Town of Bolton
3045 Theodore Roosevelt Highway
Bolton VT 05676
802-434-5075
Development Review Board members present: Jerry Chabot, Alternate, Sharon Murray, Chair, Mike Rainville, Ken Richardson, Vice Chair, Susan Vita
Development Review Board members absent: Margot Pender
Clerk: Amy Grover
Also present: Robert Fries, Agent, MODC, LLC, applicant, Joe Vita
1. Conditional Use Application – MODC, Robert Fries, Agent
2. Deliberative Session
3. Minutes – June 29, 2005
4. Any other business or communications
5. Adjournment
Call to Order
The hearing was called to order at 7:12 p.m., by Sharon Murray, Chair.
Agenda Item #1 – Conditional Use Application – MODC, LLC, Robert Fries, Agent
Sharon Murray noted that this was a reconvened recessed public hearing from June 29, 2005, and read the public hearing notice. This public hearing was convened to consider the request of Mountain Operations and Development, LLC, Robert Fries, agent, seeking Conditional Use approval under Section 2.3 Alpine Ski Facility, and Section 5.4 Conditional Use Review of the Bolton Land Use and Development Regulations. Request approval to replace the existing “Vista Chairlift”, terminus preparations, new terrain, lighting for night skiing, snowmaking installation, and the addition of two new trails, located at “Upper Spillway,” “Cobrass,” and “Sherman’s Pass,” at Bolton Valley Resort. Tax Map #7, Block 30044250, 4302 Bolton Valley Access Road, Bolton VT.
Sharon Murray noted that a quorum of the DRB was present, 5 members, and that since the June 29, 2005 hearing:
· A letter requesting additional information from Bob Fries had been circulated via email to the DRB for approval, and sent to Bob on June 30, 2005.
· She had contacted Everett Marshall; Biologist/Information Manager for the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Dept. for his comments, which were received July 1, 2005.
· There had been one ex parte communication from Ken Richardson, an email to the DRB on June 30, 2005, which had been copied to Bob Fries.
· A letter from the Bolton Select Board to the DRB had been received that evening, expressing the Select Board’s concern regarding parking issues at Bolton Valley, and for the DRB to take that issue into account when considering the application.
Sharon Murray asked Bob Fries to provide the DRB with the requested additional information. Bob distributed packets to the DRB and stated that he was surprised to get a letter with a request for such extensive information after the recess of the hearing, as he believed that the DRB was only looking for information on three issues. Sharon replied that the issues were related. Bob stated that he was providing:
· A location map showing the project area in relation to other Bolton Valley facilities.
· A site map showing the zoning districts, and the streams and wetlands, which were shown previously on June 29, 2005.
· Statements of compliance for each of the three zoning districts, and size of buildings. Bob questioned why the building size was needed. Sharon responded that there was a maximum square footage allowance in the Forest District, and the DRB needed to see that this project would be in compliance with that footage.
· Copies of MC-2, and MC-3, by the SE Group, correctly labeled as Bolton Valley and not Stowe Mountain Resort, showing volumetrics and cut and fill areas.
· Lift specifications – existing and proposed. Existing is a double chairlift, capacity of 1000 persons/hour. Proposed is a Doppelmayr quad with capacity of 1500 persons/hour, 15 towers between 35’ and 45’ needed to maintain 13’ from the top of snow to the chair footrest in ski under areas, with terminals of 10’ x 12’, similar to existing terminals.
· Outdoor lighting specifications. Lights will be 500 watt, metal halide, pulse start fixtures on approximately 30’ poles. Fixtures will be shielded as necessary. The actual fixture has not yet been chosen, so no cut sheet available for the DRB.
· Information on community facilities.
· Parking information. No increase in parking is proposed by this application.
· Snowmaking information. No additional water will be withdrawn from Joiner Brook.
· A State Discharge Permit.
· A mitigation map approved by the ANR detailing the Bicknell’s Thrush conservation easement. Bob noted that the legal work on the mitigation plan was not complete, and he had provided a 5-month email record between Claire Humber (SE Group) and Everett Marshall, which had resulted in the mitigation plan.
Bob Fries stated that the ACT 250 hearing had been held June 30, 2005 and had taken half an hour. He stated that the town process was more burdensome than the ACT 250 process and redundant as well, adding that the town was a statutory party to ACT 250 and much of the information was already on file with the town. Bob stated that he had spent a lot of time with the ad hoc zoning committee as the regulations were being written and that group had talked about these issues and how the town did not want the process to be burdensome. Bob added that it would be ironic for the DRB to deny his permit when the town had applied for and received a 650K grant from the State of Vermont on Bolton Valley’s behalf to partially fund the project. Bob expressed that in the future he wanted to work together with the town to alleviate the burdensome process in order to take full advantage of the short construction season in Vermont. Sharon noted that the Planning Commission was responsible for amendments to the regulations, and that if Bob wanted to see a change in the process, to contact the Commission.
Questions and Comments
Sharon Murray thanked Bob for supplying the requested information to the DRB, asked Bob if he wanted to respond to letter to the DRB from the Select Board regarding the parking issue. Amy Grover noted that the letter had been left for the DRB to pick up that evening, which is why it had not been sent to Bob earlier. Bob stated that he was surprised by the letter from the Select Board, as there was only one day that Bolton Valley had lost control of the parking (vehicles parked along the Access Road), and noted that he was away on that day. He added that he had met with the Select Board, and had taken several steps to ensure that there wasn’t a parking problem again by:
· Increased signage.
· Parking attendants policing the lots and road.
· Mandated employee parking on weekends at the Sugar Shack with a shuttle.
· Moving of the condominium woodpile to the maintenance area, opening up 30 employee parking spots at the Mountain Operations building.
· Plowing of the volleyball court for overflow parking.
· Future use of the three lower tennis courts for easy access to the Nordic center for cross-country skier parking.
Bob stated that once all of these things were accomplished, there were no vehicles parking on the road, adding that there were only 3 or 4 days that parking was a real issue. Bob added that there had been mention of him meeting with the Road Foreman, but that had never happened.
Mike Rainville asked how parking was calculated. Bob replied that it was part of the ACT 250 process, adding that there were 900 spaces, 160 of which were permitted but not built at Timberline. Bob stated that the permit for the 160 spaces may be expired and would need to be refreshed, and added that by reconfiguring the main mountain parking lots using current parking standards there would be 20% more parking space. Bob added that parking would be reconfigured at some point, but at this time there was neither the time nor the funding to do that. Mike asked how there could not be more people anticipated/parking issues with a larger capacity lift. Bob replied that other than the 3 or 4 days when parking was an issue, there would be space, but added that when parking was full, it was full.
Jerry Chabot asked why the quad lift design capacity was only 1500 persons/hour, and not double the capacity of the 1000 persons/hour of the existing double chair. Bob stated that the chairs were not strung as densely on the quad, and that to add more chairs, a larger motor would be required.
Jerry Chabot asked what the net increase in the overall lift capacity of the ski area would be. Bob replied that it would be a net increase of 10%. Jerry Chabot stated that for the record, a 10% increase in overall lift capacity was not an issue for him.
Jerry Chabot asked if there was a mechanism by which the DRB should have access to/review of the ACT 250 permit, adding that he had not seen that permit application. Jerry stated that he could see there was a duplication of information, but that there were two separate permit processes be reviewed, one under the State, one under the town. Sharon Murray stated that the DRB could ask for the ACT 250 application as part of the town process, but that the DRB needed to make findings and issue a decision under Bolton’s regulations. Sharon noted that the premise in writing the regulations was that not all Forest/Conservation District applicants would be required to go through the ACT 250 process, and that the information that was needed for an ACT 250 process could easily be supplied to the town. Susan Vita stated that the DRB needed to be educated on the ACT 250 process, and that as a volunteer layperson, it was a daunting issue. Sharon noted that the DRB reviews an application under the town’s regulations, not the State’s regulations.
Bob Fries asked why the town would even have an interest in the Bicknell Thrush habitat but then not bear and deer habitat, reiterating that he had worked with ANR for 5 months on the issue. Bob stated that on an issue like that it would seem appropriate for the town to simply say if it is okay with the state of Vermont, it is okay with the town. Jerry Chabot stated that that was understood by the DRB, but that on June 29, 2005, there was nothing written from the State regarding the wildlife habitat issues that could be filed, but now there were written comments from Everett Marshall. Sharon noted that it was not reflected in Everett’s email, but critical bear and deer habitat had been reviewed, and was not in the proposed project area on the Bolton resource map. Sharon added that the zoning regulations allow for the DRB to consult with ANR. Bob stated that it appeared that the DRB was picking issues. Jerry stated that the issues had been addressed, that with regard to the wildlife habitat the DRB wanted to see something in writing, which now there was. Sharon added that the information that had been asked for from Bob was directly tied to the criteria for the DRB to make findings and issue a decision.
Mike Rainville stated that there was no need for anyone in the group that evening to become adversarial. Mike added that that the DRB was a volunteer group, and he did not appreciate being scolded (referencing earlier discussion/emails). Mike noted that the DRB was not trying to stop Bob’s application, and added that for the first time the DRB had a member, Sharon, who thoroughly understood the regulations and what the DRB needed to request for a complete application, which would serve the DRB well. Mike added that when he first was appointed to the DRB, a decision had gone to environmental court because both the DRB and an applicant had not had a good understanding of the process, and that the town had lost. Mike stated that although it might appear that the DRB was making a “mountain out of a molehill”, as a DRB member he had no desire for that process to be repeated (going to environmental court).
Sharon Murray asked Bob if he had any other responses to the letter from the Select Board, or email from Everett Marshall. Bob replied no.
Sharon Murray asked if there was any other questions or other information that the DRB wanted to request. There was none. Sharon asked Bob if he had any other questions or comments. Bob replied no.
Sharon Murray asked the Board if anyone wanted to make a motion to close the hearing. Ken Richardson made the motion to close the hearing. Susan Vita seconded the motion. All were in favor, 5 ayes, motion carried. Sharon stated that the DRB had 45 days to issue the findings and decision to Bob, which was appealable to the environmental court. Sharon added that the DRB would try to expedite that process, and act on the findings and decision at the July 20, 2005 meeting.
Sharon Murray asked the Board if anyone wanted to make a motion to enter a deliberative session to discuss the findings and decision. Mike Rainville made the motion to enter deliberative session. Jerry Chabot seconded the motion. All were in favor, 5 ayes, motion carried. The DRB entered deliberative session.
Sharon Murray made the motion to close deliberative session at 8:40 p.m. Mike Rainville seconded the motion. All were in favor, 5 ayes, motion carried.
Agenda Item #2 –Minutes June 29, 2005
Sharon Murray made the motion to approve the minutes of June 29, 2005 as amended. Mike Rainville seconded the motion. All were in favor, motion carried.
Agenda Item #5 - Other business or communications
Amy Grover noted the next meeting of the DRB was the hearing for the Bergeron Variance application on July 20, 2005, 7 p.m. at the Town Office.
Agenda Item #6 – Adjournment
Sharon Murray made the motion to adjourn the hearing at 8:45 p.m. Ken Richardson seconded the motion. All were in favor, 5 ayes, hearing adjourned.
Amy Grover
Clerk, Development Review Board
These minutes are unofficial until accepted.
These minutes were read and accepted by the Development Review Board on
________________________ , 2005
_____________________________
Sharon Murray, Chair