DRAFT MINUTES
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
October 9, 2024
DRAFT MINUTES
M. Gamage called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Matthew Gamage, Chair; Bert Severin; Evan Fitzgerald; Kathy Cawley; Angela MacDonald;
ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Cathyann LaRose, Director of Planning & Zoning; Zachary Maia, Development Manager;
PUBLIC PRESENT (from Sign-in Sheet and presentations): Matt Daly; Bill Bissonette; Michael Alvanos; Doug Goulette; Matthew Zambarano; Peter Mazurak; Doug Bishop; Jim Carroll; Paul Simon; Shane McCormack; Kevin Racek; Maddox Chamberlain
B. Severin administered the oath to all wishing to address the Development Review Board.
M. Gamage asked if there were any ex-parte communications or conflicts of interest to be shared. There were none. There were no changes to the agenda.
a) SP-24-34 PBGC LLC: (Continued from June 26, 2024 and August 14, 2024) Site Plan Application to amend previous site plan approvals. Amendment is to relocate three (3) previously approved safety fences to be installed on top of previously approved retaining walls. Combined height of wall and fence will vary between 8.5 ft and 14 ft and is subject to Site Plan Review per §2.10-B(3) of the Colchester Development Regulations. No additional site modifications are proposed under this application. Subject property is located at 161 East Lakeshore Drive, Account #66-005003-0030000. (staff)
The following individuals were present on behalf of the application:
· Matt Daly, Esq. (consultant on behalf of property owner);
· Michael Alvanos, JRMA design studio (consultant on behalf of property owner);
The presentation included, but was not limited to, the following:
· M. Daly acknowledged that the fence is closer to the lake than previously approved by the DRB and was installed without permission. He explained that the decision was made during construction. He shared that the designers felt that this was necessary for safety reasons as the area atop the seawall that would be left behind the fence would be “dangerous” to tenants and could potentially be an “attractive nuisance.”
Z. Maia, staff, recapped the history of the application has having been opened in June as a modification of a previous approval which dictated the fence must be closer to the structure and intentionally reduce usable area. The hearing was continued so that revised plans could be submitted; no new plans have been submitted, a site visit was conducted. Z. Maia reiterated that new usable area was created as a result of the as built conditions.
M. Daly acknowledged that new usable area was created and contended that it was not meant as disrespect to the Board’s decision.
A. MacDonald asked why the property owner didn’t seek permission first. M. Daly apologized that they did not.
The Board reviewed the approved plans and railing detail. Z. Maia shared that the total increase in usable space is approximately 375 square feet. The Board initially denied the application and did not approve it until the new usable space was reduced. Now, it is increased to at least the extent of what was denied.
B. Severin asked if the applicant brought additional plans to show that the space isn’t being used. M. Daly conceded that they did not submit a new plan but asked for a condition of approval or an agreement to remove space elsewhere.
The Board discussed next steps with the applicant. The applicant asked for an opportunity to return with a revised plan.
With no further comments from the Board or Staff, the hearing was open for public comment. There were no comments or questions from the public.
A motion was made by K. Cawley and seconded by A. MacDonald to continue the hearing on Site Plan Application SP-24-34 to the November 13, 2024 meeting of the Development Review Board. The motion passed with a vote of 5 – 0.
b) SP-25-08 CRONULLA DEVELOPMENTS LLC & FREEDOM RAINS, LLC: Site Plan Application in conjunction with Conditional Use Application CU-25-02 to amend a previously approved Site Plan and Conditional Use approval. Amendment is to convert 5,000 sf to Large Day Care Facility (Use 7.800) for a total square footage of 12,700 sf of Large Day Care Facility on the subject property. Enrollment to increase from 90 to 120 children and 12 to 15 staff. No site modifications or building improvements are proposed as part of this application. Subject property is located in the Business District. Subject property is located at 566 Hercules Drive, Account #01-020323-0000000. (staff)
c) CU-25-02 CRONULLA DEVELOPMENTS LLC & FREEDOM RAINS, LLC: Conditional Use Application in conjunction with Site Plan Application SP-25-08 to amend a previously approved Site Plan and Conditional Use approval. Amendment is to convert 5,000 sf to Large Day Care Facility (Use 7.800) for a total square footage of 12,700 sf of Large Day Care Facility on the subject property. Enrollment to increase from 90 to 120 children and 12 to 15 staff. No site modifications or building improvements are proposed as part of this application. Subject property is located in the Business (BD) District. Subject property is located at 566 Hercules Drive, Account #01-020323-0000000. (staff)
The following individuals were present on behalf of the application:
· Peter Mazurak, PE, Apex Engineering (consultant on behalf of property owner);
Z. Maia introduced the application and shared that it was in front of the Board because it was a conditional use review. Z. Maia shared that all of the relevant materials were submitted and most of the standards were met. Z. Maia highlighted three (3) discussion points which would be discussed, including wastewater permitting, traffic generation, and landscaping.
The presentation included, but was not limited to, the following:
· P. Mazurak addressed traffic and wastewater standards, finding that their research shows that they are within the standards. P. Engineer stated that with no exterior changes, no additional landscaping should be needed.
The Board discussed whether additional landscaping should be needed for the costs associated with the internal renovations.
With no further comments from the Board or Staff, the hearing was open for public comment. There were no comments or questions from the public.
A motion was made by A. MacDonald and seconded by B. Severin to close the hearing on Site Plan Application SP-25-08 and Conditional Use Application CU-25-02. The motion passed with a vote of 5– 0.
d) FP-24-15: SEVERANCE FAMILY HOLDINGS, LLC & MPM HOLDINGS, LLC: (Continued from September 11, 2024) Final Plat application for a major Planned Unit Development to subdivide a 63.4-acre parcel into 37 lots to be comprised of mixed uses including ±531 dwelling units in multi-unit dwellings, senior housing, and condominium dwellings, with commercial uses such as an office, grocery store, short-order restaurant, hotel and/or childcare facilities. Proposed subdivision is to be served by new, privately-owned water, sewer, stormwater, and road infrastructure. Subject property is located at 0 Roosevelt Highway, Account #08-038023-0000000. (staff)
The following individuals were present on behalf of the application:
· Paul Simon, MPM Holdings LLC (applicant);
· Matthew Zambarano, MPM Holdings LLC (applicant);
· Doug Goulette, PE, Trudell Consulting Engineers (consultant on behalf of applicant);
· Shane McCormack, Esq., Paul Frank + Collins (consultant on behalf of applicant);
· Kevin Racek, Centerline Architects (consultant on behalf of applicant);
Z. Maia introduced the plan by summarizing general updates since the last meeting:
· Since the prior meeting, the applicant has twice revised the plan set to address the numerous technical revisions requested by Staff and DPW.
· The applicant has obtained a waiver of the public infrastructure requirements from the Director of Public Works.
· The applicant has revised the plans to address the first-floor commercial use requirements along B Streets by modifying uses and the length of B/C streets.
The presentation included, but was not limited to, the following:
· D. Goulette started by addressing the technical item updates, including location of pump station and sidewalks, crosswalks, and some ‘housekeeping’ items related to outdated notes on the plans. He explained that these items were detailed in his two cover-letter submittals.
· P. Simon provided an overview of use updates in the PUD, particularly change of street type locations (slightly increasing the length of C streets within the allowed amount) and changes of use on certain lots, most notably the hotel on Lot 8, which came at the cost of losing a certain number of housing units.
Z. Maia provided additional updates on the submittal since the previous meeting:
· The declaration language discussed at a previous meeting was updated and exclusive residential use language appeared to have been removed.
· The parking lot setbacks are an issue that can be addressed at site plan review for each lot.
· The landscaping plans have been revised to correctly number and identify proposed street trees.
· Road signage and similar road-engineering items were addressed by the applicant and reviewed by DPW.
Z. Maia noted that understood that the applicants were interested in discussing two topics with the Board: 1) the timing of development of commercial uses on the ground-floor of B Streets, and 2) phasing.
Regarding commercial use timing along B streets, Z. Maia explained that no more than 50% of building frontage along a B street within a development may be residential multi-unit dwellings in use on the first floor. At the previous hearing, the applicant was proposing uses that appeared to be accessory uses to multi-unit dwellings, and has since revised the plans to change the uses to be standalone commercial uses. Z. Maia noted that Staff has recommended that the Board consider a condition to track compliance at certain intervals to ensure that the commercial space is built in a timely manner. Staff has requested that the applicant track progress towards this requirement with every site plan application, and the Board review for compliance with the submission of the 4th and 7th buildings (out of 9) fronting along B streets.
The applicant and their consultants expressed hesitancy with this approach. P. Simon explained the importance of addressing the housing crisis and the need for housing projects like this one. The applicants questioned if the Board had the authority to include such a condition in their decision and tried to unpack the implications on development of such a condition. M. Gamage asked C. LaRose if the Planning Commission had any guidance on the intent of this section of the Regulations, and C. LaRose noted that while the Planning Commission is looking at Form-Based Code standards, they are not considering any changes to this section as they have identified commercial space as a priority for the district.
The applicant shifted the conversation to the topic of phasing. M. Zambarano asked Z. Maia to address the language in the staff notes related to critical infrastructure. Z. Maia explained the lengthy discussions that occurred with the preliminary plat application, where input was sought from the Department of Public Works, Champlain Water District, and Fire Department regarding what infrastructure had to be complete in order to ensure safety for residents living in an active construction zone. He cautioned the Board on re-opening topic as the matter was generally settled and allowed the developer to seek occupancy of certain structures without full-buildout of the infrastructure, while retaining thresholds to require full-buildout of the infrastructure when certain lots were developed. M. Zambarano and P. Simon noted their request to keep the roads gravel so as not to tear up pavement, but C. LaRose noted that the critical infrastructure threshold was proposed to give the developer flexibility while ensuring that underground infrastructure was protected and that the traveling public could navigate the roads safely.
With no further comments from the Board or Staff, the hearing was open for public comment. There were no comments or questions from the public.
M. Gamage asked if Staff or the applicant had any further comments. Z. Maia reminded the Board and the applicant of the conditions that came with the waiver of the public infrastructure requirements. P. Simon noted his disagreement with a few but noted that they would comply with the conditions.
A motion was made by A. MacDonald and seconded by B. Severin to close the hearing on Final Plat Application FP-24-15. The motion passed with a vote of 5 – 0.
A motion was made by K. Cawley and seconded by B. Severin to approve the minutes of the September 11, 2024 meeting. The motion passed with a vote of 5 – 0.
A motion was made by K. Cawley and seconded by E. Fitzgerald to elect M. Gamage as Chair, B. Severin as Vice-Chair, and A. MacDonald as Secretary until the next organizational meeting in October of 2025. The motion passed with a vote of 5 – 0.
Z. Maia noted that a prospective youth member, Maddox Chamberlain, was in attendance. The Board welcomed him.
The next meeting of the Colchester Development Review Board will be November 13, 2024.
There being no further business to be brought before the Board, a motion was made by A. MacDonald and seconded by B. Severin to adjourn the meeting. All members of the Board voted in favor of the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathyann LaRose, Director of Planning & Zoning and Zachary Maia, Development Manager
Approved via motion of the Colchester Development Review Board on _______________.
DRAFT MINUTES