Development Review Board
                                              Town of Stowe
                                           December 13, 2005

A meeting of the Development Review Board was held Tuesday, December 13, 2005 in the Meeting Room at the Stowe Free Library starting at 5:00 P.M.                

Members present: Allan Coppock, Chair; Ed Izzo, Susan Jary, Larry Jones, Chris Walton  and Francis Aumand (at 5:10 P.M.).

Also present: C. Bryant Brink, Zoning Officer, Lisa McCormack, Stowe Reporter and others on list in minute book in the file.

ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS:

BA 7-005-1A- Gristmill Builders re: change in location of one roof hood at Jasmines.
Brendan O’Reilly was present asking the Board to accept a change in the location of one of the hoods from the northeast corner, which, according to the Division of Fire & Safety, would not be easy to clean in the approved location, to over the hip on the northerly facing slope. All three will be on the north facing side. No change of any kind in the hood, i.e. size, color etc. Mr. Walton moved to treat the relocation of the hood from the northeast hip to the northeast slop as shown on the plan dated 12/5/05 and accept as an ADMINISTRATIVEAMENDMENT. Mr. Jones seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Walton, Coppock, Jones and Izzo voting in favor of the motion. Mr. Aumand was not yet present. 

BA  11-138-8 TN ASSOCIATES re: Amendment to building plans
Seeking an amendment to the previously approved plan, which will include the lowering of the dining room roof by 4’, add an underground link from the spa to the northern wing which will project 18” above ground. Raise the pool apron 1’ and grade up to it. Mr. Izzo moved to accept the changes as an Administrative Amendment, seconded by Mr. Walton with Ms. Jary, Mr. Jones, Walton, Coppock and Izzo voting in favor. Mr. Aumand not yet present at the meeting.
Conditional Use Applications and/or Subdivisions

5:10
Application #:        S-05-28
Property Owner:   Lipsky, Jed & Annika
Overview:                Amend development agreement to create clusters 4-A as residential condominiums resulting in 6 parcels. RECESSED from 11-15-05
Tax Parcel #:          7A-132-000
Physical Location:  123 Mountain Road
Zoning District:       VC-30
Present were Darrow Mansfield from Mansfield Ventures; Michael Atherton, Architect, and Jed Lipsky, owner. Mr. Coppock stated for the record he had reviewed all minutes and plans of the proposed project and from previous meetings. A landscaping plan was submitted which provides the street lighting, plant species to be used on sheet L-3 dated 12/7/05; revised density calculations dated 12/5, revised and updated parking calculations dated 12/5/05. 115 spaces required for what is being proposed plus 16 spaces for the 8 units of clusters 3A & 3B, plus 10 employees making a total of 141 spaces. Mr. Coppock said the bylaw provides that the 50% reduction is parking is based on the number of spaces required for the lodging units, not on the number of seats in the restaurant. He said the premise for the reduction is that some percentage of the people in the motel units will eat at the restaurant. He went on to say that any reduction would need to be based on verifiable numbers from the applicant.  Mr. Coppock said he was not arguing that there was or wasn’t enough parking, but rather that the methodology used by the applicant is simply wrong.  They have it backwards. Mr. Atherton felt there is adequate parking for Phase I and it would only become an issue in the Phases II & III.. Mr. Coppock said as each phase is brought forward, the Board could ask that the parking plan be updated with the number of spaces needed versus the number available.

S-05-28 Sec. 5 Planning & Design Standards Mr. Mansfield stated that six (6) parcels are being created, each of the buildings drip-line creates the boundary line and the project is being done as a PUD. There will be no internal setbacks or setbacks from the street. The driveway is to be a limited common area, including Lot 6, the Inn and each unit will have the use of the drive. The property line is shared with the Palisades and abuts the land next to the river, with a minimum of 50’ required (Mr. Mansfield felt it will be at least 75’ to the nearest construction). Mr. Mansfield stated the deed provides that the public has the generalized right to cross Palisades and nothing is being done that will impede the public access.
Historic Resources:  The Inn, a historical building will remain as is. The Historic preservation Commission has given written approval of the project dated     
Landscaping Plan:  Mr. Atherton described the plan in detail, stating he is trying to create different patterns and areas for planting by using evergreen, hemlock and different species of plants. He said he is trying to define the edge of the tree line. Plans are for 6’ fences with gates for privacy, and will use screening of some fashion on the fence. Streetlights will be incorporated on the fence system to illuminate the sidewalks. Street lamps, 11’ to the top of the arch are planned (need cut sheets). Tape 1 side 2.  Pedestrian Access is being made available by a concrete sidewalk system
(Mr. Mansfield explained) that it will go out to the street and down the side of the road. Plans are to relocate the existing crosswalk somewhat so that it will go directly across Rte 108 and not at an angle. Traffic: Board members agreed that the net increase in units would be four (4) and felt that number will not exacerbate traffic in the area. Mr Jones stated he did not feel residential parking creates as much traffic as the motel currently does. Municipal Facilities: A letter of “ability to serve” from the Stowe Electric Department dated 9/21/05 is on file. Municipal water and sewer are available according to letter dated 10/12/05. There has been no response from the Stowe Fire Department. Mr. Lipsky stated that Attorney Nichols is in the process of creating a Homeowners Association document (there are 2 existing). After this project, no additional units can be added as there is no further available density. Sec. 5.2 not applicable. Mr. Mansfield stated the entrance to the property would be narrowed to a more standard entry. Utilities: will be underground from the pole at the entrance. Storm Water Run-Off Management Plan: Mr. Mansfield stated that Pioneer Environmental Group is creating a plan which will collect the run off into a tank down the street and then run over the bank. Discussion re: the Stowe Electric letter and precluding development prior to the letter, except for the infrastructure. The applicant was told an updated letter must be received for the one-year service.  Mr. Lipsky stated they hope to demolish the motel prior to April 1, 2006 and then proceed with Phase I.  Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: S-05-28 with the following CONDITIONS:
(1) The current Subdivision Regulations shall remain in force.
(2) Any change to the plans or the proposed use of the property shall be brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, prior to its enactment, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.
(3) The applicant shall submit for the Board’s review, an update landscaping plan showing the number of species, types, sizes and location
      (4)  A lighting plan shall be provided for the Board’s review showing the size,                                  
             numbers, wattage and location of all fixtures.
(4) A copy from ANR (Storm Water Permit) shall be filed for the record.
(5) A copy of the Home Owners Association agreement shall be received for the file.
(6) Mr. Jones seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Coppock, Izzo, Walton, Aumand and Izzo voting in favor. None opposed.  
                                   
Application #: BA 7A-132-4
Property Owners:     Lipsky, Jed & Annika
Overview:                   Tear down motel wing and construct 19 condominiums in five buildings and add new maintenance barn. RECESSED from 11-15-05
Tax Parcel #:              7A-132-000
Physical Location:      123 Mountain Road
Zoning District:             VC-30

CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW:
Mr. Coppock stated any approval would track the date of the Ability to Serve letter from Stowe Electric Dept. Mr. Mansfield stated the area is part of the commercial village and within walking distance. This project will bring residential into the area. There will be no non-complying structures and no non-conforming uses within the project. When asked, Mr. Lipsky stated there are no plans for exterior pads with air coolers. All heating will be ventilating systems and be contained within the footprint of the buildings. He said there are currently air handlers on the rear of the restaurant. As mentioned, plans are to alter the existing cross walk to improve pedestrian. The applicant testified that the internal traffic circulation will be improved with the new entrance and parking plan. The Board will await the receipt of the State Discharge Permit. Sec. 4.9 (2) (a). It was noted the closest portion of construction would be a minimum of 50’ to top of the bank. Zone is VC-30 with a small area portion of the property in the rear being in VR-40.
Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law in re: 7A-132-4 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) Any construction will be a minimum of 50’ from the top of the bank
(3) The life span of the permit shall be equal to the most current Stowe Electric “ability to serve” date
(4) The applicant, as the project moves through the phases, shall provide the Board with an updated parking plan, prior to construction, showing the spaces that have been removed for ground development and new spaces added.
(5) A letter shall be received for the record from the Fire Department stating they have reviewed the plans.
(6) The Board shall receive a copy of the ANR Permit
(7) A lighting plan shall be submitted for the Board’s review showing the number of fixtures, location, size of wattage and height of poles.
(8) An updated landscaping plan shall be submitted for the Board’s review showing the types of species, numbers and size to be used as well as the updated entrance and walkway plan.
(9) The site plan presented for the record shall show the zoning district lines.

Mr. Jones seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Izzo, Walton, Aumand, Coppock and Jones voting in favor. No one voted against.  

6:30
Application #:        Z-05-169
Property Owner:   Scotford, Stephen
Applicant:              Mansfield Ventures, Ltd.
Overview:               Proposing the construction of a single family dwelling with a two-car garage. RECESSED from 11-15-05
Tax Parcel #:          7A-075.000
Physical Location:   ??  Cemetery Road
Zoning District:      VR-20, SHOD
Present were Darrow Mansfield and Mr. Scotford. At the hearing held 11-15-05 the subdivision of property was approved. The reason the proposed dwelling was before the DRB is that it is in the Historic Preservation District. A letter dated 11/25/05 from Christel Balzer, abutting property owner stated she had walked the site with Mr. Scotford and viewed it from her property and the letter was read by Mr. Coppock into the record that she has no objection to the construction. The Stowe Historic Preservation Commission, by way of a letter from Tom Jackman, reviewed and approved the project. 
Mr. Coppock told members recently the Town adopted the Historic Overlay District and copies were distributed to members. Mr. Brink said they provide the standards and guideline to be used. tape 2 side 1 Mr. Coppock asked the applicant to assure the Board that the building being proposed conforms to the requirements of Sec. 17.11 and the guidelines of Sec. 11.12. and proceeded to read them. Mr. Walton felt the review is being done twice, once by the Historic Preservation Commission and by the DRB. Mr. Coppock said the Board has to determine if the project conforms. (3 (a) & (b). Mr. Aumand was concerned that the review is one more process and took exception with the letter from Tom Jackman, feeling their recommendations were not in keeping with Sec. 17, Historic Overlay District. In the future, the Board should be told whether the design of the building will be in keeping with the HOD. Sec. 3 (a) & (b) Mr. Mansfield described the building as being a split level with the garage coming off Cemetery Road at street level. Building to be built into the hillside. Traditional windows and roof pitch. Metal roofing colored green/gray  with the window trim black Wooden clapboards and shakes, cedar color to remain clear. Gray putty or savory colored siding. No ancillary structures proposed, but there currently exists a small shed. Lots of porches and decks involved. Sec. 17.12  reviewed. There will be air condition pads (not known the location which the Board will want to see). Mr. Aumand stated he felt he needed more guidelines as it relates to the design review. It would be more helpful to have more guidance, stated Mr. Aumand. Mr. Coppock will meet with Mr. Jackman to discuss this further. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: Z-05-169 with the following CONDITIONS:
  (1) Any change in the plans or the 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) If air conditioner pads are proposed, plans shall be brought to the Board showing the proposed screening for their review/approval.
   (3) Any exterior lighting plan shall be brought to the Board for its review/approval showing the exterior fixtures, size, wattage and location. Mr. Aumand seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Izzo, Aumand, Walton, Jones and Coppock voting in favor of the motion.  

7:00 P.M. BREAK

7:10
Application #:          S-05-35
Property Owners:   Lamoille Housing Partnership, Inc.
Overview:                 Proposing a Planned Residential Development to increase project density pursuant to Section 17.6(1) of the zoning regulations. There will be 36 units in 18 buildings; at least 50% of the project will remain perpetually affordable.
Tax Parcel #:            7-251-000
Physical Location:    Sylvan Park Road
Zoning District:        RR 1, RR 2
Present: Carol Collins, Nancy Owens, Duncan Wisniewski, Architect and Darrow Mansfield, Mansfield Ventures. Mr. Mansfield gave an overview of the project as being (36 units) 17 structures on Sylvan Park Road, 10 acres of land and as a PRD. 450’ entrance road, paved. The applicant will build all structures and requesting density bonus as 50% of the project will remain affordable. Plans are for on site municipal water and sewer. Development is a village type layout with a central street and fronted with sidewalks on both sides. Buildings residential type, two stories with pitched roof.
Plans are for 6 distinct building designs with 10 floor plans. There is a mix of duplexes and triplexes, some with walk out basements. Plans are to build all at once. On street parking adjacent to Thomas Lane with a courtyard. Mr. Mansfield stated some number of units will be sold to third parties but most will be owned by the Partnership. (this will be driven by cost). A 50’ r.o.w. will extend to the Brackenbury property. Mr. Mansfield stated there is no and will be no legal way to get to Thomas Lane. Mr. Mansfield stated they have approached the Select board re: the installation of sidewalks along Sylvan Park Road and if the Board requires this to be done, it will be done at the applicant’s expense. 
There will be a total of 72 bedrooms. Mr. Aumand suggested a better traffic analysis. Mr. Mansfield stated it would be done for Act 250 to reflect the current situation in the area and how the development has changed. Mr. Coppock suggested the Board will require the study be presented as part of this process as well. There is a large Class III wetlands area near the entrance, which is driving the location of the project. ANR has approved the location. Street elevations dated 10/27/05.  Michael Wisniewski, Architect, gave an overview of the buildings. There will be 10 basic designs, some building front the street; some have porches, a village design. Two triplexes. Most have own driveways; ones that don’t are incorporated with the courtyard space. Each front door opens and front entry is off the street, not matter where parking is with different rooflines. Front porches, dormers, gabled roofs, clapboard siding (or vinyl) with asphalt-shingled roofing, double hung windows.  Mixture of colors. Foundations are mostly exposed concrete with insulation on the exterior and using new type stucco, some may have walkouts (number of bedrooms included in any walkouts). tape 2-side 2  Creating a PRD under Sec. 17.6. Mr. Coppock read this, saying the Board can allow an affordable housing density bonus after considering the site conditions, wetness or steep slopes etc. This provides the Board with guidelines if they choose to grant a bonus. Mr. Mansfield addressed this, explaining why he believes a bonus should be granted, saying it will be a clustered development with double setbacks.  From the property lines. 10 acres in RR-1, which would allow for 30 units maximum. Seeking 6 additional units, which will not change the layout of the development, stated Mr. Mansfield. Mr. Coppock stated that several of the letters regarding municipal services are outdated (i.e. 2001 etc) so would have to be renewed. Mr. Coppock asked why it is acceptable to build in wetland in this case. Mr. Mansfield stated it is a balancing act, a portion will be left untouched and the storm water management plan comes into play, as does wildlife habitat. Much of the site has been cleared and any future clearing will be in the early section of the roadway. Tree line towards Thomas Lane has vegetation now and proposing to plant cedar evergreens and shrubs for screening. Mr. Wisniewski stated there would be one street lighht at the intersection with front porch lights.  They are trying to minimize the amount of light so there will be none in the courtyard. Mr. Coppock stated there may be a concern with the number of lights being proposed. Mr. Biedermann, in the audience, stated when the original project was developed, the agreement was to put in a stockade fence and trees in exchange for the power right of way. Mr. Coppock asked how electrical service will be provided? Mr. Mansfield stated that they have met with Stowe Electric, conduit is in through Thomas Lane and Stowe Electric wants to run a loop from the existing boxes on Thomas Lane down to the existing power on Sylvan Park Road, all underground.  Mr. Coppock suggested to Mr. Biedermann he submit to the Board a memo regarding the issue. The question for the Board is does the applicant have legal access for the power?
Mr. Aumand said he was concerned re: design of the road and impact, width of the road public access and asked for an updated traffic study. Mr. Izzo then moved to RECESS
S-05-35 & BA 7-251-1 to JANUARY 3, 2006. Mr. Jones seconded with all in favor.

Application #:           BA 7-251-1
Property Owners:     Lamoille Housing Partnership, Inc.
Overview:                  Construct 36 units of multiple family housing in 18 buildings located on 10 acres of land.
Tax Parcel #:              7-251-000
Physical Location: Sylvan Park Road
Zoning District: RR 1 & RR 2  
RECESSED as above to JANUARY 3, 2006

7:55
Application #:       S-05-38
Property Owner:  Adams, Nason
Overview:              Subdividing 75 acres parcel into a 12 and 63-acre lot.
Tax Parcel #:         6-121.000
Physical Location: Nebraska Valley     
Zoning District:     RR-5

Application #:          S-05-39
Property Owner:     Trapp Family Lodge, Inc
Overview:                 Seeking to create a 9.75 acre parcel and right of way
Tax Parcel #:             6-121.000
Physical Location:    Off Sugarbush Lane in Nebraska Valley
Zoning District:        RR 5 & Ski PUD

Application #:           BA 6-121-9
Property Owner:      Trapp Family Lodge, Inc.
Overview:                  Remove the 9.75 acre parcel from the Ski-PUD
Physical Location:     Off Sugarbush Lane
Zone:                          RR 5 & Ski PUD

Present were Charles Burnham, Land Planner, Dean Economou and Nason Adams.
Mr. Coppock agreed all three applications should be opened at once.  Mr. Burnham stated Mr. Economou is the prospective purchaser of the two parcels and has identified a house site using the 12.02 acres from Mr. Adams and the 9.75 acres from Trapp Family Lodge. The goal is to have a 20-acre parcel in which to construct his residence. House site area (generally on the Adams parcel) will be served by a right of way coming off Sugarbush Lane crossing Trapp property. Mr. Burnham stated the house site cannot be seen from any town highway in Nebraska Valley. Site quite remote. There are wetland and deer habitat areas, which are being addressed by Charles Grenier, Inc.  It is the intent that the two lots will be merged and the application has been submitted to the Zoning Administrator, stated Mr. Burnham. Only access is by the r.o.w. across the Adams and Trapp land and they will retain the right to use the road. The Gonyea parcel which abuts this land is currently landlocked and will remain so. Sec. 5.1   Review looking at both subdivision applications, Adams and Trapp Family Lodge.  Mr. Burnham read from a pre-filed narrative. All land in the RR 5 zone. A small portion of the Adams piece is located in the RHOD but that is in the 63 acre parcel being retained by Nason Adams. Mr. Burnham stated the road will have a 5-6% (a small section 8%) slope all the way. Need slope analysis on the site plan. When looking at the configuration of the Adams lot, Mr. Coppock stated there could be difficulty in any future development of the parcel because of the configuration.  Mr. Aumand was concerned with the road and asked how long the driveway will be. He asked if the Fire Department has reviewed this. The driveway will be approximately 2750’ with 5 pull-offs.  Mr. Burnham stated the access r.o.w. across the Trapp land and will not infringe on any cross-country trails or interfere with the woodland operation. Requesting to remove the 9.75 acres in the Resort PUD out and a new affidavit (to be reviewed by the Select Board) will be prepared, debiting the acreage to the Trapp overall acreage.

Mr. Walton moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: S-05-38 NASON ADAMS re: creating a 12.02 acre parcel 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 standard Subdivision Regulation shall remain in force
(3) The municipal impact questionnaire shall be submitted, including the Stowe Electric   “ability to serve letter”

Mr. Jones seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Coppock, Izzo, Aumand, Walton and Izzo voting in favor. No one voted no..

8:20
S-05-39 TRAPP FAMILY LODGE re: creating the 9.75 acre parcel.
Mr. Walton moved to approve 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) The standard Subdivision Regulations shall remain in force
Mr. Jones seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Izzo, Walton, Coppock, Jones and Aumand voting in favor.
 
BA 6-121-9 TRAPP FAMILY LODGE, INC re: Removing 9.75 acre parcel from the Ski PUD.
Mr. Walton moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and
Conclusion of Law in re: BA 6-121-9 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) An updated affidavit stating the 9.75-acre parcel has been removed from the Ski PUD.  Mr. Jones seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Coppock, Izzo, Aumand, Walton and Jones voting in favor. No one voted no.

8:25
Application #:        BA 6-088-5
Property Owners: Ampersand Properties, LLC
Overview:               Planned residential development and planned unit development to include commercial buildings, single family homes, duplexes and multi-family units. RECESSED from 11-15-05 
Tax Parcel #:          6-088.000
Physical Location: 1652 Mountain Road
Zoning District:      HT, MRV, MOD

Application #:         S-05-31 P
Applicant(s)            Ampersand Properties, LLC
Overview:
Tax Parcel #:           6-088.000
Physical Location:   1652 Mountain Road
Zoning District:       HT, MRV & MOD

At 8:25 P.M. Mr. Aumand moved to RECESS the two above applications to 12-20-05 seconded by Mr. Jones with all in favor.

The meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Barbara S. Allaire

Development Review Board
                                                  December 20, 2005

The Development Review Board of Stowe met Tuesday, December 20, 2005 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M.

Members present:  Allan Coppock, Chair, Ed Izzo, Francis Aumand, Susan Jary, and Larry Jones.    Absent: Chris Walton.
Also present: C. Bryant Brink, Zoning Administrator, Paul Percy, Attorney Edward French, Attorney Alison Bell as well as those listed in the minute book.

BA 6-088-5 & S-05-31 P Ampersand Properties, LLC re: Development on Whiskers Meadow:  Mr. Aumand moved to RECESS to JANUARY 17, 2006 at the request of the applicant. Mr. Jones seconded with all in favor, except Mr. Izzo who was not yet present.

5:05 P.M.
Mr. Izzo arrived at prior to the start of this hearing.

Application #:          BA 11-202-02
Property Owner(s): Meadow View, LLC
Overview:                 Seeking approval to build five (5) energy efficient, multi-family dwellings (three (3) triplexes and two (2) quads on 7.32 acres. 
Tax Parcel #:            11-202-02
Physical Location: Corner of Rte 108 and Houston Farm Road
Zoning District: UMR (Upper Mountain Road) and MOD (Meadowland Overlay District).
Present: Regina Farrell, Project Manager; T.J. Boyle Assoc. Architect Landscape Architect; Jonathan Farrell, Construction Manager; Bruce McCarthy, Building Designer; Pearson & Gould, Electrical Engineers and Charles Grenier, site engineer. Ms. Farrell gave an overview of the project as being 17 new homes (4 triplex buildings and 2 quads) located between the Mt. Road and Houston Farm Road in traditional Colonial & Cape styling and with two car garages. Project in the Mt. Road District and Meadow Overlay District. Ms. Farrell said they have met with the abutting property owners, three times with the Technical Review group, and have done a traffic safety sturdy. Meets the setbacks, building coverage, building height. Garages will be on the outside so it will be difficult to see. Plans are for an open space buffer for the existing farmhouse. Buildings will be clustered along the perimeter of the east and north sides to preserve the open, agricultural character and protect the foreground views from vantage points along Rte 108. Mr. Farrell described the project and stated the houses will have an 8/12 roof pitch, stone chimneys, louvered shutters, clapboard siding. Units will be staggered 16’ back, front to back, creating a courtyard design. The center of the property will remain open and dwelling will have decks on the rear of the units. Garages will be styled as barns (similar to the   existing barn). Trash receptacles will on the sides of the units. The aim is to keep in the style of northern VT and fit within the town plan in rural areas. Plans are to do all major infrastructure on the site, including septic and utilities and build the first triplex unit and the rest will be constructed as sales take place. Mr. Boyle described the site plan and stated they are trying to keep the open space viewing the Land Mark Meadow and have a private back yard. One way-16’ road graveled road into the project, which will allow for two way traffic, with parking spaces in front of the garages. The meadow side has the decks. A pond is proposed for the center of the open space. Plantings (additional evergreens and deciduous materials) are being proposed along edge of the hedgerow to help alleviate a concern of the Houston Farm neighbors. Major shade trees will be of a 3” caliper, 16’ tall. Smaller shade trees will be 2” caliper. Colors to be used: the barns will be red with the buildings light yellow or a light tan. Lighting: Mr. Farrell described the lighting as being similar to Stoweflake, lights around the perimeter, pole lighting along the drive. Plans are for a street light at the intersection. The members agreed they needed a lighting plan for the buildings etc. (sheet L-6 dated 12/20/05). Pole height 12’. There will be lights on the exterior of the buildings controlled by the owners but the other will be on a photocell. Mr. Coppock asked that a full lighting scale plan be submitted, including the garages and decks with the type, size, wattage and schedule and location on buildings and roads. Charles Grenier, Engineer:
and stated there is 7.3 acres of land and was permitted in 1984 & 88 for condos but plans never were carried out. Create a loop road through the property with access by a 50’ strip of land onto Rte 108. 7’ of vertical drop between the highest part of the road and the lowest road, making for minimal grading. Mr. Grenier said the soils are sandy
and qualify for the State of Vt. Discharge Permit (have submitted an application) There is 1.5 acres of impervious surface. Storm water is being treated through a series of grass swales discharging in the different areas with the center common area collecting runoff from the roofs and then into the pond. Project will be on municipal sewer. There is an existing fire hydrant. Mr. Grenier stated the septic system would be reconfigured. Need a Construction General Permit from the State. Mr. Coppock asked if there was consideration to have the access come off the private road and Ms. Farrell stated they have met with the SHH Assoc and that is not a possibility. Mr. Grenier stated it is now possible that a non-domestic well for the pond will need to be drilled. (water table 5-6’ or more below surface). This project will have its own sewage disposal as it cannot hook up to the municipal system since the agreement of the UMR zoning district, constrains additional hook ups (a way of controlling development in that area), stated Mr. Coppock.  Tape 1 side 2 There is no subdivision being proposed and Ms. Farrell stated there would be form of common ownership for maintenance, plowing etc. Purchasers will only own the unit and the land will remain a 7.3 acre parcel. Plans are for crawl spaces as opposed to full basements under the units because of the water table. Unit E (triplex) will constructed first and as soon as permits are in hand. The interior open area will remain and be mowed as lawn.

CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW:  Project UMR and MOD districts. Sec. 7.3 (h)  land uses permitted in the UMR allows for multi family dwellings with garages being considered as accessory uses. No subdivision is taking place. 8% coverage allowed and this project will be 7.96%. The coverage represents all structures on the property, the freestanding compressors on the exterior do not have a roof over them but the trash containers will be covered and included in the 7.96%. Mr. Coppock stated that because of the closeness in percentage of coverage, the Board might require the Zoning Administrator to visit the site when pouring the footings or ask that the applicant’s engineer submit an affidavit to the Board certifying that the size does conform to the plans. Plans are for cupolas on the two story garages with no lighting. Plans should show which units are triplex and quads, along with the correct lettering (numbering). Mr. Farrell stated all triplexes would be the same. Some units, indicated on the site plan, will have master bedrooms.  (replacement of A-2 .1 drawings). The variation of the exterior colors will be the materials, i.e. wood clapboard, use of stone, metal roofs on center section, asphalt or cedar with vertical siding. Dormers are shingle or red cedar. Mr. Coppock stated elevations shall be submitted for each. Chimneys will be stone.  Board will need color charts Free standing barn/garages: center section will have vertical siding, clapboard, metal roof on the center section of the barn which faces one unit as a bonus, intended to be used by the buyer for an office, bunk space with small bathroom, bedroom but no kitchen (will be prohibited in the documents). Mr. Grenier stated they are figured in as part of the wastewater flow (but not as an apartment). Condition could be imposed that require the applicant return with any proposed use of the barn.  The units will be sprinkled but the garages will not be. Heat will be propane, as will the fireplaces, with underground tanks for each building. Meters will be attached to the exterior of the buildings (location to be determined). Mr. Coppock concerned with what will be stored in the barn i.e. hazardous material. There could be a condition imposed re: the storage of hazardous materials.  Sec. 7.7: discussion re: architectural design in a rural area. (b) similar scale and mass as the buildings (farmhouse and 2 barns) on the site. (Board will return to this section). Sec. 15 Meadowland Overlay District: project within the district. Mr. Coppock read the criteria with discussion. CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW:  8-9-05 letter on file directed to Ed Pearson from Stowe Electric stating there is capacity to serve for a year, and notes the same provisions the Board has seen from them. The Board matches the life of the permit to whatever the Stowe Electric grants by the “ability to serve” letter although the permit is valid for 2 years.  Wendall Mansfield, Fire Chief, signed off on the Impact Questionnaire, but it was felt the applicant should request a letter from him based on the project for the Board’s review. There is the potential to install a second hydrant if required or needed, stated Mr. Grenier. When asked, Mr. Farrell stated the longest building would be 160’.tape 2 side 1 Mr. Aumand asked what has happened to the detailed letter, which the Board used to receive from the Fire Dept? Traffic on Roads and Highways in the vicinity:  a traffic study signed by Roger Dickenson  dated 8/26/05 Ms. Farrell said the study was based on the access and egress as being proposed, existing on Houston Farm Road and concluded there will be no impact. Gave a table of trips with an average on a week day 100 trips will be generated. Mr. Coppock stated every traffic study the Board has ever seen says there will be no impact, but this study points out there is a problem within that area. The applicant felt the study was referring to accidents up the road from this project. Mr. Coppock said there are two issues, (1) traffic generated by this project; and (2) the high accident location in the area. The question is, is Houston Farm Road a contributor to the accidents which have taken place and will adding a second curb cut within a short distance create the potential for more accidents. The traffic study doesn’t discuss site distances up and down the Mt. Road and does not address multiple accesses in a short distance and how would they interact. There is an agreement with the owner of the farmhouse that she will give up her curb cut and share the new curb cut (not in writing as yet). The survey does not discuss the interaction between Houston Farm Road and the new access, stated Mr. Coppock. The section of the Mt. Road has been identified by the VT. Transportation engineer as a high accident location, felt it would be appropriate for the applicant’s traffic engineer to address this—what makes it a high accident location and is it  related to the roadways, the crest of the hill etc. Mr. Grenier felt the survey refers to between Edson Hill and Houston Farm Roads. Mr. Aumand stated he tended to agree with the traffic engineer but felt there should be some clarification as to the accidents. He did not feel traffic volume would have an adverse effect. Mr. Coppock felt it has to be addressed how the two roads interplay and what is defined as the accident section. Mr. Jones stated  entire Rte 108 has an effect on traffic. Mr. Percy, in the audience and a member of the Planning Commission said, when traffic gets bad enough, the state would solve it, i.e. Shelburne Road. Mr. Coppock said the Town should have some input in how it gets solved. Mr. Aumand said the Board will have another look at the Mt. Company in 5 years, which will have some impact.

Character of the Area: Within the Meadowland Overlay District. There is existing development behind, back from the road and not very visible. project fits dimensionally, need building height, need State Permit approval for storm water run-off, plus General Construction Permit, and reports generated should be copied to the Board, need agreement with the abutting property owner re: the use of one curb cut. The question was asked if the 16’ wide driveway will be adequate if there is a car parked along the road for emergency vehicles? Mr. Farrell suggested prohibiting on street parking. Where will snow removal go? No sidewalks are being planned. Landscaping had been discussed along the existing development road with the additional plantings and the Board needs to decide if it is adequate for the number of buildings being planned as it is in a high visibility area. 
Mr. Coppock opened the hearing to the audience. Jack Morrissey, member of Sugar House Hill Association stated members are concerned under the MOD zone, the density of the project with the numbers going from a vacant 7 acres to the density being proposed. Concerned with the overall character of the area with a project this size. Paul Percy, owner of the Landmark Meadow stated the meadow has been forever agricultural land (can never build on it, cannot be subdivided off) and the 7 acres is prime agricultural land. Mr. Percy said that with the land being agricultural, he frequently spreads manure on the field. He asked that the Board implement some form of security that the neighbors do not get together and try and put a stop to the spreading. He also said a 160’ building will be seen when one comes around the corner, except when the corn is tall. He felt the Meadow Overlay District was put in for prime agricultural land, especially when a piece of land which is protected is in front of the project—it doesn’t fit the character of the neighborhood or the character of the land. Mr. Izzo moved to RECESS BA 11-202.02 to JANUARY 17, 2006 with Mr. Aumand seconding the motion. In favor were: Ms. Jary, Mr. Izzo, Coppock, Aumand and Jones. Mr. Walton was not present.      

7:20 BREAK

7:30
Application #:           S-05-41
Property Owner(s):  Harvey, Samuel B. & Mary Louise
Overview:                  Re-approval of S-03-26 because the plat was filed but not signed within the 90-day period.
Tax Parcel #:             7-116.000
Physical Location:     204 Cape Cod Road
Zoning District:         RR-2
Present for the hearing was Attorney Thomas Amidon who said he was not a part of the former application but the plat plan was not filed in a timely manner (within the 90 days) and while the original mylar was recorded in the Land Records, it was not signed by the Vice-Chairman. Mr. Amidon stated nothing has changed from the original application or subdivision. Mr. Coppock noted that under today’s standards, one gets 180 days for the mylar to be signed and recorded. It was also noted that no changes have been made to the Subdivision Regulations since this subdivision was approved. tape 2 side 2. Mr. Aumand moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings and Conclusion re: S-05-41 with all CONDITIONS in S-03-26 dated 11-18-03 to remain in force. Ms. Jary seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Jones, Izzo, Aumand and Coppock voting in favor. Mr. Walton not present.     

7:35
Application #:       BA 2-188.03
Property Owner:  Boykin, John and Gwen
Overview:              Appealing the Zoning Administrator’s Decision (Z-5-182) to allow Mariah and Courtney Brown to make renovations to existing detached garage to be used in conjunction with the activities of a previously approved daycare.
Tax Parcel #:          2-189.000
Physical Location: 1040 Ayers Farm Road
Zoning District:      RR-5 & RHOD
Present were: Edward French, Attorney for the Boykin’s and Alison Bell, Attorney representing Mariah Brown. There was no objection from either Attorney to allow Mr. Brink to remain seated at the table with the DRB members. Mr. Brink, Zoning Administrator, read the chronology of events leading to this appeal. ( SEE ATTACHED)
 Mr. Coppock stated the appeal is strictly of the Z-2-189.000 permit. On 12-13-05 the DRB received a confidential opinion from its attorneys on the matter. Mr. French stated the application was not approved as one of the standard permitted uses in the RR 5 district but rather was approved pursuant as a special exemption. He said it was important for the Board to consider the statute and scope of the statute. A new statute was implemented 9-1-05, which he believes says that a town has to allow for a day care but there are limitations to that exemption. Beyond what is approved by the statute, it still goes back to the bylaws so it would have to be considered under some other use. The scope of the statute, and looking at the decision, says it is residential up to 6 children. The statute talks to that and says, “family child care home for up to 6 children shall be considered”. If it is a family childcare home as defined by the statute, it has to be approved, but Mr. French stated his contention is not as the definition in 33  VSA 49002(3) (a) a family child care home is a day care facility which provides for care on a daily basis in the care givers residence. Mr. French said the home is across the driveway from the separate detached freestanding facility, which is to be for day care. The day care is not going to be in the caregivers home, but in a separate building. Accessory buildings shall not be used for dwelling purposes, and then the facility under the statute cannot be used as a residence. Mr. French said they do not feel the application should have been approved. Alison Bell: distributed a memorandum which includes the state registration for Ms. Brown’s Daycare. Mr. Coppock made it clear that the Board does not appreciate being handed such a volume of material the night of the hearing and the Board would not consider the submission as it would not have had time to read it. Ms. Bell stated the registered family child care home is operating inside the residence, inside the home since it was approved in 3-04. The permit in question was a permit for minimal renovations to an existing detached garage, installing french doors, replacing a couple windows for the purpose of allowing the garage to be used as a play room for the children when the weather does not allow them to play outside. There is no intention to move the entire family child care operation into the garage, stated Ms. Bell, it could not happen as the garage is not a dwelling unit.
Ms. Bell read the new state statute which she feels has changed only in the terminology used. There is also a zoning regulation stating a child care facility for 6 or fewer children is a permitted use. Ms. Bell said that, by law, child care facilities have to provide outdoor space and cannot be confined solely to a residence. Mr. French stated they have no problem with the care facility, which is approved and licensed, operating in the residence; it’s the spilling over into the garage in a separate facility that is the problem. Mr. French said it is their understanding they may have an employee helping to operate the facility and that could have adverse consequences in term of parking and noise. Day cares are allowed in the residence, but not in accessory buildings. Mr. French asked the Board to allow the day care to remain in the residence, but not in the garage. Mr. Coppock asked Mr. French what he saw as the distinction between the old state statute and the new and said it was his understanding that the Town bylaw mirrors the old statute.

Mr. Jones asked Mr. French if it was his interpretation that a residence can occur only within four walls? Mr. French answered yes. In order for this to be approved, it has to be where the person lives. Mr. Izzo asked if Mr. French is saying the children have to stay in the house all the time? Mr. Aumand asked Mr. French if it was his contention that a residence does not include any garages or out buildings, or is it your contention that a dwelling unit does not include any garages or outbuildings? Mr. French said under the Zoning definition, the outbuildings can have specific uses but cannot be a part of the dwelling. Mr. Aumand stated the bylaw makes a specific distinction between a dwelling and residence and read each. Ms. Jary asked what the impact is with children playing outside. Mr. Marshand, an adjacent property owner said there are dumpsters, cars up and down the road, kids going in and out; I see the neighborhood going south. He was not notified as to the day care taking place and felt he should have been. Mr. Coppock responded saying the Day care was granted approval in 3-04. There is no requirement that adjacent property owners be individually notified regarding a permitted use. The subject of this appeal is the use of the former garage as an adjunct to a previously approved permitted Daycare center. tape 3 side 1  Discussion continued. Mr. Coppock said the issue is that the day care is taking place to some extent in the residence and to some extent in the garage. Mr. Aumand felt our definition of residence could include the accessory building. Mr. Jones stated he was uncomfortable in limiting the idea of residence to only within the four walls. Felt it includes a primary dwelling unit and all ancillary buildings on the property. Mr. Fench stated the statute sets up a very limited exception and is not intended to override the zoning bylaws.  Paul Smith, who lives two doors down from the Boykins stated the pole barn is in the front yard; garage looks like a commercial building and found it to be distressing.  Mr. Coppock responded saying the bylaws do not seek to control or regulate residential accessory structures, only their use. He said permitted uses do not require approval of the Board and the Town cannot deny a Daycare of 6 children or less. He felt there is a distinction between a residence and a dwelling unit. The state has gone out of its way to protect Daycare facilities by mandating it as a permitted use in any zone.

Mr. Aumand moved to DENY the appeal with Ms, Jary seconding the motion. Ms. Jary, Mr. Izzo, Aumand, Coppock and Jones voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Walton not present. Chairman Coppock will draft the Findings in re: BA 2-188.03  

There being no further discussion or business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 P.M.

The next meeting will be held JANUARY 10, 2006.

Respectfully submitted,

Barbara S. Allaire