Colchester officials have given preliminary approval to a proposed $8 million lakefront lodging development — a move that has angered many residents who now plan to appeal the decision.
Hazelett Strip-Casting Corp. describes its development as a “20-room inn” with five “cottage-style” units built into the slope overlooking Malletts Bay to house a restaurant and event space, with almost 100 parking spots mainly on the opposite side of West Lakeshore Drive.
Opposed residents dispute that characterization of the development — called The H at Malletts Bay — and continue to raise concerns about its potential effect on water quality, increased traffic and pedestrian safety, and setting a precedent for large development along the scenic waterfront.
“We are disappointed with the decision, believe it misstates many of the facts and contains flawed analysis. The group is seriously considering taking an appeal,” said Brice Simon, a lawyer representing a group of town residents.
Residents have also objected to the board trying to reframe its own definition of what constitutes an inn, Simon said, because the town’s development regulations do not allow hotels or motels in the lakeshore district.
An inn, by the town’s rules, is an establishment containing at least six rooms but no more than 20 for living or sleeping purposes. No more than 40% of the rooms may contain apartment-type furnishings such as a kitchen, bath, living space and separate bedroom.
The project proposes 20 rooms, all or almost all of which contain typical apartment-type furnishings, according to an email shared by town officials. The floor plans submitted show such features in at least 10 of the 20 rooms, he further noted.
“There has never been a satisfactory explanation from the developer as to how the project meets the definition of an inn. Therefore, it is a hotel or motel, and is not an allowed or conditional use in the district. Therefore, the application should be denied as a matter of law,” Simon wrote in an email.
The town’s Development Review Board issued its 46-page decision on Sept. 3. Residents said they expect to discuss the matter at the board’s meeting Wednesday night.
Development Review Board members did not respond to a request for comment.
The inn proposal is not on Wednesday meeting agenda, and the board does not plan to discuss it at the meeting, according to Cathyann LaRose, director of planning and zoning.
“The DRB, as a quasi-judicial board, is prohibited from discussing items which are not on an agenda or part of an active deliberative session. The Hazelett properties have no active applications and a decision has already been issued for the preliminary plat application. The Board will not and cannot discuss this property amongst themselves or with members of the public,” she wrote in an email Wednesday.
The developers and their representatives did not respond Wednesday to a request from VTDigger to comment on the residents’ concerns.
‘Grossly negligent’
“This is one of the most egregious town decisions I have ever read,” resident Jack Scully said in an email.
“They’ve sold our souls for $8 million. Shame on them,” Jeanne Welch, another resident, said.
By rubber-stamping a large development that requires building into the slope right against the bay, the board is “ignoring” a town ordinance on what could be built there, what constitutes a traffic study, and its responsibility to uphold the state’s Shoreland Protection Act, said Lori Barg, a West Lakeshore Drive resident.
“It seems like they look for every hole in their regulations and miss the heart of the regulations,” she wrote in an email.
It’s “grossly negligent of the DRB” to approve a plan that has severe environmental and ecological impacts on Malletts Bay and on Lake Champlain, said resident Julie Elmore, one of many who recently organized to oppose the project.
“Colchester is abdicating its responsibility for water quality in Malletts Bay,” said Marilyn Sowles, a former selectboard member and a member of the resident group Save the Bay, which has also pointed to possible environmental detriments the project poses, as well its inconsistency with the 2019 Town Plan that provides an outline for land use and town development.
In meetings this year, Sowles voiced her opposition to the town allowing developers to cut down many trees and combine the two small Hazelett lots to make way for an “inn,” restaurant, spa and event center that would connect to the new sewer being built on Lakeshore Drive, causing significant traffic delays.
“It appears that the $16.7 million Malletts Bay sewer, supposedly being built to protect water quality, is instead enabling additional development along the lakeshore with no consideration by either the town of Colchester or the Colchester Development Review Board for how this new development will impact water quality,” Sowles said. “There will be no stormwater treatment along the lakefront and 43% of the existing trees will be cut. Stormwater runoff will only be treated on the opposite side of West Lakeshore Drive.”
When the sewer project was discussed last year, many worried the town was investing in future development over environmental mitigation, but officials disputed those arguments. Town Manager Aaron Frank at the time said the new sewer line would not have the capacity to support excess development, citing limited roadway capacity and existing land use regulations on East and West Lakeshore drives.
Prior to that, the town reworked zoning for Lakeshore Drive in 2022, eliciting the same environmental and over-development concerns.
Hazelett, which has long owned the plots, demolished the vacant Beach and Boat Motel in 2017 and has contemplated rebuilding there since, according to the Colchester Sun.
Residents have a 30-day period to appeal the decision in the environmental division of the Vermont Superior Court. The preliminary plat approval is one step in the review process. The applicant has to apply for a final plat review, which will include at least another hearing and final decision, according to LaRose.
The environmental court is the last recourse for the concerned residents, Elmore said. It is tragic, she added, that they have to incur legal fees to fight a development the town should have rejected based on its own rules.
“To me, the decision is unconscionable,” Welch said. “It guarantees that West Lakeshore will be immeasurably more congested and unsafe for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists than it already is. Not to mention the loss of that iconic view. All to provide a playground for the rich and line a developer’s pockets.”
Correction: A previous version of the story wrongly identified where the parking spots are proposed.
