Development Review Board

6/19/2019 - Minutes I. Call to Order Members Present: Doug Johnson, Chair; Kevin Lumpkin, Vice-Chair; Harland Miller, Secretary; Matt Bacewicz; Aaron Guyette; David Weissberger City Staff Present: Eric Vorwald Guests Present: Robert DiPalma, Paul Frank Collins, others as noted in sign-in sheet (Exhibit U): https://www.winooskivt.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1555/Exhibit-U---Sign-In- Sheet---06192019 Call to Order by: Doug Johnson at 6:30pm Minutes Recorded by: Eric Vorwald II. Changes to the Agenda None III. Public Comment None IV. Approve Previous Meeting Minutes Motion by: Matt Second: Aaron Decision: 5-0 Motion by Mr. Bacewicz, seconded by Aaron Guyette to approve the minutes of the May 16th minutes as presented. V. Public Hearings A hearing was opened by Mr. Johnson at 6:37pm to cover both the administrative lot consolidation and the zoning approval. This was done since the two issues are interrelated therefore testimony for one issue would be germane to the other. He asked those that intended to provide testimony to swear an oath to tell the truth in their testimony. Next, he invited Mr. Gamache and Mr. Carter as the appellants to come forward and present their case regarding the appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decisions for the administrative lot consolidation and the zoning approval. Mr. Gamache and Mr. Carter presented their case for the appeals, which are also outlined in the appeal documents submitted as Exhibit G. Mr. Carter provided an image from the Unified Land Use and Development Regulations providing a visual representation of the Neighborhood Manners (Appendix B, Image for 302.E). After discussions between the DRB and the appellants, Mr. Johnson invited anyone else speaking to the issues against the approval. Mr. Craig Hilliard provided testimony in support of the appellants position related to the appeal. Mr. Hillard focused on the use of the section of the project in the Residential C zoning district related to the use of parking and the lot coverage question. Next, Mr. Johnson invited the applicant to speak. Mr. A.J. LaRosa, on behalf of the applicant, requested that the record reflect their  Image for 302.E). After discussions between the DRB and the appellants, Mr. Johnson invited anyone else speaking to the issues against the approval. Mr. Craig Hilliard provided testimony in support of the appellants position related to the appeal. Mr. Hillard focused on the use of the section of the project in the Residential C zoning district related to the use of parking and the lot coverage question. Next, Mr. Johnson invited the applicant to speak. Mr. A.J. LaRosa, on behalf of the applicant, requested that the record reflect their adoption of the arguments laid out by the Zoning Administrator in the various memos to the Development Review Board in order to not repeat the same claims. He also noted the classification of this project as a Priority Housing Project that is providing affordable housing units to the community. Mr. LaRosa outlined several aspects where he disagreed with the appeal including the parking, the lot consolidation, and specifically the Neighborhood Manners Setbacks in relation to the Bove’s case (as referenced in the appellant’s documents). After additional discussions between the DRB and the applicant, the DRB concluded the hearing at 8:37pm. Click here to watch the recording of these public hearings: https://www.cctv.org/watch-tv/programs/winooski-development-review-board-93 VI. Deliberation on Zoning Appeals Mr. Bacewicz made a motion that was seconded by Mr. Lumpkin to enter deliberative session and begin discussions on the appeal. The DRB voted 5 – 0 to enter deliberative session. Deliberative session began at 8:40pm. At 10:01 the DRB concluded their deliberations. With no decisions reached at this time, they decided to continue the meeting to at time certain and continue deliberations at that time. VII. City Updates None VIII. Other Business Mr. Vorwald noted that the next DRB meeting would be on July 18th and there would be another appeal coming forward. He also noted that there may be a conditional use approval to review and would know more by the end of the week. IX. Adjourn