DRAFT MINUTES
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
December 10, 2025
DRAFT MINUTES
K. Cawley called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m and reviewed the Board’s Rules of Procedure.
PRESENT: Kathy Cawley, Chair; Evan Fitzgerald, Vice-Chair; Chris Gendron; Angela MacDonald; Zafir Bludevich, Alternate
ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Zachary Maia, Development Manager; Cathyann LaRose, Planning and Zoning Director
PUBLIC PRESENT (from Sign-in Sheet and presentations): Brian Terhune, Oren Guttman, Richard Hamlin, Owen Harter, Bradley Auclair, Janine Paradee, Tobi Van Orden, Joe Aja, Mark Harvie, Emery Roy, Scott Baker, Nick Smith, John Villere, Colin Harvie, Tristan Harvie, Gabriel Stadecker, Matt Mullen
A. MacDonald administered the oath to all wishing to address the Development Review Board.
There were no ex-parte communications or conflicts of interest were shared by Board Members. There were no adjustments to the agenda.
Site Plan Application for a site work and stormwater project at a State Public Garage (Use 11.420) in the General Development Two (GD2) and Historic Preservation Overlay Districts (HPD). Proposed project includes 1) removal and replacement of deteriorated asphalt and compacted gravel between two buildings, 2) installation of new asphalt pavement and upgraded drainage infrastructure. Total increase in impervious surface to be 273 square feet. No change of use is proposed. Subject property is located at 424 Hegeman Avenue, Account #20-002000-0000000. (staff)
The following individuals were present on behalf of the application:
· Brian Terhune, State of Vermont Department of Building & General Services (property owner & applicant)
· Joe Aja, State of Vermont Department of Building & General Services; (property owner & applicant)
· Owen Harter, McFarland-Johnson (consultant);
Z. Maia introduced the application by sharing that it would ordinarily be an administrative site plan application but because it is a conditional use application it would need to be reviewed by the Development Review Board. Z. Maia shared staff comments related to state stormwater permitting and erosion control plan and noted that there were no other concerns raised on the staff comments.
The applicant walked through the Staff Notes and provided the following information:
· The applicant reviewed their belief of what could be addressed under state statute (24 V.S.A. § 4413) and what they believed what would be exempted.
The Board reviewed the application with the applicant and Staff:
· There was discussion related to the requirement of an erosion prevention sediment control plan. The applicant maintained that one cannot be required as part of this permitting process but that they would provide one separately.
With no further comments from the Board or Staff, the hearing was opened for public comment. There were no comments or questions from the public.
Z. Maia asked the applicant to confirm that there would be no new or additional parking areas, which was confirmed by the applicant team. Z. Maia provided information on the EPSC permitting requirement and asked the Board to ensure they have sufficient information prior to closing the hearing.
A motion was made by A. MacDonald and seconded by Z. Bludevich to close the hearing on Site Plan Application SP-26-14. The motion passed with a vote of 5 – 0.
Conditional Use application for an increase in the degree of encroachment in the Shoreland District pursuant to §7.03-D(1). Proposed increase in degree of encroachment to measure 63 square feet and accommodate conversion of an existing unfinished porch to finished space. No other scope of work requested for review at this time. Subject property is located at 50 Bluff Road, Account #30-002002-0190000. (staff)
The following individuals were present on behalf of the application:
· Michael Mullen (consultant on behalf of property owner & applicant)
Z. Maia introduced the application, noting that the proposed project is located within the Shoreland Overlay District. The overall footprint of the structure is not proposed to change, but a portion of the porch will be converted to finished space. The proposed increase appears to be within the 10% allowed through conditional use. No additional information was requested by Staff. Z. Maia corrected the Staff Notes by noting that HVL Vermont, LLC will be listed as a landowner, and the applicant has obtained their approval.
The applicant walked through the Staff Notes and provided the following information:
· The applicant confirmed that the proposal is for a kitchen expansion within the footprint of part of the existing porch.
· The applicant noted that the building is seasonal in use and not a year-round dwelling.
The Board reviewed the application with the applicant and Staff:
· There were no comments or questions from the Board.
With no further comments from the Board or Staff, the hearing was opened for public comment. There were no comments or questions from the public.
A motion was made by A. MacDonald and seconded by C. Gendron to close the hearing on Conditional Use Application CU-26-06. The motion passed with a vote of 5 – 0.
Conditional Use application for an increase in the degree of encroachment in the Shoreland District pursuant to §7.03-D(1). Proposed increase in degree of encroachment to measure 125 sf and accommodate a new three-season porch and a new entry porch. No other scope of work requested for review at this time. Subject property is located at 249 Goodsell Point, Account #70-015003-0000000. (staff)
The following individuals were present on behalf of the application:
· Tobi Van Orden (property owner & applicant);
· Gabriel Stadecker (consultant);
Z. Maia introduced the application by explaining that the applicant was requesting an increase in encroachment under 10%. Information has been provided for the existing and proposed structures and encroachments. Z. Maia shared that the encroachment is within that which allowed, by just under 4 feet. Z. Maia previewed that an Erosion Prevention Sediment Control Plan (EPSC) would be reviewed at the time of permitting for the entire re-build.
The applicant walked through the Staff Notes and provided the following information:
· T. Van Orden shared that they wished to enjoy the outdoor spaces more often and that they have an EPSC plan already.
· G. Stadecker explained the larger project that is undergoing permitting, and noted that the increase in degree of encroachment is only one part.
The Board reviewed the application with the applicant and Staff:
· The Board discussed existing and proposed structures.
With no further comments from the Board or Staff, the hearing was opened for public comment. There were no comments or questions from the public.
A motion was made by A. MacDonald and seconded by E. Fitzgerald to close the hearing on Conditional Use Application CU-26-07. The motion passed with a vote of 5 – 0.
Sketch Plan Application to amend a Final Plat Approval for a Major Planned Unit Development in the General Development Three (GD3) District. Proposed amendment is to 1) add the Wright & Morrisey lot to the Sunderland Farms Community PUD; and 2) Construct six 12-unit multi-unit dwellings on Lots 11, 12, 13, 25, 26, and 27. Proposed project includes the extension of infrastructure to serve the new dwelling units. Subject property is located at 242 Severance Road and 0 Roosevelt Hwy, Account #04-030013-0000000, and #04-032003-0000000. (staff)
The following individuals were present on behalf of the application:
· Nick Smith, PE (Sunderland Farms Community LLC)
Z. Maia introduced the application by sharing that the application is for sketch review and as such that no decision would be issued at this time. Z. Maia shared that the application brings new land via another parcel into the existing PUD, and proposes new development on that parcel. Z. Maia walked through some of the more substantial staff notes, including natural resources, water resources, landscaping requirements and credits, streets (particularly that the proposed private streets would require an approved waiver request), erosion control phasing, and recreation phasing requests. Z. Maia emphasized that the Board may wish to discuss the request to delay the recreation amenities.
The applicant walked through the Staff Notes and provided the following information:
· N. Smith concurred that there was significant amount of information provided for a sketch plan. Smith contended that the extension of the road has always been shown and the idea of development on the Wright and Morrissey parcel has always been intended, even if not permitted.
· N. Smith acknowledged that most of the parcel is not developable given the resources on the property, and those resources would be placed into conservation. N. Smith has previewed that there may be some requests for landscaping credits related to the conservation areas. The applicant agreed to provide a numerical value for the request.
· N. Smith noted that the proposal includes an increase in building and housing density, acknowledging the area as a growth center.
· N. Smith and Z. Maia discussed the lot size modifications which were or might be requested. N. Smith acknowledged that some lots would not meet frontage requirements and so lot sizes and shapes were oddly created to accommodate this standard.
· N. Smith addressed the staff comments related to bay widths and parking and committed to working with staff to ensure that the requirements and the intent of the regulations are met.
· N. Smith addressed the request to delay the recreational amenity of the playground. They shared that there is an intent to start it but that it would not be complete by June 2026 as required. N. Smith shared that they have been busy doing other projects. N. Smith also shared that there are no amenities planned for the new buildings other than connecting to the existing trailheads and amenities.
The Board reviewed the application with the applicant and Staff:
· K. Cawley asked the applicant to address the plans for commercial building space as there has not been any constructed. N. Smith stated that the Shea Drive extension is a C street which does not require commercial allocation. N. Smith shared that they are trying to increase residential density to support future commercial uses.
· K. Cawley asked about whether any units would be affordable. N. Smith indicated that none are programmed to be.
· C. Gendron asked if the new area was treated for stormwater with existing infrastructure. N. Smith indicated new infrastructure would be required.
· Z. Maia pointed to the regulations under chapter 9 that requires that structured amenities be provided for buildings with more than 50 units. 72 are being proposed as part of this application. N. Smith stated that they could bring this back to the development team for discussion, with potential for two of the undeveloped lots.
· Z. Maia also asked about the amount of surface parking and whether underground parking was considered. N. Smith shared that underground parking was not feasible for costs and engineering reasons.
With no further comments from the Board or Staff, the hearing was opened for public comment. There were no comments or questions from the public.
K. Cawley thanked the applicant for their presentation.
Sketch Plan Application for a minor two lot subdivision in the Residential One (R1) and Shoreland Overlay Districts (SD). Existing 2.36 acre lot to be subdivided into 1) Lot 1 to be ±1.18 acres in size and 2) Lot 2 to be §1.18 acres in size. No improvements are proposed on either lot at this time. Subject property is located at 27 Crooked Creek Road, Account #70-034003-0000000. (staff)
The following individuals were present on behalf of the application:
· Martin Krag (property owner & applicant);
· Amanda Reilly (property owner & applicant);
· Janine Paradee (property owner & applicant);
· Scott Baker, Barnard & Gervais (consultant);
Z. Maia introduced the application as a sketch plan to split an existing lot owned by two property owners. No development is proposed as part of this application. Z. Maia highlighted the regulation related to “deemed merged” lots, which the applicant may wish to address as part of the meeting this evening. Z. Maia also previewed staff note highlights related to deed language, PUD buffer, and lot access.
The applicant walked through the Staff Notes and provided the following information:
· S. Baker shared that the lot in question was jointly purchased several decades ago such that it wouldn’t be purchased and developed by a third party. The property owners now wish to separate their interests.
· S. Baker shared that J. Paradee is interested in merging her newly created lot with her existing lot as required under the Regulations.
· S. Baker examined the proposed lots to determine if either were viable building lots. S. Baker found that the proposed Lot 1 does have approximately 0.25 acres in a viable building envelope.
The Board reviewed the application with the applicant and Staff:
· K. Cawley asked if there are any plans to remove trees. The applicant confirmed that none are proposed to be removed.
· K. Cawley asked about wetlands. S. Baker stated that it was too late in the season to have a wetlands expert on site. None were shown on the ANR atlas.
· K. Cawley asked about the existing curb cut on Lot 2. M. Krag explained that the curb cut is a parking/storage area and no changes are proposed.
· Z. Maia reminded the applicant that a PUD buffer does need to be shown at the next step.
With no further comments from the Board or Staff, the hearing was opened for public comment. There were no comments or questions from the public.
K. Cawley thanked the applicant for their presentation.
Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Site Plan Applications for a major Planned Unit Development to convert a building from a dormitory/office use to a 12-unit Multi-Unit Dwelling (Use 1.310) in the General Development Two (GD2) and Historic Preservation (HPD) Districts. Proposed project includes renovations to the existing building and site modifications to support the proposed use. No new buildings are proposed at this time. Subject property is located at 224 Ethan Allen Avenue, Account #20-004011-0000000. (staff)
The following individuals were present on behalf of the application:
· Mark Harvie (property owner & applicant);
· Richard Hamlin, PE, Donald L. Hamlin Consulting Engineers (consultant);
Z. Maia introduced the application as the next step after a sketch plan that was reviewed in October. The applicant requested a combined preliminary and final plat hearing. Many of the items that were flagged at the sketch review were addressed as part of this application but there are some items which remain flagged. Z. Maia highlighted parking space counts, ADA-accessible parking spaces, water supply and sewage disposal, EPSC requirements, and the PUD buffer.
The applicant walked through the Staff Notes and provided the following information:
· R. Hamlin addressed the parking space requirement noted in the staff comments. R. Hamlin shared that the historic parking on the gravel areas will be removed and parking will only be on paved areas. They pointed to additional hardscape areas which are planned to be removed and returned to grass. 26 spaces are proposed with 2 ADA spaces. R. Hamlin also shared that the property faces occasional overflow parking pressures from the music facility across the street. They urged the Board to utilize their authority to grant discretion in excess parking.
· R. Hamlin addressed sewer and water regulations by explaining the previous allocations issued by the Town of Essex for the dormitory use. He stated that the proposed use will generate less water and sewer impact.
· R. Hamlin addressed landscaping requirements and requested credits as well as proposed recreational areas. He clarified that the value of the existing landscaping is $8,750.00.
The Board reviewed the application with the applicant and Staff:
· There was discussion about the closure of the curb cuts. R. Hamlin shared the requests from the Town’s TRC meeting, noting that the one curb-cut will be closed.
· Z. Bludevich sought to confirm if the previous use was a dormitory, which R. Hamlin confirmed.
· E. Fitzgerald asked the applicant to address the request for a 0 ft PUD Buffer, and R. Hamlin addressed the request by reviewing photos of the site in the context of the Fort development pattern.
· Z. Maia asked for clarity related to the historic preservation of the building and confirmed that there were no building modifications. R. Hamlin confirmed that the only external building modifications were related to the ADA ramp and the previous loading ramp for weather purposes. There are new doors which will serve accessibility needs. There are no changes to the windows.
· Z. Maia asked for confirmation that the landscaping budget included the patio. The applicant so confirmed and stated that it would be about $20,000 in cost.
With no further comments from the Board or Staff, the hearing was opened for public comment. There were no comments or questions from the public.
A motion was made by A. MacDonald and seconded by E. Fitzgerald to close the hearing on Preliminary Plat Application PP-26-10, Final Plat Application FP-26-11, and Site Plan Application SP-26-16. The motion passed with a vote of 5 – 0.
A motion was made by E. Fitzgerald and seconded by C. Gendron to approve the minutes of the November 12, 2025 meeting. The motion passed with a vote of 5 – 0.
The next meeting of the Colchester Development Review Board will be January 7, 2026.
There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:11 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