DRAFT MINUTES
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
September 10, 2025
DRAFT MINUTES
M. Gamage called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Matthew Gamage, Chair; Kathy Cawley, Vice-Chair; Chris Gendron; Angela MacDonald; Evan Fitzgerald
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Zachary Maia, Development Manager; Emily Fiske, Development Review Planner
PUBLIC PRESENT (from Sign-in Sheet and presentations): Peter Mazurak, Gordon Watson, Beverly Watson, Martin Courcelle, Jeanne Welch, David Cohen, Steve Kruger, Kim Brown, Carl Laroe, Rich Gardner, Chaz Cook, Jess Bridge, Cathy Rush
M. Gamage 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 no ex-parte communications. A. MacDonald stated she had a conflict of interest under Application VAR-26-01 and would be recusing herself from that hearing. There were no adjustments to the agenda.
Site Plan application for after-the-fact improvements to a lake access ramp and shoreline stabilization on a property in the Shoreland District pursuant to §7.03-C(7) and §7.03-F(3). Proposed project includes: 1) Cobblestone tracks to be set on existing lake access ramp; 2) 576 sf stone revetment at bottom of lake access ramp; and 3) 300 sf rip-rap stabilization for footing drain outlet. No change of use or other improvements included in scope of work. Subject property is located at 1304 West Lakeshore Drive, Account #53-010002-0000000.
The following individuals were present on behalf of the application:
· Marin Courcelle, Champlain Consulting Engineers (consultant)
Z. Maia introduced the application. Z. Maia stated that the status of completion of the three items on the application needed to be clarified and that the status of the items would impact the need for local EPSC approval. He summarized areas flagged for discussion in the staff notes, including the cobblestone ramp and revetment for review on their visual impact as seen from the lake and that they have the same requirements as a seawall.
M. Courcelle walked through the Staff Notes and provided the following information:
· The rip-rap stabilization for the footing drain outlet & revetment are completed. The cobblestone tracks have not been completed.
· Cobblestone tracks were chosen to minimize impact in that area while providing access to the Lake.
· The cobblestone tracks will require local EPSC approval. Construction is anticipated to begin next spring.
· A small portion of the revetment appears to be below the 98’ elevation and will require a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers.
· The total land disturbance for all items is under 2,000 sf.
The Board reviewed the application with the applicant and Staff:
· E. Fitzgerald asked the consultant how long the existing gravel boat ramp had been in place and if the area between the cobblestone tracks will be grassed. M. Courcelle stated the current owners told him it has been in place for many years and that the space between the cobblestone track will be grassed.
· Z. Maia asked if the US Army Corps of Engineers had an issue with the boat ramp, could it be reworked and M. Courcelle said while he had not had that conversation with the owners, it appears they would be able to rework the ramp to be above the 98’ elevation.
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 A. MacDonald and seconded by K. Cawley to close the hearing on Site Plan Application SP-26-05. The motion passed with a vote of 5 – 0.
Preliminary Plat application for a major Planned Unit Development for a redevelopment project in the General Development Four (GD4) District. Project consists of 1) demolition of a 7-unit motel building, 4-unit dwelling, and garage, and 2) construction of a 6-unit multi-unit dwelling to be served by an existing on-site wastewater system, a municipal water connection, and a modified driveway and parking area. Subject property is located at 5819 Roosevelt Highway, Account #14-025000-0000000.
The following individuals were present on behalf of the application:
· Carl Laroe (property owner);
· Peter Mazurak, Apex Engineering (consultant)
Z. Maia introduced the application and noted that the preliminary plat application was the second of the three required steps for this PUD redevelopment project. Z. Maia reminded the board that the project is located in the General Development 4 (GD4) district which has additional review standards not applicable in other districts. Z. Maia went over the review criteria flagged by staff that the applicant should address. Z. Maia also noted that while there was not an official memo from Fire Chief Crady, that his review of the project’s layout was easily workable.
P. Mazurak walked through the Staff Notes and provided the following information:
· The building height will stay under 20ft to the eaves and 34ft to the ridge and the dimensions will be added to the elevation plan by the architect.
· The building will consist of earth-tone colors with some variation, and the materials will be a combination of clapboard on the side and shingles on the eaves to break up the building visually. Colors will be added by the architect to the elevation plan.
· There will be a gated dumpster enclosure constructed of fencing material and located behind the building in the parking lot.
· Northwoods Ecological Consulting performed the wetland delineation in May of 2025. There will be no work done in the Class II Wetland or its associated 50ft buffer. There is no proposed change in the wooded area. The plans will be adjusted to exclude the wetland and its buffer from the building envelope.
· The applicant is proposing 0.6 acres of land disturbance and 0.4 acres of impervious on the parcel. No state stormwater permit would be needed because work will primarily be done in an already developed area of the parcel.
· A local Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plan will be submitted to the Town for review.
· An owners association will not be needed at this time as the applicant intends to retain ownership. Association documents will be drafted if ownership changes in the future.
· A VTrans Section 1111 permit will be required.
The Board reviewed the application with the applicant and Staff:
· P. Mazurak asked the board if the Final Plat application could be skipped. Z. Maia explained that is not possible at this point. He noted that sometimes preliminary and final plat applications can be heard at the same time but this must be requested during the Sketch Plan meeting.
· M. Gamage asked if there would be mechanicals on the rooftop and P. Mazurak said there would not be.
· A. MacDonald asked if there would be windows on the side of the end units and P. Mazurak said there would be.
· M. Gamage asked for the land disturbance and impervious area calculations to be added to a plan sheet since they relate to a Department of Public Works standard, which P. Mazurak agreed to include.
· Z. Maia clarified the purpose of an owner’s association as it relates to maintenance of common elements. He said that when there is one owner maintenance of the common elements is simplified compared to having many owners.
· A. MacDonald asked about the lighting and P. Mazurak said there would only be building mounted light and that they will provide a plan sheet.
· K. Cawley asked if the building and dwelling units were 2-stories and if they had a basement. C. Laroe and P. Mazurak confirmed there would be basements and 2-stories.
· K. Cawley asked about proposed landscaping and P. Mazurak stated that they will be keeping the majority of the existing landscaping and adding some new landscaping along the front berm.
· Z. Maia mentioned the required 3% landscaping budget and that credit can be given for existing landscaping. The applicant would need to submit a list of landscaping they would like to receive credit for, including the size and species.
· Z. Maia asked if the applicant will be connecting to the existing onsite wastewater system and if a state wastewater permit would be required. P. Mazurak said yes they would be connecting to the existing system and that they would need a state wastewater permit.
· Z. Maia noted that the warned Supplemental 48 of the Colchester Development Regulations do not apply to this application as it was received before the new supplement was warned.
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-26-04. 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 93 sf and accommodate an expansion of a deck. No other scope of work requested for review at this time. Subject property is located at 1159 Red Rock Road, Account #77-012000-0000000.
The following individuals were present on behalf of the application:
· Kim Brown (consultant on behalf of property owner)
Z. Maia introduced the application. Z. Maia stated the primary discussion about this application would be about square footage calculations. He stated that the table included in the staff notes was no longer current as the applicant was able to clarify the values.
K. Brown walked through the Staff Notes and provided the following information:
· The applicant submitted a revised floor plan to better demonstrate the existing and proposed square footage of the new decks.
· The footprint of the dwelling is 930 sf (rounded down from 936 sf)
· The 51-sf southern entry deck will be removed. The east deck is the new entry deck and is 20 sf. The west deck is the lake-side deck and will increase in size to be 176 sf and be 4ft taller with the railing to be below the tree line.
· The existing landscaping reduces the visual impact of the lake-side deck.
The Board reviewed the application with the applicant and Staff:
· Z. Maia clarified that the external measurements for the single-unit dwelling came out to the 930 sf, K. Brown said that was correct.
· C. Gendron asked if the whole house was located within 100ft of the mean watermark of the lake. K. Brown and Z. Maia confirmed that it was.
· M. Gamage asked if any trees will be removed and K. Brown said none 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.
A motion was made A. MacDonald and seconded by K. Cawley to close the hearing on Conditional Use Application CU-26-03. The motion passed with a vote of 5– 0.
Variance request seeking relief under §2.09-A(7)(c) for after-the-fact approval of an accessory building in the front yard of an existing single-unit dwelling. Subject property is located at 30 Spauldings East Shore, Account #60-021012-0000000.
The following individuals were present on behalf of the application:
· Gordon Watson (property owner)
· Beverly Watson (property owner)
A. MacDonald recused herself from the hearing, stepped down from her position on the Board, and took a seat in the audience.
Z. Maia introduced the application and reminded the board the applicants were seeking after-the-fact relief. Z. Maia asked the board to focus attention on if there is undue hardship and if the property cannot be reasonably used without the accessory building. The five criteria, as set out by the State, were read.
G. Watson and B. Watson introduced themselves. G. Watson provided additional photographs for the board to review and walked through the Staff Notes and provided the following information:
· The 12ft x 20ft accessory building is required in order to support their residence at the property.
· The purpose of the accessory building is to store items like their gardening equipment and overflow items from the dwelling.
· The lot shape, location of the principal dwelling, and wastewater location were in existence prior to them purchasing the property.
· They chose an accessory building that would fit the character of the neighborhood.
The Board reviewed the application with the applicant and Staff:
· K. Cawley asked the applicants to identify which pictures they provided were of their property. G. Watson went through the pictures and noted the ones of his property.
· M. Gamage asked about the dimensions of the parcel. G. Watson reviewed the layout and his estimates of the dimensions. It was clarified that the plan provided by the applicant was not drawn entirely to-scale.
· E. Fitzgerald explained that the variance criteria are state-level criteria and tend to be stricter than what local regulations would allow and that a typical variance approval is to place one dwelling unit on the property. It was clarified that the accessory building in this application is an outbuilding.
· Z. Maia recommended the board walk through the criteria in order and have the applicants address each criterion.
· M. Gamage reminded the applicants of their options if they felt they needed more time to address items outlined in the staff notes.
· E. Fitzgerald asked the applicants if it was unreasonable to use the property without the accessory building. G. Watson explained that families acquire things over time and need somewhere to store them and that there was no storage in or under the house to keep their stuff in. B. Watson said the accessory building was necessary to maintain the property.
· K. Cawley asked Z. Maia if there was Google Street View available for this parcel. Z. Maia said there was not but provided the Board and Applicant with Satellite Imagery from ESRI available on the Town’s GIS Assessment Map.
With no further comments from the Board or Staff, the hearing was opened for public comment. Public comment included the following:
· M. Gamage stated for the record that the Board was in receipt of a letter of support from the Spaulding East Shore Association.
· Chaz Cook (Spauldings East Shore) stated that the properties in their neighborhood are very tight, and Watsons had to use another property to store their lawncare equipment prior. He supported the applicant’s request.
· Jessica Bridge (no address) stated she lived in the area and that so many of the parcels in that area were narrow, spaghetti lots. She stated that people require things to maintain their property and feels the applicants meet the criteria and was in support of their request.
· Rich Gardner (no address) emphasized the topography of the applicant’s lot, which drops off significantly between the front of the dwelling and the Lake. This would prevent the applicants from placing an accessory building in that location and he believed that the only buildable location was directly in front of the principal dwelling.
Z. Maia asked the Board to ensure they had enough information prior to closing the hearing. Board members did not have any additional questions.
A motion was made E. Fitzgerald and seconded by K. Cawley to close the hearing on Variance Application VAR-26-01. The motion passed with a vote of 4 – 0.
A. MacDonald returned to her position on the Board.
A motion was made by A. MacDonald and seconded by K. Cawley to approve the minutes of the August 13, 2025 meeting. The motion passed with a vote of 5 – 0.
The next meeting of the Colchester Development Review Board will be October 8, 2025.
There being no further business to be brought before the Board, a motion was made by A. MacDonald and seconded by E. Fitzgerald to adjourn the meeting. All members of the Board voted in favor of the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 8:49 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Emily Fiske, Development Planner
Approved via motion of the Colchester Development Review Board on _______________.
DRAFT MINUTES