Town of Bolton
3045 Theodore Roosevelt Highway
Bolton VT 05676
802-434-5075
Development Review Board members present: Jerry Chabot, Alternate, Sharon Murray, Chair, Margot Pender, Mike Rainville (7 p.m.), Ken Richardson, Vice Chair, Susan Vita
Development Review Board members absent: None
Clerk: Amy Grover
Also present: Robert Fries, Agent, MODC, LLC, applicant
1. Conditional Use Application – MODC, Robert Fries, Agent
2. Minutes – June 15, 2205
3. Any other business or communications
4. Adjournment
Call to Order
The hearing was called to order at 6:20 p.m., by Sharon Murray, Chair.
Agenda Item #1 – Conditional Use Application – MODC, LLC, Robert Fries, Agent
Sharon Murray 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.
· There was no conflict of interest, or ex parte communication of the members present.
· Adjoining/abutting landowners had been notified by mail (addresses provided by MODC) of the conditional use application by MODC, the public hearing date and time, and information regarding “interested person” status. Sharon reviewed the definition of interested person status.
· The DRB had received a packet from MODC which included a one page application form, construction specifications, erosion control specifications, and two sheets: sheet #1 labeled “MC – 1,” and sheet #2 labeled “EPSC – 1.”
Sharon Murray noted that Conditional Use Review and criteria to make findings on was Section 5.4 of The Bolton Land Use and Development Regulations.
Sharon Murray administered the oath to Robert Fries.
Sharon Murray asked Robert (Bob) Fries to review his application for the DRB. Bob Fries stated that:
· This project would eliminate the “Vista” chairlift and replace it with a fixed grip quad, bottom to top chairlift.
· The alignment of the lift would result in a different area for the top terminus (to the left of the current top terminus), which would access new terrain.
· There would be two new trails from the top, one groomed with snowmaking and night skiing lights, one glades only.
· That some of the current poles for night skiing lights would need to be moved and replaced (circa 1970). The new lights would be hooded, facing uphill, and less obtrusive than the current lights, resulting in less light pollution than currently seen.
· Not all of the night skiing lights would be replaced, only the ones affected by the project.
· The “Fire Tower” would be located straight ahead from the new top terminus, approximately 100 feet. Renovations to the fire tower, trail work, and landscaping would create a summer destination from the lift.
· He had been working with ANR for months on the project.
· There are two streams and a wetland area between the two trails. The trails are designed to stay away from the streams. In the wetland area there would be no bulldozing and trees cut at ground level. Bob noted that the State was satisfied with that plan.
· The area was Bicknell’s Thrush habitat. ANR regulations prohibit construction during the Bicknell’s Thrush’s nesting period of May 15 – August 1. Bob declared that the State would allow construction to begin on July 15.
· In the area of “Lower 200” there would be earthwork done to try to address the flat section between the two current lifts. The trail would cut the corner adjacent to the current bottom of the Vista chairlift, bridge over the stream, run onto an old workroad, and then onto Deer and Bear Runs. Bob stated that there were wetlands in that area that would not be disturbed. Bob added that he felt this would provide for more use of the trails on the lower mountain.
· There would be blasting in the current “Chill Zone” to create a flatter area at the lift bottom for loading, and the material would be re-distributed uphill on that slope. Bob noted that this would help to eliminate current uphill walks from the base lodge.
· Two tree islands along the “Snowflake Chairlift” would be removed for relocation of the half pipe.
· As the project now would probably not be completed until Christmas, the “Vista” chairlift would remain at the beginning of the ski season. A 7 – 10 day window would be needed to remove the cable and chairs from the old lift, and install the new cable and chairs, a loss of one weekend of skiing.
· A pre-bid meeting was already scheduled with contractors.
· An effort would be made to incentivize the lift company to complete installation by Thanksgiving with a deposit going to the company the first of next week (July 3, 2005).
· There were no issues remaining.
· A stormwater permit was the only permit needed, and the thirty-day comment period was open until July 11, 2005.
· The ACT 250 hearing was tomorrow (June 30, 2005). Bob stated that he was assuming he would receive approval then, and that he could start the project at his own risk, or wait for the 30-day appeal period. Bob added that since there was no other interested party at the DRB hearing other than himself, no one would have appeal rights resulting from the Town process.
· That the proposed lift is in the middle of an existing ski area, and falls under the Town’s zoning intent.
Questions and Comments
Sharon Murray asked Bob if there was any documentation of allowance by the State for construction to begin on July 15, the nesting period of the Bicknell’s Thrush. Bob stated no, that it had been determined through several emails, noting that it was included in the ACT 250 application. Bob added that there would be 1.91 acres of Bicknell’s Thrush habitat removed, with 6 acres of habitat placed under a conservation easement, a 3 to 1 mitigation.
Sharon Murray asked if the volumetrics in the “Chill Zone” area were correct. Bob replied that they were “pretty close,” noting that they had changed a couple of times.
Susan Vita asked about the anticipated impact on Joiner Brook, noting that was stated in the ANR public notice of application received from MODC “The project would affect Joiner Brook.” Bob stated that there was no anticipated impact on Joiner Brook as the erosion control plan would deal with sediment, and that the allowed amount of water withdrawal from Joiner Brook for snowmaking would not be changing with this project. Bob affirmed that above 2500’ is Class a watershed.
Sharon Murray asked if there had been anything from ANR regarding wetlands. Bob replied no.
Margot Pender asked if skiers would still be able to access the top of “Sherman’s Pass.” Bob replied yes, skiers would travel down a small slope near the current ski patrol building to access that trail and the others (Cobrass, Preacher) to skier’s left of the current lift.
Sharon Murray stated that it looked as if the project extended into both the Forest and Conservation Districts from the Resort Village District, for a total of 3 districts, adding that the application only reflected the Resort Village District. Sharon added that under those three districts ski lifts were allowed as conditional use as part of a PUD, that the districts should be marked on the site plan, and that the project needed to be reviewed under each of these 3 districts. Sharon noted that site plan review standards were applicable, and reviewed the general standards for conditional use, Section 5.4,C., of the bylaws which are:
· The capacity of existing or planned community services or facilities.
· The character of the area affected.
· Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.
· Bylaws in effect.
· The utilization of renewable energy resources
Sharon Murray asked if the project would increase the overall capacity at the mountain. Bob replied no. Sharon asked if there would be additional traffic. Bob replied no, that capacity was currently limited by parking. Sharon asked if there would be parking and/or road improvements. Bob replied no, but that there was an old permit for adding additional parking. Sharon asked what the capacity of the proposed lift was versus the current lift was. Bob replied that it was 1500 skiers/hour, vs. 1000 skiers/hour. Bob stated that the proposed lift would have the same design speed as the old lift of 450 feet/minute. Sharon asked what the chair capacity was. Bob replied it was a quad chair, seating up to 4 people. Susan Vita asked if there was a market for the old lift. Bob replied there was a company that would come salvage parts of the lift, that he expected to keep the chairs to sell separately, and that the towers would be removed later, anticipated in 2006. Ken Richardson jokingly added what a great zip line the old lift would make.
Sharon Murray asked what would power the proposed lift. Bob replied that it would be electric with 2 back up diesel engines; the first with 80% capacity, and the second an evacuation engine.
Sharon Murray asked if the project affected any SPAs (Source Protection Areas). Bob replied no.
Sharon Murray asked if the project affected any critical wildlife habitat. Bob replied no, none other than the nesting period of the Bicknell’s Thrush, that the ANR stated that bear and deer habitat was not an issue.
Ken Richardson asked if the financing for the project was completed. Bob replied no, but that completion was close, progress had been made that day.
Sharon Murray asked if there would be any landscaping or screening other than the cut and fill area in the “Chill Zone.” Bob replied no.
Margot Pender asked how skier traffic would be routed near the base lodge. Bob replied that the entrance to the lift would be flat, lift access would be on both sides, and that there was sufficient room for skiers to access the “Snowflake Lift.” Bob noted that plans for a 4’ retaining type wall around the base lodge had been scrapped, that eventually he would like to lower the bottom of the “Mid-Mountain” chairlift, and redesign the beginner area with a magic carpet lift. Susan Vita asked if there were any concerns about flooding around the base area. Bob replied no.
Sharon Murray noted that technically there should be alighting plan, and asked if all of the night skiing lights were being replaced. Bob replied no, only the lights in conflict with the new lift would be replaced. Sharon asked if there was a cut sheet on the new lights. Bob replied that he would provide one. Margot Pender asked what type of fixtures and how high the lights would be. Bob referenced his ACT 250 application and stated that the poles would be 30’ high, that the lights were 500 watt, hooded, facing away, not directed upward.
Margot Pender asked if there would be a trail under the proposed lift. Bob replied no, the lift would be as low as possible with very little “ski under,” only at trail crossings.
Margot asked if there would be a new restaurant area. Bob stated that he would like to use a portion of the current ski patrol building as a chowder house.
Mike Rainville asked if the half pipe would be dug in. Bob replied no.
Sharon Murray asked if the proposed new trails would be utilized for the off road driving school. Bob replied no.
Sharon Murray asked if there were any other questions or if any member of the DRB was interested in a site visit. Bob added that there was a site visit scheduled at 8 a.m. the following day for the ACT 250 hearing. No DRB members were interested in a site visit.
Margot Pender asked what the slope percent of the new trails would be. Bob replied that they would be intermediate trails.
Sharon Murray asked if only selective cutting would be done. Bob replied yes.
Sharon Murray asked if any area would e posted off limits for skiing, i.e. wetlands. Bob replied no, that ANR did not see that as an issue, that skiers had been accessing that area for years previously even without the new lift, and that if the area was not frozen people didn’t ski it.
Ken Richardson asked what kind of cost the process incurred. Bob replied that cost was not really an issue, as a degree of planning had to be done anyway, but if this had been a project at Stratton Mountain with special interests groups and experts needed, the cost would have been 200 – 500K.
Sharon Murray noted that the DRB was required to draft findings and a decision. Sharon added that Bob needed to provide a statement of compliance with respect to each of the three zoning districts the project encompassed. Bob replied that he thought that was what the hearing process was for. Sharon stated that the statement of compliance was part of the application, and that technically the application was not complete, referencing several deficits of Section 5.2, Table 5.1 Development Review Application Materials. Sharon made a motion to recess the hearing until the next regular meeting of July 20, 2005, to allow Bob time to supply the DRB with the needed information.
Ken Richardson asked what more any DRB member seated at the table needed to know. Sharon Murray noted that the DRB needed to know that the project met the Town’s regulations. Ken stated that the DRB were not ski mountain engineers and that not allowing Mr. Fries to move forward with a project on his land, with his money, was crap.
Sharon acknowledged Ken’s opinion that mountains were being made out of molehills, and stated that Mr. Fries still needed to meet the regulations for the Town of Bolton, that the DRB was appointed and at the table to represent the Town, the Town’s interests, and the documents that had been adopted, and to ensure that the regulations were being met.
Mike Rainville asked Bob what recessing the hearing until 7/20/05 did to his construction plans. Bob stated that if he could not do anything until then, it would be a problem. Sharon Murray noted that the application had not received ACT 250 approval. Bob stated that he expected approval within a week of the hearing (6/30/05), and that there had already been five walk throughs. Sharon noted that the state had 30 days to approve the application, followed by a 30-day appeal period.
Sharon Murray stated that the DRB did not have a complete application, and that here was nothing being asked for that had not been done for the ACT 250 application. Sharon added that documentation from the State was needed, and that she would be happy to contact the appropriate person for the needed information. In addition, the DRB would provide Bob with a letter and the very specific information that the DRB needed, so that the reconvened hearing would be very focused. Ken Richardson stated that this is why businesses are leaving the state of Vermont, because of the foolishness going on at the hearing that night.
Sharon Murray stated that there was a motion on the floor to recess the hearing until July 20, 2005. Susan Vita stated that she moved to approve the project dependent on information received from the State of Vermont. Sharon noted that the DRB could not approve that motion without the specific information. Jerry Chabot reiterated that the application was not complete, and the DRB needed the complete application information. Sharon reminded the DRB of the motion on the floor. There was no second to recess the hearing until the next regular meeting of July 20, 2005.
Ken Richardson made the motion to approve the application based on the decision of the ACT 250 hearing June 30, 2005, and for Bob to move forward with the project provided that he provides the requested information, within the same timeframe allowed by ACT 250. Sharon Murray stated that the DRB could not legally do that. Bob reiterated that his ACT 250 application allowed for construction to begin July 15, 2005. Jerry Chabot noted that Bob was under oath and asked if for the record, the Sate of VT told Bob that his construction could begin July 15, 2005. Sharon Murray asked Bob if he wanted to submit his ACT 250 application as part of his testimony. Bob replied yes, that he had been working with the ANR for 4 months on the application. Sharon asked if a proposed findings draft was already circulating. Bob replied no, but that Peter Kiebel was working on it. Sharon noted that the needed information should be readily available, as ANR submits separate findings, and that a letter from the appropriate State entity would be sufficient. Bob stated that he had previously had extreme difficulty in getting letters from the state, with regard to the off road driving school, adding that he could not make someone write a letter, and asked the DRB to make a list that he personally could respond to.
Mike Rainville made the motion to draft a letter to Bob with the concerns of the DRB and specific information needed to complete the application by MODC, and to reconvene the recessed hearing Wednesday, July 6, 2005, 7 p.m. at the Town Office, with a deliberative session immediately following. Ken Richardson seconded the motion. All were in favor, motion carried.
Sharon Murray noted that the DRB would need to draft the Findings and Decision under all three involved zoning districts, and that she would draft the letter for Bob and email it out for approval tomorrow (June 30, 2005) by the DRB before sending it on to Bob.
Agenda Item #2 –Minutes June 15, 2005
Sharon Murray made the motion to approve the minutes of June 15, 2005. Susan Vita seconded the motion. All were in favor, motion carried.
Ken Richardson made the motion to approve the minutes of April 20, 2005. Sharon Murray seconded the motion. All were in favor, motion carried.
Agenda Item #5 - Other business or communications
Amy Grover dispersed the packets of information provided by Clayton and Judith Bergeron for the July 20, 2005 public hearing. There was no discussion of the application. Amy noted the packets were only dispersed at the meeting to save the costs of postage.
Amy Grover dispersed the Rules of Procedure draft; with the changes from the June 15, 2005 discussion incorporated and asked the Board to continue with their review.
Sharon Murray read a draft letter to Larry Stevens, landowner, and Matt Moore, GMC, applicant, regarding their sketch plan review of June 15, 2005. Mike Rainville made the motion to approve the letter for distribution to the two parties. Susan Vita seconded the motion. Five ayes, and one nay, motion carried.
Amy Grover noted that to answer a question brought up previously, Deb Lariviere stated that 501c3 groups and the State of Vermont do not pay any percentage of property taxes, and that sometimes portions of payments are lost depending on when the property is purchased. Ken Richardson noted that other towns ask for in-kind donations to make up for lost taxes. The DRB discussed how a lot line vs. lot merger would affect the tax rates.
Agenda Item #6 – Adjournment
Mike Rainville made the motion to recess the hearing at 8:20 p.m. until Wednesday, July 6, 2005. Sharon Murray seconded the motion. All were in favor, hearing recessed.
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