Town of Bolton
3045 Theodore Roosevelt Highway
Meeting called to order at 6:00 p.m.
Planning Commission members present: Linda Baker, Jim Bralich (6:45 p.m.), Rodney Pingree
Planning Commission members absent: Chris Haggerty, Steve Barner
MPG Advisory Committee members present: Jen Andrews, Joss Besse (6:35 p.m.), Rob Heimbuch, Gerry Mullen, Margot Pender, Dick Ward
MPG Advisory Committee members absent: None
Also present: Susan Vita (DRB member), and @ 7:30 p.m: Bob Fries (Bolton Valley), Larry Williams and Doug Nedde (Redstone), Mark Cane and Chris Dunn (SE Group)
1. Article V Development Review
2. Article III PRD and PUD
3. Minutes January 12, 2004, February 9, 2004, and March 8, 2004
4. Other communications/mail
5. Any other business
6. Presentation Redstone/BV master plan, 7:30 – 8:30 p.m.
The committee reviewed and discussed Article V Development Review (that handout is on file at the Town Clerk’s Office with these minutes), and discussion included:
· Page 1, Section 5.2 (A) Application Requirements. Increase from 1 to 2 original copies submitted, keep @ five copies for the DRB, reduced in size to 11” x 17”.
· Page 1, Section 5.2 (B) Application Requirements. Independent technical analysis chosen/approved by the Town.
· Page 5.2. Application Materials, yes, photos of site.
· Page 5.2 #13 Hydraulic analysis required under FEMA.
· Page 5.3 Site Plan Review. Look specifically at how site is laid out and developed. Application complete? To be determined by the DRB, not the ZA. Timing of decisions changed from 60 days to 45 days.
· Page 5.4 (3) Vehicular Access. Check on language for including Fire Chief. (a.) Double check on standards for driveways in Article III.
· Page 5.5 (5) Site Circulation. Keep in sidewalk plan for future use.
· Page 5.5 (6) Landscaping and Screening. (c.) Change “should” to “generally shall.” Amount of landscaping budget determined by percent of project cost?
· Page 5.6 Section 5.4 Conditional Use Review. More statutory information, interpretive language provided. (b) Review process – changing from 60 to 45 days.
· Page 5.7 (1) Reword final sentence.
· Page 5.8 (2) Zoning Districts & Use Standards. “…required for a specific use;” some uses may require larger lot size.
· Page 5.8 Section 5.5 Flood Hazard Review, all federally mandated.
· Page 5.9 (9) Only applies to existing structures, optional, less restrictive than FEMA.
Agenda Item #2 – Article 8 PRD and PUD
The committee reviewed and discussed Article 8 (that handout is on file at the Town Clerk’s office with these minutes), and discussion included:
· Page 8.1 Section 8.1 Purpose. Leave as is until 117 Bill is resolved.
· Page 8.1 Section 8.2 Applicability. (A) Delete 5 acres, allow creative development on smaller village lots. (D) Encourages co-coordinated development.
· Page 8.2 Section 8.3 Application Requirements. Designed to work concurrently with Subdivision Review, and deals mostly with density issues.
· Page 8.3 (4) More information requested by DRB on how this works in practice, ensure that the Town isn’t left liable.
· Noted, Town Plan is in need of updating.
· Page 8.4 Density Calculations. Delete (5) (1). Consider (5) (2), with more specific language, how to administer criteria to make decision.
Agenda Item #3– Minutes January 12, 2004, February 9, 2004, and March 8, 2004
Jim Bralich made a motion to accept the minutes of January 12, 2004, February 9, 2004, and March 8, 2004. Rodney Pingree seconded the motion. All were in favor.
The PC reviewed a letter from the Town of Waterbury noting the comment period for proposed zoning amendments.
The committee reviewed the grant timeframe. The State requires that there be a completed project and all approved grant money spent by May 14, 2004.
Linda Baker noted that she would be leaving the country 6/13/04.
The next scheduled meeting of the MPG Advisory Committee will be Tuesday, May 4, 2004, 6 – 8:00 p.m. at Smilie School.
Agenda Item #6 – Redstone/BV Presentation
Bob Fries gave an overview on the history and then potential for growth, in partnership with Redstone, that he envisions at Bolton Valley.
Chris Dunn and Mark Cane of the SE Group presented “Redstone/Bolton Valley Re-Zoning Presentation.” (A copy of the written portion of that presentation handout is on file with these minutes at the Town Clerk’s Office.)
Mark Cane’s portion of the presentation included the following aspects:
· Utilization of landform and site analysis, slope and aspect to identify potential for development, and using the natural system.
· Noting that the 1989 zoning map is not a good land planning model.
· A strong “gateway experience”, pristine arrival with no commercial development along the access road.
· Propose a smaller VII district with higher density, and additional vertical density.
· The creation of three districts, a VII, a RRI and a RRII.
· VII remains the resort village district core, smaller than the 2/04 proposed draft, with permitted, not conditional, uses. 171.1 acres with .25 acre zoning. Buildout of 684 units.
· The RRI district as additional support to the core with residential development along the alpine ski area, the “alpine experience district.” One acre zoning of 274.6 acres with commercial opportunities. Buildout of 275 units. “Sensitive hillside development,” with slope side housing.
· The RRII district is residential development to the west of Joiner Brook, which would celebrate the outdoor experience. This district would use a network of trails, slopes, and benches to adapt housing to the land. Two acre zoning of 389 acres. Buildout of 195 units. The western boundary is 1500 feet from the “Broadway” centerline, which would become the second means of egress from the resort (road), clearly an opportunity in terms of access and connectivity.
· Comparison of buildout (units) of 3963.6 acres total (for a more complete accounting, including the breakdown of acreage and density within each district, see SE Group’s handout on file at the Town Clerk’s Office):
1. 1989 zoning = 3,672 units
2. 2004 proposed zoning = 524 units
3. SE Group’s proposed zoning = 1,279 units.
· Comparison of buildout revealed that SE group’s proposed plan’s density is three times less than the 1989 zoning, and a bit more than two times what is currently proposed.
Chris Dunn stated that they “were happy to be invited, but we should be here with the amount of land that Bolton Valley and Redstone owns.” He added that he wanted the discussion to be fostered, to move from this point to the next level.
Rodney Pingree stated that he liked the proposed zones, but that density was the issue.
Larry Williams stated that there were currently 220 residential units, not counting the hotel, and that he envisioned the first thing to be developed would be additional hotel units, followed by condominiums in the core, then single family/seasonal development.
Linda Baker noted that there were huge concerns – school space and taxes, noting that previously Bolton Valley had aimed at second homes, not primary residences. Larry Williams noted that those points had been identified as the biggest issues. Bob Fries stated that constraints to development included water and sewer, topography and natural constraints, absorption rate, ACT 250, and that he envisioned gradual development, with room for more alpine lifts and trails.
Larry Williams stated that he was in discussion regarding selling 1,000 acres with two home sites to a Land Trust, and that 1700 acres would have conservation easements.
Linda Baker noted that another concern was the topography of the access road itself, increased traffic, and additional curb cuts. Larry Williams replied that he did not envision a lot of curb cuts, with the exception of “Broadway” intersecting with the access road.
Rodney Pingree noted concerns with flooding and flow as development occurred. Larry Williams stated that stormwater detention would be a piece of the plan.
Larry Williams stated that the issue of permitted versus conditional use was a big issue to them, and to their lenders. He added that uses that are a natural part of the ski area should be permitted uses.
Larry Williams asked the committee how they might be willing to proceed. The committee noted that it was late in the evening, and that had much material presented to them in a short time, and they needed additional time to review the material. It was noted that the committee would be back in touch with Mr. Williams on how to next proceed.
The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Clerk, Planning Commission
These minutes are unofficial until accepted.
__________________________ , 2004.
Linda Baker, Chair