Development Review Board Drew Clymer, Chair Francis

1Town of StoweDevelopment Review Board2Development Review BoardDrew Clymer, ChairFrancis Aumand, Vice ChairChristopher WaltonAndrew VolanskyLeigh WassermanThomas HandPeter RobertsMeeting Minutes – March 2, 20213456A regular meeting of the Stowe Development Review Board was held on Tuesday, March 2, 2021starting at approximately 5:00 pm. The meeting was held remotely using the “Zoom” application.Attendees participated in the meeting remotely by joining the meeting online.78Members Present: Board Chair Drew Clymer, Vice Chair Francis “Paco” Aumand, Thomas Hand,Andrew Volansky, Chris Walton, Peter Roberts, Leigh Wasserman.9Staff Present: Sarah McShane- Zoning Director, Mikayla Geraci- DRB 23334353637383940414243444546Others Present: Tyler Mumley, David and Donna Evans, Taylor and Ryan Bennett, MichaelLawrence, Bari Dreissigacker, Reid Krakower, Howard Levine, John Grenier, Dave Latchrupp, StevenMcLafferty; Brian Levey; Brendan O’Reilly.The meeting was called to order at 5:00 by Chair Drew Clymer.Approval of the AgendaDevelopment Review Public HearingProject #: 6285 (Cont. from 7/21; 8/4; 8/18; 11/7; 1/5)Owner: David G & Donna K EvansTax Parcel #: 08-044.090Location: 0 Bryan RdProject: Subdivision Amendment- Reconfigure & Relocate Previously Approved Clearing LimitsZoning: RR5Chair Drew Clymer opened the continued hearing and swore in those planning on participating.Tyler Mumley [Engineer]; the Evans’ [Applicants]; and adjoining property owners were sworn in at5:02.David Evans began and provided an opening statement and recap of prior meeting. He reported thathe did not know they needed a clearing amendment when they cleared for the driveway. He addedthat the project is too big a financial risk without having the proper permitting and apologized.Chair Drew Clymer provided a hearing process and stated that the applicant will have an opportunityto present; then the interested parties will have a chance to speak and ask questions. Chair DrewClymer stated that the Board was provided a letter from Dreissigacker’s and other abutters prior tomeeting and asked if the Board had opportunity to review. Some members noted not having finishedthe last information that trickled in.Tyler Mumley provided an overview of the updated site plan and began the presentation. Hereported that Mumley Engineering prepared the site plan; they hired a land surveyor to survey thelot; and landscape architecture to prepare the landscaping plans. He reported that the goal is topresent a landscaping plan to prove it is adequate to mitigate over clearing and that the propertyowners have planted over 85 trees since last year. Tyler Mumley asked that DRB keep in mind thesubdivision was already approved and not considered an undue adverse impact. He admitted that

e over clearing was an undue adverse impact and although it was wrong, the mitigation landscapeplan will make the property into something better. Mr. Mumley continued with his presentation andnoted clearing changes that have been made in this subdivision on different lots. He reported thatbased on his research in the Stowe zoning office it revealed there are no specific approvals for overclearing; he stated that there are permits on record for other projects but none for clearing. He addedthat there was an after the fact permit for lot 8 driveway in an area that was not to be cleared.Tom Hand asked for clarity and noted that in the legend the labels are mislabeled. Tyler Mumleyresponded that the light gray is over cleared, and dark gray is under cleared and the areas shown onthe site plan are correct.Mike Lawrence, landscape architect was sworn in. Mr. Lawrence provide a presentation on theproposed landscaping including details on how trees planted together will grow together to form alarge plantation. He discussed different vantage points including the open view along Bryan Roadand enhanced images with what trees will look like in 6-8 years.Paco Aumand inquired about all of the exposed rock and asked if that is because the driveway wasput in. Tyler Mumley responded the rock in upper left-hand picture is the edge of the driveway; itwas rock from onsite used to build and put the driveway in place. Paco Aumand noted that significantamount of excavation took place to carve out driveway and expose ledge. Tyler Mumley reportedthat a lot of visible rock was on site already; it was moved to cut and balance the driveway with theroad. David Evans added that most of the property is exposed ledge and some of the visible rocks arefrom a rock hammer, but most are rocks from onsite that were piled up. Paco Aumand responded inorder to have the house of where it is, there had to be a lot of rock removal and a lot of ledge carvedout in order to put the driveway in; Mr. Aumand questioned whether the proposed mitigation effortsare taking the amount of clearing to put the house site up there into consideration. David Evansadded that they rock hammered to make the driveway work but also used natural ledge. Thedriveway is cut into the hillside but its typical of the area. Tyler Mumley asked Mr. Aumand to clarifyhis comments. Paco Aumand responded that in order to demonstrate that the development doesn’thave an undue impact is to show the landscape is not being significantly altered. From myobservation, it was significantly altered. Tyler Mumley admitted that he considers the over clearingitself being undue adverse impact but asked if the driveway creates an undue impact. He added thereare driveways in and around Stowe that go up a hill similar to this; the impact of this driveway is notgoing to be adverse and certainly not undue.Paco Aumand pointed out that it appears that where the house is proposed, there is not a lot of foliageregrowth- he asked if the applicant retaining open space below the house for a view or is it just theway the drawing is shown. Tyler Mumley responded that they are proposing maple trees directly inthe view and birch trees; the ground slopes down so the trees will grow up and screen while alsoaffording some views. Paco Aumand also noted concerns that tree planting chart shows 132 treesbeing replaced: but that is a combination of new growth and new plantings. He reported that thepresentation is a little unclear as to how many new trees are being planted versus how many existingnew growth trees are part of the mitigation plan. Mike Lawrence asked staff to scroll back tomitigation overview, noting that this is the most accurate count with a number of trees that have beenplanted and what are proposed. Tyler Mumley added in the regrowth area, there are four existingpaper birches, so I am not sure the charts take into account existing trees. Mike Lawrence discussedViewpoint #3 and added that it presents another look at elevation line of driveway. He noted thattrees there are healthy.

r Mumley discussed the house site from offsite and reported it can be seen from Trapps andDewey Hill Road area. He added that their focus was on view from Dewey Hill and Bryan Road asthey are closer vantage points. He discussed pictures taken from different locations and noted thatthe proposed house site would be very well blocked from hollow area.Tyler Mumley provided a closing summary and noted that the Evan’s are sorry for what they’ve done;they have planted a lot of trees; spent a lot of time on this project to mitigate and create a proposedlandscaping plan in order to visible re-create a wooded hillside with a net reduction in the clearedarea.Tom Hand asked why the proposed house was not shown on the 3D future plans and reported whatwas once a mixed hardwood forest is now proposed to be a predominantly evergreen forest.Leigh Wasserman asked if the applicant hypothetically were to build the house at the originallyproposed site, would there be a landscape plan component with the house. Zoning AdministratorSarah McShane responded that this property is not within the RHOD so a single-family dwellingwould not require further review by the DRB.Peter Roberts asked what the elevation difference is between proposed and original house locationand how confident the Applicant is that the new trees are not prone to be blown over. MichaelLawrence responded that the trees are proposed to be planted in pockets with a considerable amountof soil. Chair Drew Clymer asked how the trees are expected to grow unless there is re-soiling theproposed rock. David Evans responded they will use an excavator and dig a well and fill it with soil.Andrew Volansky asked if there were any intentions to blast for the new home site. David Evansresponded that there was no blasting with on this job. He added they have not designed the houseyet and if there is a little piece of ledge, they will probably have to chop it up.Chair Drew Clymer asked if there will there is any additional clearing needed for the house site. DavidEvans responded no.Chair Drew Clymer inquired about the septic for the house. David Evans responded that it is on lot5, the neighbors’ lot across the private driveway. Chair Drew Clymer asked if septic lines wouldimpact any of the proposed plantings.Chair Drew Clymer noted concerns with the submission and the number of trees proposed. He notedthat there are three categories; proposed trees; trees that have been planted; and trees that arenaturally growing. Tyler Mumley responded Sheet C1 contains a plant list with two tables: proposed,and existing and include common names and quantities. Paco Aumand noted a discrepancy between109 shown on one plan and that is presented on Sheet C1. Tyler Mumley responded that he believesSheet C1 is accurate of existing regrowth, existing planted, and proposed trees on the site.Andrew Volansky further inquired about the septic pipes and how the mitigation plans would beimpacted by connecting septic to offsite leach field. Tyler Mumley responded given the elevationdifference it could run with gravity and it would take excavation, but the driveway is the most logicalplace to dig and place septic lines.David Evans asked a question of Tom Hand and reported the area is borderline of all evergreen andmixed deciduous. He noted if the Board looks at the far away view, there are large pockets ofevergreen right in front and it is not uncommon to have evergreens.