Development Review Board

6/18/2020 - Minutes I. Call to Order Members Present: Kevin Lumpkin, Chair; Matt Bacewicz, Vice-Chair, Harland Miller, Secretary; Aaron Guyette, David Weissberger, Doug Johnson City Staff Present: Eric Vorwald Guests Present: Matt Parisi, Dennis Hendy, Suzanne Blain Call to Order by: Kevin Lumpkin Meeting Start Time: 6:32pm Minutes Recorded by: Eric Vorwald II. Changes to the Agenda None III. Public Comment None IV. Approve Previous Meeting Minutes Decision: 5 – 0 Motion by: Mr. Bacewicz Second: Mr. Johnson V. Public Hearing – 206 West Canal Street Conditional Use Request Mr. Lumpkin opened the public hearing at 6:35pm and provided an overview of the process that would occur regarding testimony. Mr. Vorwald introduced the conditional use request and provided an overview of the property, including the existing use. He indicated that the property was already developed with a duplex and the detached cottage would constitute the last permitted dwelling on the property, or a maximum of three dwellings. Next, Mr. Lumpkin swore in Mr. Parisi, who provided an overview of the project including the site plan, parking, and specific renderings of a proposed cottage that would occupy the space. He discussed the removal of an existing shed to make room to accommodate the cottage. Key elements that were discussed included the slope of the property, the parking, the materials for the cottage, materials for the driveway, and similar topics. Following Mr. Parisi’s overview of the project, members of the DRB asked questions. Topics for these questions included erosion and sedimentation; clearing of trees; snow storage; functionality of the garage parking; specific setbacks; and encroachment of parking into the sideyard setback on the western property boundary. After the DRB concluded their questions, Mr. Lumpkin opened the floor for any comments from other in attendance.  Following Mr. Parisi’s overview of the project, members of the DRB asked questions. Topics for these questions included erosion and sedimentation; clearing of trees; snow storage; functionality of the garage parking; specific setbacks; and encroachment of parking into the sideyard setback on the western property boundary. After the DRB concluded their questions, Mr. Lumpkin opened the floor for any comments from other in attendance. Mr. Hendy requested to make comments and Mr. Lumpkin swore him in prior to proving testimony. Specifically, Mr. Hendy indicated that he was not opposed to the project, but requested that a fence be installed along the shared property boundary to the west of the subject parcel. Mr. Hendy noted that there is an existing six foot tall cedar picket fence and he would like to see this continued in a similar style along to the property and include several sections of fence south of proposed cottage. Mr. Parisi indicated that he was amenable to this request, but suggested a pressure treated fence be used for cost and longevity. He also stated that the property begins to slope significantly in the area south of the proposed cottage so the fence may not be effective in that location, but would provide a fence at least to the rear of the proposed cottage. Next, Mr. Lumpkin invited Ms. Blain to provide testimony. Ms. Blain noted she had no testimony to provide. After several additional questions from the Board, Mr. Lumpkin asked for any final testimony. With no additional information, the public hearing was closed at 7:20pm. Following the hearing, Mr. Lumpkin indicated that the Board would conduct the rest of the business on the agenda before entering into a closed deliberative session. VI. Amendment to Rules of Procedure Decision: 5 – 0 Motion by: Mr. Weissberger Second: Mr. Miller Mr. Vorwald provided an overview of the proposed amendment to the rules of procedure stating that the change was to correct a discrepancy in who needs to be in attendance if a remote meeting is conducted. He indicated that the change would more specifically align with state statue and allow for staff to be present at a public location without requiring a member of the Board to also be present. The DRB agreed this change was acceptable. Mr. Weissberger made a motion to approve the change to the rules and procedures as presented. Mr. Miller seconded the motion. All were in favor. VII. Reappointment of Board Members Mr. Vorwald provided an overview of the updated board and commission structure that was established by Council including the reappointment schedule. He noted that three members had terms expiring at the end of June including Mr. Miller, Mr. Weissberger, and Mr. Johnson. Mr. Vorwald requested that each of the three members indicate if they were interested in being considered for reappointment. All three members expressed interest in reappointment. Mr. Vorwald indicated that no formal action from the Board was required. VIII. City Updates Mr. Vorwald indicated that the next meeting of the DRB was scheduled for July 16th. He stated that one application had been submitted, and that the deadline for the July meeting is June 19th. The application that was submitted is an updated proposal for a detached cottage at 9 George Street, similar to what was discussed at the April DRB meeting. VIII. City Updates Mr. Vorwald indicated that the next meeting of the DRB was scheduled for July 16th. He stated that one application had been submitted, and that the deadline for the July meeting is June 19th. The application that was submitted is an updated proposal for a detached cottage at 9 George Street, similar to what was discussed at the April DRB meeting. IX. Other Business None. With no other business, Mr. Lumpkin asked for a motion to enter the deliberative session. The motion was made by Mr. Bacewicz and seconded by Mr. Weissberger. All were in favor. The DRB entered a deliberative session at 7:29pm. X. Adjourn At the conclusion of the deliberative session, Mr. Lumpkin asked for a motion to end the deliberative session and then adjourn the regular meeting of the DRB. The motion was made by Mr. Bacewicz and seconded by Mr. Guyette to end the deliberative session and then adjourn the meeting. All were in favor. The deliberative session was ended at 8:06pm followed by an adjournment of the meeting also at 8:06pm.