
Physical Location: 1128 Mountain Road
Zoning District: HT
Mr. Walton stated for the record that Gristmill Builders are doing work for him, but he had reviewed the information and felt he had no conflict and so would be participating. Mr. Coppock asked the members their input on any conflict. Mr. Aumand stated that at the previous hearing the applicant stated, through Mr. Mansfield, that Mr. Walton would not be participating. Members felt Mr. Walton could participate. Mr. Mansfield stated the vents have been painted brown and plans are to update the landscaping. Mr. Mansfield stated after measuring the as built vents against the approved plan, (hand drawn site plan labeled Jasamine site plan) 2 of the vents have been moved forward 11” on the roof. Landscaping shown in view B (coming down the Mt. Road toward the village) includes raising the elevation along the frontage and planting five 15-20’ evergreens and one 12”caliper deciduous tree. Plan C- (middle section area)-shows planting 5 very large maple trees with 2 in the front (these trees are presently on site in the rear), an additional three 4”caliper maple “street trees” (12-18’ high). The corner next to the entrance will be filled up to street grade (after speaking with the Project Engineer) and they will plant four 15-20’ evergreens as well as supplemental flowers and shrubs along Rte 108. Mr. Mansfield stated it was felt the landscaping proposed would provide screening, filter the roofline and add value the building and community Mr. Izzo did not believe it addressed the issue. Mr. Aumand felt the drawing (submitted in the packet) in which the architect had shown a structure around the vents gave them a “chimney look”, which is a type of structure that is common in the area. The applicant said they could be built. Mr. Coppock stated that for him, in looking at the undue adverse impact standard in the bylaw, these proposed vent stacks are very industrial looking and not in keeping with the more residential scale of the building. He suggested that perhaps taking the landscaping solution and marrying that with a chimney like structure around the vents would help soften that industrial look. Mr. Coppock did not feel the enclosure alone would be enough. He said he also felt the proposed landscaping would also, by itself, not sufficiently screen the vents. Mr. Coppock stated, the Board is not charged with punishing applicants who do not conform to the conditions of a permit; that is up to the Zoning Administrator. The Board’s power is limited to reviewing those things which come before them, and we have to review them against the standards of the bylaw. That does not mean that the Board should use a different standard for something that comes in after the fact. When one builds something that has not been approved, they are completely at risk, and it is possible they cannot get a CO and may be at risk for the substantial cost that may be incurred in order to cure the problem.Mr. Coppock stated he was incredibly frustrated with applicants that should know better who still come in with changes like this, after the fact, and want us to bless what they have done without benefit of permit. In this case, the applicant did not voluntarily ask for an amendment; they are only here because the issue arose out of a preliminary hearing on another matter. Mr. O’Reilly said “I agree 100%. Mr. O’Reilly spoke on why he was especially in favor of landscaping, but could consider moving and painting silver etc, they would be clearly visible from the road. We made a mistake and came to the Board. He explained by moving the hoods how they would be much more visible. Felt by painting brown and screening them, it is much better. The financial implication will be about the same. Mr. Izzo stated they are institutional and out of line with anything on the Mt. Road. We will not approve them silver. They are not compatible, it is a circus and I am not happy with it. Mr. Coppock said if the applicant were to replace these hoods with what was were originally approved, and in their original locations, there would be no issue. Ms. Jary stated she liked the landscaping plan and asked to see to scale drawings. Mr. Walton said the applicant is trying to remedy the situation; it is a commercially zoned area, and felt the applicant had made substantial effort to mitigate and it will serve the public. He asked if the structures around the stacks would be a viable option. Mr. O’Reilly stated he had not spoken to anyone if smaller vents would be an option. Mr. Coppock asked Board members if the landscaping, as proposed, and with no changes to the vents, is an approvable solution to the problem. Jary, Coppock, Aumand and Izzo said no. Mr. Walton said yes. tape 2 side 2 Mr. Aumand stated it is about how to deal with the roof vents and he felt the easiest way would be to change the vents. Just putting in the landscaping does not change the industrial size roof vents on the building and he did not believe we would have approved originally. He said he would like to see another design along with the landscaping. Mr. Lupien stated he thought the landscaping addressed the concerns raised at the last meeting.
Mr. Coppock stated the board is trying to find a solution to a problem which was not of their (the Board’s) making. At the last hearing, landscaping alone did not address the issue and what has been presented tonight still doesn’t address the all of the issues which were raised. Landscaping and what is on the roof both have to be a part of the solution. Mr. Aumand said the drawings that were approved do not have the cone shaped tops. Mr. O’Reilly said he wanted to confirm and clear up the confusion about where the back of the building is—and he demonstrated on the drawing. Mr. Aumand moved to RECESS to DECEMBER 6, 2005, seconded by Mr. Walton.
Ms. Jary, Mr. Aumand, Coppock, Izzo and Walton voted in favor of the recess. Mr. Jones was not present and there is a vacancy on the Board. Mr. Lupien asked if possible to be granted a temporary CO and the answer was no since the project is not in compliance.
When asked by Mr. O’Reilly, Mr. Coppock stated he could not guarantee there will be a full Board on 12/6/05. 7:55
Application #: BA 6-121-8
Property Owners: Trapp Family Lodge, Inc
Overview: Relocate and renovate 1,800 sq.ft. facility known as the Annex. RECEESED from October 4. 2005.
Tax Parcel #: 6-121.000
Physical Location: Trapp Lodge Resort
Zoning District: RR-5 & RHOD
Hans von Wees present and he stated that the Annex building will remain in the existing location and they will construct a partial basement of 1,095 sq. ft. in accordance with the 50% rule counting 150 sq. ft. of mechanical space in the current basement. Calculations: 1,829 + 150= 1,979 * 50%= 990 sq. ft. maximum of new space for a total of 1,979 + 990=2,969 allowed. By enlarging the current space under the building to 1,095 sq. ft., the total space after renovation would be 2,924. The east side remains as is. North side will have a window added and the door will be moved on the south side. The parking remains at 7 spaces. Building is and will remain 12’ from the edge of the road pavement. Mr. van Wees stated the added space will be used for office area. Mr. von Wees stated he will be updating the water and sewer approval from the Town. Plans are for the addition of 8 shrubs along the road.
They propose adding one light by the entrance door at the lower entrance. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law 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 enactment, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.
(2) An updated application shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator.
(3) An amended site plan shall be submitted for the file to reflect that there will be no full basement.
(5) A cut sheet of the fixture to be used and the location on the site plan shall be submitted.
(6) The standard Stowe Electric Department condition for the “ability to serve” shall remain in force until such time as the office is notified differently.
Mr. Aumand seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Walton, Coppock and Izzo voting in favor. Mr. Jones was absent. 8:00
Application #: BA 7-283-2
Property Owner(s) South Main Street Ventures, LLC—Peter Anderson
Overview: Amend site plan and revise parking plan. POSTPONED from October 4, 2005.
Tax Parcel #: 7-273.000
Physical Location: 954 South Main Street
Zoning District: RR 1
Present Peter Anderson, property owner. Attorney Anderson explained that when the plan was last permitted, 10 parking spaces were available, spread out in front of the building, with 12 being required under the Bylaw. The Board approved the reduction of the two spaces. Since then, they removed additional ledge in the rear of the building to allow for more parking and to get the parking out from in front. Having done this, 8 new spaces were created. They have planted grass in the front of the building with a walkway to the rear. 4 spaces remain in the front of the building. The parking is now in compliance. The existing stonewall will remain. There are presently 2 lights on the rear of the building and Mr. Anderson stated no additional lighting is proposed. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: BA 7-273.000 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 proposed landscaping shall be installed no later than June 30, 2006.
(3) All original pertinent conditions in the original approval shall remain in force.
Mr. Walton seconded with Ms. Jary, Mr. Izzo, Walton, Aumand and Coppock voting in favor. Mr. Jones not present. 8:15
Application #: Z-05-154
Property Owner(s) Brown, Mariah & Courtney
Overview: Construct a 24’ x 20’ pole barn, no slab and no lights
Tax Parcel #: 2-189.000
Physical Location: 1040 Ayers Farm Road
Zoning District: RR-5 & RHOD
Present was Mariah Brown. Mr. Brink stated he had visited the site and stated there is a previously permitted day care center in the main house, an existing garage which has been turned into storage area upstairs and a heated play area on the main floor. (not heated) Applicant is proposing a pole barn which will be tucked between the remodeled garage and Ayers Farm Road. In terms of the RHOD, the only place this can be seen will be from Ayers Farm Road. There is no visibility from any other area off site and Mr. Brink said in his view, the application could be considered minor. Ms. Brown requested that the size of the barn be 18’ x 24’ wide. No plumbing or exterior lights are proposed, but would include the cupola. Mr. Coppock stated his concern with the proposal was that the setbacks are very close to the minimums required, and the site plan was not of sufficient detail to ensure that they in fact were being met. Mr. Coppock also noted that there was a letter from an adjacent property owner that spoke to the use of the property, potentially an issue for the ZA not for the Board.
tape 3 side 1 Ms. Brown stated the carriage house will be used for cars and storage. Mr. Izzo found the application to be a minor and moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law as amended at the hearing and with the following CONDISTIONS:
(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) A site plan drawn to scale indicating the appropriate setbacks shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator
(3) Plans shall be submitted showing the dimensions of the building, including the cupola
Mr. Aumand seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Izzo, Aumand, Coppock and Walton voting in favor. Mr. Jones was not present. 8:30
Application #: BA 7-141-2
Property Owner(s) : Winterquest LLC aka Tubbs Snowshoe Co.
Overview: Alter large manufacturing area in mill to become retail. Intended use is for, but not limited to, an antique center.
Tax Parcel #: 7-141.000
Physical Location: 52 River Road
Zoning District: RR-2
Present was Tim Meehan stated there is 1.86 acres of land (to centerline) Presently 17, 400 sq. ft. factory building which has had multiple uses, most recently Tubbs Snowshoe, which will remain in the building using 2500 sq. ft. for sales and marketing staff. The applicant’s will convert the manufacturing floor area will be used for a giant antique store/retail. Mr. Meehan agreed it is a change of the primary use but asked the Board to give him the flexibility of using other rooms for possibly other uses. He said it is difficult to propose 17, 400 sq. ft. for use all at once. There is parking for 51 cars, including 4 handicap spaces. The upper building will remain as is, basically a shell for a warehouse or whatever. 12,000 sq. ft. net usable square footage requiring 60 spaces, but because of what the history of the buildings has been, Mr. Meehan felt the 52 spaces adequate. Mr. Coppock stated that much of this building and its prior uses predated zoning and there was never a determination made as to how much parking is required. Mr. Coppock went on to say that we will have to know what uses are being proposed in order to determine the parking required. Mr. Coppock said review would be difficult without having specific spaces identified for specific uses. After discussion, Mr. Meehan stated saying the office spaces have not changed and is applying for conversion of the primary manufacturing space to retail. Because there were no specific plans and due to the lack of time, Mr. Izzo moved to RECESS to NOVEMBER 1, 2005 , seconded by Ms. Jary with all in favor in order that the applicant could determine definite plans, uses, square footages etc. 8:45
Application #: S-05-30
Applicant (s): Grimes Properties, LLC
Overview: Application for final plat review. Subdividing 25.9 acres of Stowehof Inn property into six (6) lots, five (5) of which will be for single-family dwellings. The balance of the acreage will remain with the Inn.
Tax Parcel #: 11-166.000
Physical Location: 434 Edson Hill Road
Zoning District: RR-2, RR-5
Present were: John Stuart, Engineer and Mr. Grimes, owner. 25.9 +/- acres is to be divided into 6 lots. Mr. Stuart stated that on 3/8/05 preliminary layout approval was granted. Lots 1, 2 and 3 are along Houston Farm Road, approximately 2.1 acres each. Lot 4 is 3.2 acres & lot 6 is 1.14 acres. The balance of the property (lot 5) is approximately 12.3 acres which will remain with the Inn. Project will be connected to municipal sewer and 4 of the lots will be connected to municipal water. Drilled wells will serve the other 2 lots. No roads are proposed, just driveways. Mr. Stuart stated the lots do not meet the 3-1 and 4-1 requirements and the Board previously accepted them in this configuration as it allows for the preservation of the meadow. Letters were submitted from the Stowe Fire Department, Stowe Electric with their usual “ability to serve condition”; Public Works Director and a copy of the proposed covenants which provide for the preservation of the tree cover for the privacy of the Inn. There are no changes in lot size or layout from the preliminary approval, stated Mr. Stuart. The members reviewed the final plan under the subdivision rules in detail. No streets are being created, just rights of way and driveways. The Inn is to remain on its own septic system. Mr. Walton moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law 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) Stowe Electric Department letter of “ability to serve” allows for infrastructure only work barring an unconditional letter
(3) The final plat shall show the curb cut as required under Sec. 5.4 of the regs
(4) Condition # 7 of the preliminary approval shall remain .
Ms. Jary seconded with Ms. Jary, Mr. Izzo, Walton, Aumand and Coppock voting in favor. Mr. Jones was not present. Mr. Brink reported that the Carriage House Unit # 6 application has been withdrawn. Mt. Mansfield Co. Preview Center: A Stowe Electric Department “an ability to serve” letter for the Preview Center was submitted, along with a site plan showing the location of the buildings & an updated parking plan. The Board agreed they met the conditions of approval. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Barbara S. Allaire
|
