DRAFT MINUTES
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
June 11, 2025
DRAFT MINUTES
M. Gamage called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m.
PRESENT: Matthew Gamage, Chair; Kathy Cawley, Vice-Chair; Angela MacDonald; Evan Fitzgerald
ABSENT: Chris Gendron
STAFF PRESENT: Zachary Maia, Development Manager; Cathyann LaRose, Director of Planning & Zoning
PUBLIC PRESENT (from Sign-in Sheet and presentations): Jean MacBride; Richard Hamlin; Faith Brown; Jacki Murphy; Rick Bartlett; John Frederick; Carol Anderson; Susan Louchheim; John Louchheim; Brigette Verdon; George Verdon; Trish Powsner; Barb Stafford; Myron Wheeler; Alice Wheeler; Doug Bishop; Susan Connors; Francis Connors; Sarita Austin; Carl Cloutier; Nancy Cloutier; Gabe Hammond; Jim Hammond; Judy Liner; Doug Booska; Marlene Booska; Jeff Spengler; Brian Costello; Tom Berry; Jeanette Berry; Marilyn Sowles; Pat Moore; Jon Moore; Jess Gasek; Jenn Conley; Ben Avery; Jeremy Owens; Scott Homsted; Julie Collins; Katie Backus; Kelly Becker; Roberta Pratt
A. MacDonald 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 modifications to the agenda.
Site Plan Application for a shoreline stabilization project. Proposed project includes placement of geotextile fabric on the existing eroded slope and placement of stone to prevent further erosion. Project area to be stabilized with erosion matting and reseeded. No change of use is proposed to the property at this time. Property and project area are located within the Shoreland Overlay District. Subject property is located at 71 Brown Ledge Road, Account #59-002002-0000000. (Staff)
The following individuals were present on behalf of the application:
· Richard Hamlin, PE, Donald L. Hamlin Consulting Engineers (consultant on behalf of property owner);
Z. Maia introduced the application as generally described per the agenda description. Z. Maia covered the most pertinent points within the staff notes, including vegetation removal and whether the project triggered landscaping requirements.
The presentation included, but was not limited to, the following:
· R. Hamlin stated that the camp was hopeful to stay ahead of erosion by undergoing minor repairs along the slope and waterfront. R. Hamlin stated that most work would take place at the top of the bank.
· R. Hamlin shared that the work is minor enough to not require a full Army Corps of Engineer permit.
· R. Hamlin addressed a staff note regarding erosion control by stating that the plan is the erosion control plan. Hamlin also stated that the applicant included the entire project cost as the landscape value rather than a site improvement value but would be open to discussing a different division of the cost.
M. Gamage asked the applicant to address any landscaping or plantings planned. R. Hamlin stated that there would be top-seeding but no trees or other plantings proposed. R. Hamlin stated that no trees would be removed.
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 K. Cawley to close the hearing on Site Plan Application SP-25-31. The motion passed with a vote of 4 – 0.
Preliminary Plat Application for a major Planned Unit Development to construct a 20-room Inn (Use 1.550) with associated Restaurant (Use 8.110) and Event Facility (6.150) uses. Existing Marina and recreational uses to remain. Proposed project includes the 1) dissolution of the boundary line between 166 and 180 West Lakeshore Drive, and 2) construction of 7 buildings served by pedestrian ways, modified circulation, municipal sewer and water, and off-site parking. Subject properties are located in the Lakeshore One and Shoreland Districts. Subject properties are located at 166 and 180 West Lakeshore Drive, Account #65-019002-0000000 and #65-020002-0000000. (Staff)
Site Plan Application to 1) construct a one-story, 1,536 square foot accessory maintenance building and 2) construct a 67-space parking lot. Proposed structures to support existing manufacturing facilities on the subject property and the proposed Inn, Restaurant, and Event Facility off-site. No change of use of the subject property is proposed. Subject property is located in the Lakeshore Two and Industrial Districts. Subject property is located at 135 West Lakeshore Drive, Account #06-023002-0000000. (Staff)
The following individuals were present on behalf of the application:
· Benjamin Avery, Greenfield Growth LLC (consultant on behalf of property owner);
· Scott Homsted, PE, Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers (consultant on behalf of property owner);
· Jeremy Owens, T.J. Boyle Associates (consultant on behalf of property owner);
· Jess Gasek, AIA, Scott + Partners, Inc. (consultant on behalf of property owner);
· Jennifer Conley, PE, PTOE, VHB (consultant on behalf of property owner);
Z. Maia introduced the application. Z. Maia shared that the applications are step 2 of a 3-step PUD process. Z. Maia highlighted that some abutting property owners may have received a second abutter’s notification which was necessitated because an additional building and other changes were made to the original application, necessitating a new formal warning of public hearing.
Z. Maia shared that updated plan sheets were received on the date of the hearing and as such the staff recommendation will be that the Board continue the hearing such that staff (including the Director of Public Works and the Fire Chief) would have time to review the plan sheets and provide comments. These review comments may require plan sheet changes, which should be completed before the opportunity to do so is closed.
The presentation included, but was not limited to, the following:
· B. Avery introduced the applicant team and explained that the team would address the items raised by Staff since the prior hearing.
· S. Homsted first addressed front yard coverage and shared that the proposed application is a reduction in front yard coverage over existing conditions, which the applicant team believes is vested as a non-conforming lot. Z. Maia shared that the property is located in the Lakeshore One district which provides for 10 years of vesting for non-conforming rights. The removal of the structure was less than 10 years prior.
· Z. Maia addressed the Board with respect to the definition of front yard and how to calculate coverage for such. All agreed to table the discussion for staff-applicant level discussion between public hearings.
· S. Homsted addressed the staff note related to the state wastewater permit; the applicant team is grandfathered into the flow for the site because they have an existing valid state wastewater permit.
· S. Homsted shared that the plans submitted today show an easement for a new 10 ft wide recreation path on the south side of the road per the Town’s request.
· S. Homsted addressed parking lot striping and quantity as highlighted in the staff notes. The applicants believe that they can get to the number required and are in agreement with the staff notes.
· J. Conley introduced herself as the traffic engineer for the project. J. Conley shared that they originally began the project using existing data, but at the direction of town staff revised the study to use new traffic counts, which adjusted volumes up. Anticipated trip generation was estimated using the industry-standard ITE manual. J. Conley stated that the applicant estimations were intentionally conservative.
· J. Conley also addressed staff requests to move the driveway access to the property, which was a concern from both the Fire and Public Works departments. J. Conley stated that those requests were accommodated, and those changes were made.
· Z. Maia brought the Board’s attention to specific comments from the written memo from the Director of Public Works and asked J. Conley if those were addressed. J. Conley believed all were though specific signage discussion may still be ongoing. The applicant intends to meet the signage requirements as determined by the Department of Public Works.
· MacDonald asked a clarifying question about circulation, which was then addressed by J. Conley.
· M. Gamage stated that even though the applicant appears to have addressed most of the comments, because plans and updated traffic study were submitted so recently that the Department of Public Works should have time to review the plans.
· K. Cawley asked about the existing on-site wastewater system and placement of the parking area on it. S. Homsted stated that the on-site system would be disconnected prior to construction as the buildings would connect to the public sewer system.
· M. Gamage asked what impact current conditions had on the new traffic study. J. Conley shared that the study was conducted was at a time when construction did not have a full closure of the roads and as there are so few alternate routes, patterns should be similar.
· M. Gamage asked about emergency access, which S. Homsted addressed by sharing information about turning radius movements and reviewing the AutoTURN model.
· J. Gasek provided information on the architectural changes to the buildings since the prior meeting. J. Gasek spoke about the Board’s previous encroachment concerns; cottages 1-4 did not change. The main building elevations were changed to include a new deck but do not further encroach. The buildings were moved around to reduce impact within the Shoreland District. New details were provided for the bathhouse.
· J. Gasek spoke to concerns about signage on the building, believing that those have been removed or “toned down” with more subtle color choices.
· MacDonald asked about the H’s on the building. J. Gasek said all text was removed but will likely be submitted as part of the signage application.
· Z. Maia asked the applicant about degree of encroachment related to cottage 5. J. Owens acknowledged that the table showing encroachments needs to be updated as cottage 5 currently shows as zero encroachment.
· Z. Maia asked about the status of cottage 5. J. Gasek stated that it is a standalone single rental unit.
· MacDonald asked how to ensure cottage 5 would not transition to a single-family dwelling. Z. Maia replied that a decision on the property would contain restrictions on use and any violations of that would be treated accordingly.
· J. Owens addressed the view corridor to the lake, stating that the buildings are now closer together than the original submittal, and that the gaps allow for more of a view than the original motel building. J. Owens shared that some invasive street trees would need to be removed, further increasing views of the lake.
· M. Gamage asked about the sewer connection timing as referenced in the DPW memo. B. Avery replied that the project will take time as it is an Act 250 project and that the timing will allow for construction after the municipal sewer is in place.
· M. Gamage asked about the recreation path changes. S. Homsted replied that an earlier formal scoping study found the preferred location to be on the south side of the road. The plans show a 10-foot easement.
· Z. Maia asked about whether the bathhouse was included in the applicant’s coverage of lot coverage. S. Homsted confirmed it was included.
· J. Gasek briefly addressed the design of the support building on the south side of the road which fronts the new planned parking area. A pedestrian door and windows were added on the street-facing façade, while overhead doors will provide access from the parking lot. Canopy lights are planned.
With no further comments from the Board or Staff, the hearing was open for public comment.
M. Gamage reminded the audience of the process for application review and decision making and that the Board would likely not be voting this evening. M. Gamage went over the protocol for speaking, emphasizing that speakers address the Board and not applicants. M. Gamage noted that the Board was in receipt of letters from Jeanne Welch (x3), Faith Brown, and Patrick Johnson.
The following members of the public provided public comment:
· Barb Stafford (East Lakeshore Drive) asked about the distribution of the unit count for the inn and the traffic study. J. Gasek stated that 20 units are rentals and 1 is a manager’s unit.
· Julie Collins (Commonwealth Drive) asked about the timing of the traffic study and expressed concerns about whether the glass would kill birds. J. Conley replied that counts were completed in April and adjusted up to the design standard. S. Homsted replied that the team did not specifically look at the building design for birds but that it may come up in the Act 250 process which does typically look at wildlife.
· John Fredericks (Shore Acres Drive) asked questions about the wastewater correlation between the previous motel and the new Inn, as well as who the parking serves. He commented on his view of the traffic issues in the area. S. Homsted replied that the wastewater permit is related not to the prior motel but a design planned for a restaurant on the property in 2017 that received a wastewater permit. The Town recognized existing wastewater permits within the Mallets Bay Sewer project. S. Homsted replied that the parking will serve guests and staff.
· Carl Cloutier (Church Road) asked about the traffic lane in front of the building and sought clarification that it is one-directional. The applicants addressed site-management operations.
· George Verdon (Timberlake Drive) asked about Cottage 5 and whether it was considered a VRBO. G. Verdon also asked about the driveway to the dock area and whether it is a “marina.” G. Verdon shared concerns about building heights in the area and asked about the proposed building heights. B. Avery replied that operationally Cottage 5 will be treated the same as all the other units but is a standalone space without shared walls. B. Avery stated that the moorings have always existed and that the use of the word marina is to align with the Regulations; parking in the area will be reduced. J. Gasek stated that the buildings are 2-story height at the driveway (roadway) side. Per the Regulations, heights are determined based on average pre-existing grade. A. MacDonald asked about whether the parking area near the docks will be used by boaters. B. Avery said that is primarily a drop off area.
· Tom Berry (Old Sawmill Road) suggested it was time to bring the ‘marina’ into compliance with the Development Regulations. T. Berry also asked about the regulatory standards related to the Shoreland regulations and encroachment. T. Berry thanked the applicant for setting aside the easement for the bicycle path. Z. Maia shared that there are site plan approvals for boat storage on the larger Hazelett property and that the marina use likely predates the regulations and has non-conforming rights. S. Homsted replied that the prior motel use has pre-existing encroachment rights within the Shoreland, allowed per the state and local regulations. J. Owens reviewed the numbers related to the encroachments. A new chart will be submitted. J. Owens replied that the new encroachments will be further from the lake the prior encroachment. Z. Maia discussed the application process related to requests to increase the degree of encroachment.
· Faith Brown (Al Shir Road) spoke about conformance with the town plan. F. Brown spoke about views, stormwater runoff, compliance with development regulations, and traffic safety. M. Gamage asked the applicant team to address views of the lake and whether they made modifications to address the views. J. Owens encouraged people to walk the site and shared that the views of the Lake presently exist near the driveway to the dock parking and in the place of the now-demolished motel. These views are clearest during winter due to the amount of deciduous trees. Most of the site is treed and obscured. J. Owens shared that that team was careful in all placement of buildings and landscaping to consider impacts on views. M. Gamage asked the applicant to address stormwater remediation on site. S. Homsted replied that a large pond on the north side would not enhance the aesthetics of the area, and instead the applicant is proposing to treat stormwater via a planted gravel wetland located near the parking area on the south side of the road. The stormwater infrastructure is intended to reduce the overall impervious surfaces and a state permit will be required.
· Marilyn Sowles (Porters Point Road) expressed appreciation to the applicant for hearing concerns from people at the prior meeting related to pedestrian connections. M. Sowles asked about whether the project needs a stormwater permit. M. Sowles asked about why the project is allowed to have a basement built into the hill and expressed concern about the ability to rebuild in areas where new construction might not be allowed. M. Sowles also asked about when in the process the state stormwater discharge permit would be required and recommended that the Board include a condition in any decision that the town doesn’t necessarily support issuance of one. M. Sowles also asked about the Shoreland overlay district and the difference between 100- and 250-foot distinctions. M. Sowles also asked about grandfathering on the lots and whether that allowance is lost when lots are combined. M. Sowles concluded by stating concerns about traffic flow in light of the proposed roundabout at the Bayside intersection. In response, M. Gamage asked Z. Maia to explain the relevant Regulations, and Z. Maia explained how the Shoreland Protection Act is delegated through the Shoreland District. He also clarified the calculation of height. S. Homsted provided information on the state stormwater permit, and how this treatment practice would coincide with other efforts under the 3-acre Rule. J. Conley explained that the installation of a roundabout would not change the overall traffic flow as studied.
· Brian Costello (Smith Road) asked about the signage for the pedestrian crossing at the road, if there were updates, and stated a belief that this is a critical part of the safety plan for the site. B. Costello also addressed potential impacts of the planned roundabout nearby. B. Costello also asked about plans for the marina and boat mooring area. B. Costello acknowledged that moorings are outside town jurisdiction but expressed that the town has the ability to manage and regulate related aspects including parking, showers and related traffic. B. Costello encouraged the Board to hear more about the property’s intentions related to these items. B. Costello also asked about the setback from the high-water mark/floodplain. J. Conley and B. Avery stated that they would be amenable to whatever traffic signage improvements are required by the Department of Public Works. B. Avery stated that there are no plans for usage of the moorings that are to be any different than today, primarily used by company employees. B. Avery said that the gravel path near the lake is above the floodplain elevation. B. Costello asked if there is a plan to allow people to use the restaurant by boat. B. Avery replied that there are no changes planned to the shoreline infrastructure.
· John Louchheim (Spauldings East Shore) asked questions about the 2019 town plan. J. Louchheim asked about the merger of the lots and expressed concerns that doing so would allow for more intense development of the parcels. Z. Maia addressed the flexibility allowed for creating and merging lots within PUD standards. J. Louchheim asked why the Board would approve of a merger of the lots.
· Katie Backus (Rudgate Road) thanked the applicants for changing the plans based on prior comments. K. Backus echoed comments about views and stormwater concerns. K. Backus shared that they found that moving the buildings closer together did not appear to improve the public views. K. Backus stated that their main concern is with traffic and that the plan doesn’t appear to account for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. K. Backus also questioned the methodology and date of the traffic study. J. Conley replied that the traffic studied followed the standard traffic methodology and adjusted for the seasonal peaks. B. Avery addressed the event space as not having been programmed.
· Gabe Hammond (Shore Acres Drive) asked about the retaining wall and the runoff into the lake. G. Hammond also asked about how the sewer use was calculated. J. Owens responded by clarifying that the slope would be re-graded to 2:1 at most, which would avoid the need to install retaining walls. S. Homsted explained how the design flow for the sewer was calculated.
· Jeff Spengler (Shore Acres Drive) shared his concern that the sum of all issues is too much to justify the project. J. Spengler shared concerns about views, stormwater, and town identity.
· Carol Anderson (Casey Lane) shared that many of their previous questions were answered. C. Anderson asked where the parking lot would be located, which was clarified by the applicant. C. Anderson shared concerns about character in the area and the scale and aesthetics of the project as well as traffic.
· B. Costello (Smith Road) spoke again to share concerns about the moorings and restaurant. M. Gamage asked the applicant to share more about the event space.
· M. Sowles (Porters Point Road) spoke again to ask about the lot mergers and the impact on development intensity.
K. Cawley asked about the number of units and rooms. The applicant confirmed an intent to have 20 rental units and a manager’s live in unit.
Given the additional review needed, the Board, applicant and staff reviewed the appropriate timeline for a continuance.
A motion was made by K. Cawley and seconded by A. MacDonald to continue the hearings on Preliminary Plat Application PP-25-09 and Site Plan Application SP-25-23 to the July 23, 2025 meeting of the Colchester Development Review Board. The motion passed with a vote of 4 – 0.
A motion was made by K. Cawley and seconded by A. MacDonald to approve the minutes of the May 28, 2025 meeting. The motion passed with a vote of 4 – 0.
The next meeting of the Colchester Development Review Board will be July 9, 2025.
There being no further business to be brought before the Board, a motion was made by A. MacDonald and seconded by K. Cawley to adjourn the meeting. All members of the Board voted in favor of the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 10:53 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathyann LaRose, Director of Planning & Zoning
Zachary Maia, Development Manager
Approved via motion of the Colchester Development Review Board on _______________.
DRAFT MINUTES