Development Review Board

11/5/2019 - Minutes I. Call to Order Members Present: Doug Johnson, Chair; Kevin Lumpkin, Vice-Chair; Harland Miller; Aaron Guyette City Staff Present: Eric Vorwald T Guests Present: Robert DiPalma, Joe Gamache, David Carter, David Roy, A.J. LaRosa, Greg Dixon, Petie-Shea Gamache, Elsie Goodrich, Angie Gamache, Kevin Gamache, Jane Moran, Steve Theniault, Jason Keysar, Craig Hilliard F Call to Order by: Doug Johnson at 6:31pm Minutes Recorded by: Eric Vorwald A II. Changes to the Agenda None III. Public Comment R None IV. Approve Previous Meeting Minutes Motion by: Kevin D Second: Harland Decision: 4 - 0 Motion by Kevin to approve the minutes as presented Motion by: Kevin Second: Harland Decision: 4-0 Minutes/Notes: Motion by Kevin to approve the minutes as presented. V. Cancel November 21, 2019 Regular Meeting Mr. Johnson noted no petitions for hearings had been submitted therefore the November meeting of the Development Review Board scheduled for November 21, 2019 would be cancelled. VI. Appeal of Zoning Administrator Decision - Zoning Approval (ZON20-006) – Area Known as 18 Mansion Street Mr. Johnson opened a public hearing at 6:39pm to take testimony on the appeal of zoning permit ZON20-006. He began by swearing in those members of the audience that intended to provide testimony related to the appeal. Messrs. Gamache and Carter, as the appellants, presented first. Mr. Gamache opened by citing sections of the July 9, 2019 decision of the DRB related to the new permit application and the language in the addendum to the Certificate of Conformity. Specifically, Mr. Gamache noted the  Mr. Johnson opened a public hearing at 6:39pm to take testimony on the appeal of zoning permit ZON20-006. He began by swearing in those members of the audience that intended to provide testimony related to the appeal. Messrs. Gamache and Carter, as the appellants, presented first. Mr. Gamache opened by citing sections of the July 9, 2019 decision of the DRB related to the new permit application and the language in the addendum to the Certificate of Conformity. Specifically, Mr. Gamache noted the addendum states that the Uniform Land Use and Development Regulations do not contain guidance related to split zoned properties. Mr. Gamache also stated that a bylaw related to split zoning does not exist therefore one cannot be arbitrarily created by the Zoning Administrator. Finally, Mr. Gamache presented a draft document from a meeting of the Planning Commission on May 9, 2019 that was draft language to address split zoning prepared by the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Gamache entered this as Exhibit BB. Next, the DRB and the appellants discussed various aspects of their appeal and how it relates to T the regulations. Mr. Carter cited specific sections of the Form Based Code as well as part of their evidence. Additional discussion continued between the members of the DRB and the appellants related to acceptable uses and hypothetical situations. Following the testimony of the appellants, the applicant, represented by Mr. LaRosa and Mr. Dixon F provided counter points to the appellants. Specifically, Mr. LaRosa read a statement from the applicant, who was unable to attend the meeting. Next, Mr. LaRosa discussed the specifics in the Notice of Appeal indicating that the issue presented and the charge outlined by the DRB in their Decision of July 9, 2019 was whether or not the Zoning Administrator provided sufficient information to satisfy the request outlined in the July 9th A decision and was the addendum to the Certificate of Conformity a satisfactory means to document this decision. Mr. LaRosa provided additional testimony related to how the project was consistent with the Unified Land Use and Development Regulations. Following Mr. LaRosa’s testimony, the DRB members asked questions and provided hypothetical scenarios for consideration. Mr. Dixon noted that the hypotheticals involved commercial R uses, which was not the case with this project. Additional discussion ensued between the DRB and the applicant’s representatives. Next, Mr. Johnson asked if anyone else wanted to speak or provide testimony. Mr. Jason Keysar asked about lot consolidations and the process that was involved with this. He noted concern with how it could be done and if his property could be impacted by such a consolidation. Mr. Lumpkin explained that it was a D specific process that required notifications and other information and could not be done without the consent of the property owner. Next, Mr. Johnson asked if anyone else wanted to provide testimony. No one offered. Following the testimony, Mr. Johnson called for a motion to close the public hearing and enter the deliberative session. A motion was made by Harland and Seconded by Kevin to close the hearing and enter a closed deliberative session. VII. Other Business Mr. Johnson noted the next meeting, if necessary, would be on December 19, 2019. VIII. Adjourn Time: 9:08pm