DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
October 8, 2025
DRAFT MINUTES
K. Cawley called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Kathy Cawley, Vice-Chair; Chris Gendron; Angela MacDonald; Evan Fitzgerald; Zafir Bludevich, Alternate
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Zachary Maia, Development Manager;
PUBLIC PRESENT (from Sign-in Sheet and presentations): Richard Hamlin, Colin Harvie, Tristan Harvie, Mark Harvie, Steve Guild, Marc Dowling, Emery Roy
A. MacDonald administered the oath to all wishing to address the Development Review Board.
K. Cawley asked if there were any ex-parte communications or conflicts of interest to be shared. There were no ex-parte communications or conflicts of interest. There were no adjustments to the agenda.
a) SP-26-07 28 VERMONT AVE LLC: Site Plan Application to amend a previously approved Site Plan and Conditional Use approval for a 14-room Group Quarters (Use 1.460) in the General Development Two (GD2) District. Amendment is to 1) construct an exterior ADA access ramp on the north façade of the building, relocate an ADA parking space, and replace ADA access sidewalk and 2) relocate six (6) yew hedges in the project area. Subject property is located at 28 Vermont Avenue, Account #21-008010-0000000. (staff)
The following individuals were present on behalf of the application:
· Steve Guild, G4 Design Studios (consultant on behalf of property owner);
Z. Maia introduced the application by noting that the property was recently reviewed and approved for a change of use from medical office to group quarters. The proposal is for site modifications related to ADA accessibility, and a site plan application is being reviewed as the underlying use is subject to Conditional Use review in the GD2 District. He explained that the staff notes were straightforward, but there were critical questions related to the ramp material due to location in the HPD District, the ADA ramp potentially blocking egress windows from the basement level, clarification of the usage and presence of the gravel area, and relocation of previously-credited landscaping.
S. Guild walked through the Staff Notes and provided the following information:
· He explained that the proposed ramp is in the location of basement windows associated with bathrooms.
· The proposed ramp material is wood.
· Staff and S. Guild clarified the location of the gravel area, and S. Guild noted that the property owner would need to clarify, but he was not aware of any plans to utilize that gravel area.
· The proposed project will require the relocation of yews per the plans, but the overall landscaping value will continue to be met.
The Board reviewed the application with the applicant and Staff:
· C. Gendron asked if the dumpsters were in the approved location, and S. Guild explained that they were not in that location currently but would be relocated to comply.
· E. Fitzgerald asked if the Board had jurisdiction to consider the gravel area, and Z. Maia explained that it is a site plan compliance issue.
· C. Gendron asked if the yews have been in place, to which S. Guild confirmed.
· A. MacDonald requested that Staff project the previously approved floor plan for the structure. Staff projected the previously approved floor plan for the structure. A. MacDonald asked the applicant to clarify where the ADA ramp would be located. S. Guild explained that he believed the north side of the building was on the “bottom” of the floor plan and pointed to where he thought the ADA ramp would be located. Board members and Staff expressed confusion as the landscaping did not appear to align with the Site Plan. A. MacDonald requested that clarity on the location of the ADA ramp be provided so that the Board could better understand the impact on basement egress and requested that Staff visit the property to confirm.
S. Guild agreed to request a continuance to the next DRB meeting.
A motion was made A. MacDonald and seconded by E. Fitzgerald to continue the hearing on Site Plan Application SP-26-07 to the November 12, 2025 meeting of the Colchester Development Review Board. The motion passed with a vote of 5 – 0.
b) SK-26-05 CBST LIVING TRUST: Sketch Plan Application 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);
· Richard Hamlin, PE, Donald L. Hamlin Consulting Engineers (consultant on behalf of property owner);
· Marc Dowling, G4 Design Studios (consultant on behalf of property owner);
Z. Maia introduced the application by first explaining the PUD review process and noting that a decision would not be issued on the application. He explained that the proposal is to redevelop a previous dormitory/office building into a 12-unit multi-unit dwelling. He walked through the staff notes topics and flagged the areas where more information may be needed with future submittals.
The applicants walked through the Staff Notes and provided the following information:
· M. Harvie introduced himself as the owner and noted that no architectural changes are proposed. Some modifications will be proposed internally for this project.
· The units will be rented.
· R. Hamlin explained the permitting history of the parcel and noted that the proposed sewer flows, water flows and traffic generation will be less than the subdivision approval. The property obtained setback reductions during the subdivision approval, which are included on the plan.
· The applicant would like to combine preliminary and final plat applications due to limited scope of the project.
· One goal is to make site look as it did historically, such that no changes will be noticeable.
· The project will reduce curb cuts along Ethan Allen Avenue and reduce impervious surfaces along the nearby shared private driveway.
· 23 parking spaces will be proposed as part of this application. This is in excess of the 18 parking spaces required for the project, and the applicant is requesting approval for these 23 parking spaces, as total impervious surface will be reduced as part of this project.
· Regarding PUD buffer, the applicant pointed towards existing landscaping along Ethan Allen Avenue and would like Board’s thoughts on if they believe any buffering is necessary.
· There are no plans to modify light fixtures on property. No new lighting is proposed.
· For landscaping, some shrubs will be proposed to screen parts of buildings. 3 elms and an evergreen green tree will be proposed and have been sited to avoid underground utilities. Fencing is proposed to screen mechanicals.
· Due to minimal land disturbance and lack of new impervious surfaces, no state stormwater permitting will be triggered. No interior curbs are proposed, and grading will be provided to address stormwater run-off on-site.
· The applicant is considering plan revisions such as moving the EV charging pedestal closer to the building, which will allow the ADA space to be closer to ADA entrance.
· M. Dowling addressed architectural considerations. Few modifications are proposed and mainly relate to relocating doors and including slight modifications related to the change of use. Some basement windows may be replaced. The applicant plans to comply with the Residential Building Energy Standards. The building will be sprinklered.
The Board reviewed the application with the applicant and Staff:
· K. Cawley asked if windows or doors would be replaced. R. Hamlin and M. Dowling explained that the windows would be kept the same if possible.
· E. Fitzgerald asked if gravel would be removed from the site, and R. Hamlin confirmed, explaining that infiltration trench will be installed to treat runoff from the parking area.
· C. Gendron asked about the PUD buffer. Z. Maia explained regulation, which allows the Board to require a PUD Buffer up to 20 ft. R. Hamlin explained the surrounding property uses, which are mixed between commercial and residential. E. Fitzgerald noted that similar properties in the Fort have not needed buffering, and this property appears to be physically distant from a nearby commercial use.
· C. Gendron sought clarity on parking, and R. Hamlin explained that overall there would be a reduction in parking, but the parking proposed would exceed the 1.5 spaces per unit. R. Hamlin noted that 6 one-bedroom units and 6 two-bedroom units were proposed. Z. Maia clarified that the Board has authority under 10.01-N(3) to allow additional parking.
· K. Cawley asked about bicycle parking. R. Hamlin noted that if spaces stay above 20, a bicycle rack will be provided in proximity to the building.
· Z. Bludevich noted that the parking areas have been historically used as overflow at Elley-Long Music Theatre. M. Harvie explained that this arrangement would cease with redevelopment.
· A. MacDonald asked if storage space would be provided for the units. R. Hamlin said storage would be internal to units. No group storage would be proposed.
· C. Gendron and K. Cawley asked about informal amenities. R. Hamlin explained that garden and picnic tables would be provided.
· K. Cawley asked about the parking locations. A. MacDonald asked about snow removal. R. Harvie explained that there are various entrances to the building, so parking is convenient to all of those entrances. A snow removal area is proposed, and A. MacDonald asked about logistics.
· C. Gendron asked if the curb cut along Ethan Allen Avenue could be made smaller. R. Hamlin explained that the applicant sought to reduce the number of existing curb cuts but would like to preserve the additional space for stormwater needs.
· Board members did not raise any concerns about the request to combine the preliminary plat and final plat review for this project.
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.
K. Cawley noted that the minutes of September 10th needed to be corrected to clarify that Angela MacDonald read the oath.
A motion was made by A. MacDonald and seconded by E. Fitzgerald to approve the minutes of the September 10, 2025 as amended. The motion passed with a vote of 5 – 0.
A motion was made by A. MacDonald and seconded by C. Gendron to approve the minutes of the September 24, 2025. The motion passed with a vote of 5 – 0.
A motion was made by A. MacDonald and seconded by E. Fitzgerald to elect Kathy Cawley as Chair, Evan Fitzgerald as Vice-Chair, and A. MacDonald as Secretary until the next organizational meeting in October of 2026. The motion passed with a vote of 5 – 0.
The next meeting of the Colchester Development Review Board will be November 12, 2025.
There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:14 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Zachary Maia, Development Manager
Approved via motion of the Colchester Development Review Board on _______________.