 All right, I'm not sure who's in the room right now, but it sounds like we have a quorum and are ready to go. The time is 6, 38 and the November 17, 2022 meeting of the development review board for the city has been called to order. The DRB is a quasi judicial volunteer resident board that upholds standards and procedures as defined at the Winooski zoning ordinance. We review and make decisions on subdivisions, site plans, conditional uses, variances and appeals of the zoning administrators determinations. DRB has virtual, has authority through the Vermont state statute and ensures due process, protects the rights of applicants and the rights of the public to participate in proposals for land development here within the city of Winooski. Appeals of decisions made by this board are heard by the Vermont Superior Court, Environmental Division and the Vermont Supreme Court. My name is Matt Basowitz. I am board chair and we have Erin Gayette here online as well as I believe a smattering of board members in attendance tonight. Yes, we have in the room, we have David Weisberger, Jordan Matt and Elsie Goodrich. Perfect. First up on our agenda, Vermont's open meeting law grants an opportunity for public comments at every public meeting. If anybody would like to comment about anything that is not on tonight's agenda, this is your opportunity. So if you're here for something on the agenda, there will be time during that item for you to speak. So this is for just items that are not on the agenda. And Matt, I'm sorry, did you do changes to the agenda? No, I did skip that. I'm sorry. We'll get to that next. Perfect. Hearing nobody making comments, we will entertain any changes to the agenda. Does anybody propose any changes to the agenda as it stands right now? None in the room. None in the room. Okay. So next up we need to approve the minutes from our most recent meeting, which was... September 15th. September 15th. Okay. Okay. I thought we met since August. So I did flip through. I saw nothing that I thought needed to be changed, but if anybody on the board does, please speak up now before we decide whether or not to adopt them. Hearing nothing, seeing nothing, I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes. So a motion. Seconded. Sounds like David. Yes. And David made the motion. Elsie seconded. Okay. All those in favor of approving the minutes, please raise your hand or say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Don't see anybody opposed? Any abstentions? No abstentions. Awesome. We do have three substantive items on the agenda tonight. The first item is, we'll get started right now. It's a public hearing on, for final plans for a subdivision, 165 East Spring Streets. And before we do bring people up to speak, we do want to swear everybody or affirm that you are all telling the truth under the penalties and pains of perjury. So we will have everybody who comes to speak just raise your hand and affirm that you are telling the truth. So we will hear from the applicants on 165 East Spring Streets subdivision. Sure. So the applicant and representatives are in the room here and another member of their team is online as well. So I'll just do a quick introduction and you guys want to come up to the table. So this is a final subdivision plan that's before you tonight. You've previously reviewed this as a sketch plan back in August of 2021 and as a preliminary plan back in June of this year. So comments were provided to the applicant at both of those meetings and the applicant has addressed the comments in writing in the application materials that were submitted and also included some of the changes on the plans themselves. So this is for both the subdivision of one property, sorry, creating one new parcel from an existing property. So total of two lots. There's also a request as we've discussed previously for a dimensional waiver to the side yard setback to accommodate the existing structure. So language has been added to the plan set that we discussed at our last meeting and was included in the findings and decision on that preliminary plan related to what that waiver is really for and what the intent of that waiver is to providing that relief. In the application there were designs shown for a potential development on the new lot and I just want to stress again that this is not a review of that development. This is simply a review of the subdivision itself. Any future development of the property would have to come forward under a separate application. So with that I will turn it over to the folks in the room to provide any information and I have the application information on the screen that I can share as well, which I'll do that now. Awesome. Thank you so much. What are your names? I'm Martin Corsale with Champlain Consulting Engineers. I am the owner of the property at 165B Spring. And do you both affirm that you are telling the truth? Yes. Thank you so much. So yeah, it's good to see you again. We did speak a few months ago about this and I'd love to see where you're at. Sure. So the subdivision is up on the screen. So you can see that the boundary lines have not changed. The proposal is for the existing house at 165B Spring Street. It's actually an existing due plaits. That will remain on lot one as well as the garage. I'm sorry, Martin, can you get a little closer to the microphone there just to make sure we're picking you up on both ends? Is that better? Yeah, that's perfect. Okay, great. Thank you. So the existing due plaits and garage will remain on lot one. That will be accessed via the current access on a private drive, which is known as Norman Corp. The new lot, lot two. The access for that will be a new driveway off of East Spring Street. And the parking area for the existing duplex is currently on land that will be transferred to lot two. So that parking area is going to be moved up by the garage. And then a stairway will access the actual duplex lower down the hill towards East Spring Street. So that's really the general layout. This is served with municipal water, municipal sewer existing, proposed again will be municipal water, municipal sewer. Eric, thank you for changing the screen. So you can see there the parking for lot one up above and then the new driveway for the proposed duplex on lot two. And again, that's really just showing conceptual plan to make sure that we could fit a building, fit parking, fit a driveway. We do have also a conceptual grading plan that makes the site distances for that driveway work. Again, we wanted to make sure that on this lot that we weren't just doing a subdivision that could not be built. We wanted to make sure that there was a viable project here. Again, that actual project could be different from what you see on the screen, but that would be a separate approval that would be applied for at a later day after this subdivision. If there's any questions I can answer those. If not, I can go to the conditions or the comments from the last approval and how we've addressed those to kind of provide a little bit more clarity there. The only thing I sorry, I would just add quickly as well that I did share the final plan with our emergency services and public works departments. I did not hear any comments back there were comments on the preliminary plan that were shared from DPW in particular, which were included in the application packet, but they didn't have any additional comments based on the final plan list of conditions to address to be addressed. So I'll go through those. The first one stated provide information, including the identified legal opinion, supporting the continued access for the existing two-unit dwelling at 165 East Spring Street from the access identified as Norman Court. So we have provided a title opinion from Mr. Burnett's attorney. He is actually on Zoom and I think maybe once I'll kind of go through my things and then we'll invite him to speak more specifically to the legal portion of the driveway access. So I'm going to skip to item two. We did submit the plans to public works and Ryan Lambert from the Department of Public Works. He did have a couple of comments on there and that was really about the conceptual grading plan because some of the grading that would happen for the lot two driveway will actually be on lot one. So he wanted to ensure that there's both a construction easement for that work to happen, but then also a maintenance easement just to make sure that any vegetation can be cut down, any snow can be removed, just to make sure that any future owners of lot two do have the legal right to make sure that the site distances are maintained in perpetuity. So that's certainly something that will be that will be provided. Those easements will be part of this plan. Item three requested that we submit or that we get written comments from the city's fire department regarding the use of Norman Court. We did have contact and an email from Fire Chief Audi and we did provide that email should be in the packet, but his email stated regarding the existing driveway access I slash we have no issues as long as the reduced width and height standards are maintained. And again, that's I believe a when he says the reduced standards for a previous project on Norman Court, but the fire department approved a certain width and height requirement that's less than their standards, but is adequate to provide protection. So he just wanted to make sure that that would be maintained and it's going to be maintained for that project. So it will be maintained for this project as well. No changes are being proposed and the fire chief was fine with that. So that comment is in reference to the existing. That's correct. Building mostly or. Yes. Yeah. So they would access the new potential building from Spring Street. Should they need to. Yes. Yes. That's correct. Thank you. Yeah, that will certainly be better access for that building. So it will be kind of a. Again, this with the concept that we had come up with it really the way the site is going to be developed best. It's a great access at street level. I mean, then you go up the first floor level would then be at the flat area, roughly the same elevation as the first floor of the existing duplex. Moving on item number four requested a written response from the state E 911 office. And we did reach out to the E 911 coordinator and the new lot lot to has been given an E 911 address of 153 E Spring Street. And again, that email communication was submitted and should be provided in your packet. Just really quick on that point. The just so that you're aware the sequencing of addressing along East Spring Street will be unique in that regard because 159 will be on the west of this property. And then it will go to 153 and then to 165. So it's there's issues with addressing in the city in general on in some areas and in particular in this location. But based on E 911, that is what they recommended based on their standards for addressing. So it is slightly out of sync and out of sequence there. But that's what they have recommended for for this property for the new lot to part of that has to do with a potential readdressing of 165. But that's that's a whole different situation and not anything to get into tonight. But just just so that you're aware that is specifically they're doing that specifically. And that is something that I followed up with just to make sure because because of the inconsistency in the sequencing. Maybe the lawyer can speak to it when he gets on. But is was this parcel combined out of two? Is this 163 165? I thought when I was reading the opinion from the lawyer, there was two. There were two numbers. Yeah, that that maybe the just the addressing for the duplex itself that it's because there's two units there. One is 165 one is 163. Okay. To my knowledge is 165A and B that's what is currently used anyway in regards to postage. Right. Maybe Jason can speak to that. There may be a legal document that's separate from the right. Not a big deal. Sure. Yeah. If he's listening, maybe you can just make a note if he has any information to add up and we bring him on. He can speak to that. He said. Yeah. Item number five requested additional detail on the methods or techniques to be used to remove portions of the driveway currently serving the two unit dwelling at 165 East spring. As I previously mentioned, the current driveway and parking area for the existing duplex is partially on what will be locked to so that driveway coming down the hill is going to get removed. So we did revise the plans to add some notes and some construction details. The intent is to put that back to a natural grass state on that hill. So we do have again the details and specifications required to make that that piece of the project happen. This item also said this should identify to many at a minimum plan for how the materials will be removed from the site, including how vehicles will access the property to ensure impacts in Norman court or minimal will be mitigated following the removal of materials. So yes, the construction for that will be accessed off of Norman court, as is allowed per the legal opinion that we have. And certainly any damage done, if any damage was done during construction, that would certainly be the contractor's responsibility to repair that to the condition it was prior to their work. So that certainly we have no problem agreeing to that. Item number six, I think I actually maybe kind of combine those two. Item number six actually talks about provide additional detail on the methods or techniques to be used for revegetation and stabilization of the existing driveway. So that's what I spoke to first when I mentioned that there were some notes and construction details for how that work would be done. Item number seven provide additional details on the proposed stairs that will facilitate access from the parking area in the garage access from Norman court to the existing duplex. So we we did provide that information. We have some spot elevation shown on the plans now to better identify that briefly. It would be a set of wooden stairs. It's four feet wide or what we're proposing now is a set of wooden stairs four feet wide 45 feet by nine inches long with a step height of five inches tread depth of 11 and a half inches. And then there would be three landings one at the top one in the middle and one at the bottom. So that's the information on how the stairs would fit in there. And again, we have those elevations provided on the plan just to have a little more clarity on that. And then item number eight was asking for a note to be added to the plan says include a note on the subdivision plan that indicates the proposed waiver for the existing two unit dwelling will provide the minimum required relief to bring the structure into compliance with the city's unified land use development regulations. And this waiver is only to be granted to accommodate the existing structure and its current configuration. Any future changes alterations or modifications to the existing structure will require additional review and approval is outlined in the ULU DR based on the proposed changes. And again at the last meeting there were just a few comments on that waiver request just wanting to make sure that by granting a waiver for that setback production. It wasn't granting carte blanche to do whatever we wanted over there. It was really just to grant a waiver for that existing encroachment and it's on the plans now so that anybody looking at those plans understands that any changes are not covered by that waiver. That would be you have to come in for separate approval if any additional changes were being requested. So those were the comments from preliminary. I've also read through the final plan review provided by Eric. Generally everything looked good. We were in agreement with mostly everything I did just want to comment on. I think I already spoke to most of this that I was going to comment on again. We talked to the fire chief. We talked to DPW. We have their emails. The main thing I just wanted to bring up is under 19 legal requirements. Again, as I noted, there will be easements needed for construction of the grading modifications for the site distance as well as a perpetual easement for maintenance of that. And there's also going to actually now I think I wanted to leave the possibility. I don't believe we're going to need a sanitary sewer easement, but the sewer out there is a little iffy as to location. We have camera the lines. We have it to the best of our ability, but there is a small chance that a sewer easement would need to be granted as well. If that's required, that would certainly be all done through the proper channels. But I just wanted to mention as as proposed, it's not needed. But the again, the sewer was a kind of a mystery out there. So we have a fairly good idea as to where it is. But just wanted to bring up that possibility that that easement could be needed depending on what is actually found when they start digging up that existing sewer pipe. I think unless questions. Thank you. I actually want to learn if you think now's a good time to talk about the first of the list of questions and your attorney, what they uncovered in regards to access via Norman court. Sure. Jason, are you on? Yeah, he's here. Jason, I'm going to bring you over as a panelist so you can speak. Hopefully. Okay. He's on his way over. So thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Jason Rouhet and I'm mainly here to answer any questions that anyone might have about the current status of Norman court, which is, you know, is the private right of way that currently services this property. So I read through your, I'm trying to pull it up now. I had to reboot my computer three times before this meeting started. So I'm still putting things back together. I did read through a couple hours ago, your, your summary of the research that you did into into the easements and the history. And I was wondering if you might be able to provide just a brief verbal summary for anybody in the room that didn't get a chance to read it or didn't get a chance to hear it. Absolutely. Yeah. So when we originally represented the applicants when they purchased this property, we conducted what is typically known as a 40 year search. Over the years went by, we realized that we probably need to do a little more digging to determine the exact status of this right of way. And in order to order to do that, we needed to dig far beyond the 40 year period. So that process involved not only tracing the history of the applicants properties, but the property on which the roadway is located, which is 26 Hood Street. And what I uncovered is that back in 1939, a 25 foot wide right of way was reserved for all purposes to and from Hood Street. And in a subsequent deed, which I believe that was a 19 or some point 1949 or 1946, the deed in the chain of title for 26 Hood Street reiterated that that right of way had been reserved. And that was the first time it had been specifically referred to as Norman Court. And it indicated that 26 Hood Street was indeed subject to that right of way. Interestingly enough, in 1959, there, there must have been a disagreement over the use of the right of way and the scope of the right of way. Because there is a judgment decree that was reported in the Winooski Land Records, the effect of which verified that there is indeed a right of way there. And the court decreed that the right of way is indeed 25 feet width. So that seemed that judgment order from 1956 or 1959 seemed to put to rest any any questions as to whether there was a right of way. And it certainly formally established the width of the right of way. And as far as the scope is concerned, the scope seems to have been established back in 1939, when it very clear the right of way reservation very clearly stated that it was for all purposes to and from Hood Street. So that's that's just a very brief history of the right of way that's used and the manner which it was established. Thank you so much. Anybody have any questions for Jason or for Martin Orrallitt? Would you say that that's a fairly clear delineation of that right of way or is it somewhat convoluted and ambiguous? I say the it was probably convoluted and ambiguous before the judgment decree, but the judgment decree that's recorded in the Land Records makes it very unambiguous and makes it very clear. Right. Okay. Thank you. Hearing nothing, seeing nothing. Yeah, I thank you so much. It certainly appears to be solving a mystery that's been talked about for quite a few years on different projects here in this in this little area. I think we want to hear from interested parties if there are no more questions for the applicants. I have another question. What, what is the existing slope of the land, the percentage slope on the lot to say like the predominant slope there? So lot two, there's kind of two slopes in a flatter area. Thank you. So you can kind of see that starting at the kind of the top of lot two, there is a slope and then it does come down to kind of where the cars are shown in the new duplex that it does flatten out there. And then there's a top of bank that is the steeper bank on the property. So it's not a consistent slope across the property. We've got the look at that for you quickly. So we've got idea. So I guess Eric, while he's figuring that out, my question has to do with in the future, should this be subdivided? Who would be looking at or enforcing the regulations about erosion control on this property? And maybe you could explain it seemed like there was, you know, it says you should try to avoid development on properties with a slope of greater than 15% and really try to avoid on properties with a slope of greater than 25%. So is that something you would look at when this comes up for actual building development? There are provisions in the zoning regulations that talk about steep slopes and protection of those areas. And there's also I believe public works also has some requirements that they would that they would include for development related to slope stabilization or erosion sedimentation and things like that. So it would be covered at the development review process. But there's no there's no slope at which development is prohibited really. That's a good question. I don't believe we do. But let me let me reserve the right to change my answer on that. So while Eric's looking at that, I'll jump back in. So I have a plan that's not to scale it that that lower portion is greater than 25%. I'm not sure what that's at the closer to the road closer to the road is greater than 25%. As Eric mentioned, public works does have some requirements. When you're doing work in those steep slopes, one of which would be geotechnical report or geotechnical investigation and report would need to be done to give anybody doing the development the information they need to make sure that they control those slopes or any construction properly. And again, the way we have this shown there's certainly need for multiple retaining walls on this property. So the construction on the slopes will be managed one way during construction. There would be requirements for how to deal with those slopes. But then the ongoing property, it would really be retaining walls holding those slopes back to kind of be the permanent solution to deal with those steeper slopes. It seems like you're clearly given some thought to the possibility of construction. And we would probably be recommending, even though it's a smaller project, given the slopes, we would probably be recommending a geotechnical investigation anyways. But like I said, that's in our conversations with public works, they've mentioned that that would be required for development on this property. Thank you. You're welcome. So in the removal of the existing driveway coming over Norman, you said you were planning to return it to an actual grass state. Is that a replanting plan or is that just to let it return after it's being torn up? So it would be replanted with a conservation mix, just a seed and then some erosion matting put down. There's no replanting plan as far as any actual trees or shrubs. It is just turf would be growing back there. So it would be replanted as grass, but no additional plantings on top of that are proposed. So David, really quickly looking. We don't outright prohibit, but there is some language that talks about that the DRB can condition protection of certain areas or that it should be avoided development on slope succeeding 25% should be avoided when possible. It would be likely that this would not come before us, right, just to be developed as shown. Correct. Unless there was some relief that was needed for it. Yeah, that's correct. Sorry, taking notes. Not hearing any other questions. I just have one question. Looking at the C2. And I see that, you know, there's setback lines drawn for the new lot number two. There's setback lines drawn for the original lot number one, but there's there are not setback lines drawn for the new lot number one. I'm wondering why, why that is, if that's been looked at with the, you know, the new there's no setbacks lines shown for the new property line basically. Yeah, that's a that's a good question because I do know that we had looked at that. Yeah, I know there was previous versions, I believe that did show the setbacks on. It certainly did. Yeah, I think we may have turned that layer off and can certainly turn that back on and resubmit. But again, scaling off of here, it does appear that we, we do have the 10 feet required. I mean, that's part of part of how that jog in the property line between the new lot one and lot two was to make sure that we had that 10 foot setback. But we can certainly confirm that and add that setback back on the plans. I'm not sure quite why that layer was that the line was erased or later was turned off. But we can certainly put that back on a on a plan to make sure that's shown clearly. It only applies to building the building, correct? There doesn't apply wouldn't apply to those steps. There is a five foot setback five foot steps. Right. Yeah. Yeah, I believe it's we would look at that as a like an accessory structure and that would be a five foot setback. And then I guess I'm wondering about the easement and what what lot two is afforded with that easement on lot one. Sure. So that would be the first thing they would be allowed to re grade as needed to provide the adequate site distance. Again, we had a conceptual grading plan that showed one version of what might be needed. But we kind of show there is an easement area highlighted that you can see on this plan. It's the same thickness as the property line. It kind of cuts. Unfortunately, I won't be able to show you for yet. Thank you. That's that's exactly where it is. So any grading that would be needed would be in there. So that would be again during construction to make sure that that can happen. And then the ongoing easement would be language that would allow the that area to be maintained to allow adequate site distances. That could be mowing, weed whacking, snow plowing. It's plowing on this little but shoveling snow removal. So anything needed to ensure that the site distance remains adequate seems a little strange. So it was a recommendation of public works. I think it's a good recommendation. Again, just to make sure that, you know, in the future, somebody doesn't purchase lot one and say, oh, I want to plant some trees on that hill slide and on that hillside. And now all of a sudden the site distance that was adequate is no longer adequate. So I think it was a good catch by public works. Yes, maybe so. I mean, they can just plant trees a little bit further to the to the east, right? Or is it? Yeah. I mean, there's still a portion of that, whatever you're trying to do there. There's a portion further to the east that they could still, you know, a lot. I'm still is control over. I just wonder like that. That's an easement that is like basically right up to the edge of the lot one structure, right? And it's easy right now to do that, right? The property owner owns both parcels, but in the future, you're really kind of locking in that that future owner of lot number one. You know, with that easement, depending upon what it what it restricts lot one from doing. Yeah, I think that's a kind of a good reason to have it as an easement. So anybody anyone who's purchasing that property would be aware of that prior to obtaining it, you know, instead of just again, like you said, it would be very easy to maintain it now with the same owner on both properties. So wouldn't, you know, it's almost an issue that could get missed. But then if the property did turn over, they could do whatever they want. So again, I do think the easement is certainly beneficial for for lot two. Does it need to be all the way up like up to the building on lot number one? It seems like it really goes far into that property. If that if those lines are intended to be the permanent easement. At this time they are you're right. You know, really, that could be the permanent easement could be probably half of that. And it wouldn't have any impact on the site distances. So that's also something that we could clearly show to separate easements one for construction. We'd want to leave ourselves enough of a buffer on that. But the permanent easement can certainly be reduced without any impact on the site distances in the future. Okay. Any other questions for the applicants? Hearing nothing, seeing nothing. I thank you so much. We will invite interested parties to come up and testify before others. So I don't believe, Ms. Ransom, you're not, you're not here to speak about this, correct? Not. So there's no one in the room. And Greg, I'm guessing you're not here to, you don't want to say anything. There's no one in the room to speak about it, but we do have Matt Parisi on the Zoom. So Matt, you can go ahead and unmute yourself if you'd like. Hi there. Hey Matt, how are you? Pretty good. I am, I'm all for the subdivision. My one question was regarding this would be an administrative permit. I think I overheard, right? Assuming the subdivision went through. Presuming the, well, I guess it depends on what the development is proposed on the property. Right, but assuming the development was essentially as shown here, potentially, this would just be an administrative permit. This wouldn't go through DRB or any kind of notice, correct? Under our current regulations, that is correct. Okay. If Elaine sells this to another person, if they change what's approved again, if they want to modify the plans, would that then have to go through DRB and essentially, how would I say this, you know, the other law owners? When you say amend the plans, are you referring to the subdivision plan? No, I'm, as the subdivision plan is right now, I'm 100% fine with it. I think it's a good solution for a piece of land that's otherwise unusable. What I'm worried about is if and when it's sold, if a new, the new owner decides to try to alter these plans, is there any recourse once that, because it would still, in theory, if the person wants to build a duplex or a single family, it would just be, I mean, an administrative permit. There would be no, there would be no right of force to go through the DRB, correct? Unless they needed some sort of relief, that's correct. The zoning district where this property is located would allow for a single unit or a two unit to be built by right. Right. So I guess my confusion here is, if this is approved, which again I'm totally fine for, how is it enforced that it is developed as it is shown? So the, what you're seeing, Matt, on the screen is just for illustrative purposes. This approval does not include any development on the property. Right. Okay, so how do we, how do we, how do we, what I'm worried about, because I've obviously spent a lot of time there, I'm building a house currently right behind it, it is a significant, significant slope. That's in the bylaws, in the zoning bylaws, they are, whoever buys this or builds this is going to be required to build, you know, a certain retaining wall, correct? Yes. Okay. Yes. And that's, I guess my question is, is how is that, how is that enforced? Is that enforced through the zoning office or through public works or just kind of. It would probably be a combination of both for something like that. Okay. All right. That was just my, just one question about that. Okay. Thank you, Matt. Is there anybody else who would like to speak on this project? Hearing nothing, seeing nothing. I think it is safe to move on. I do thank the applicant. I thank Jason as well for, for being here today. We typically make decisions, make recommendations in deliberative session. Usually that happens shortly after we wrap this meeting up on the night of the meetings. Sometimes it happens later, but we will make sure that we have our response to you in a very timely manner. So thank you so much. Thank you everybody. Thank you. So Matt, before we move on, I just want to indicate that I have the exhibits for, for this matter exhibits a through O that are included on the exhibit list and I'll be giving a copy of it to the applicant. So they have record of what the exhibits are that will be included with this matter. Perfect. Thank you so much. So on our agenda tonight is a second plan review for one tiger and streets. We invite the applicants up right now. Yes. So I'll do a quick introduction here. We've Greg Dixon representing the applicant of one tiger and street. This is a site plan review since this is located in the industrial zoning district. It requires site plan review from the development review board. So this is really a proposal to add some additional parking on site. But with that, I'll let Greg provide the information. Thank you, Greg. Real quick, we do ask that you affirm that you were telling the truth. Yes, I affirm. Thank you. I am here on behalf of JNF LLC who owns the building. The building is a multi tenant building that is currently mostly used by one tenant, especially the back portion of it. And what they do is they buy airplane parts and then sort of strip them down and resell the parts. And what we are looking to do is that they need more space to store said parts as well as delivery of those parts coming in. It is parking, but effectively it won't be vehicle parking. It will be more like con X boxes as well as some semi trucks that would be parked there either semi permanently or sort of as they as they need additional space. So these boxes will, these boxes and trucks will mostly just sit in this area. So it's more of a staging less of parking. It's a pretty straightforward project because it is in the tiger industrial park. It is part of a an existing state stormwater permit as well as an existing active 50 permit. I will have to amend both of those permits, even though I we just amended them for 11 Tiger Street, but such seems to be the flow of the industrial park. So it would be pretty much the exact same process that I did before. Obviously, there's no changes to the buildings, no changes to the use of the of the property, no interior changes or anything like that. So it's strictly the project is right here what we're looking at. I didn't have too much more to add because it really doesn't affect the whole lot of the building or circulation or anything like that. It didn't affect the whole lot of the land regulations. I kind of went over that in my letter that I sent to you guys, but I'd be happy to answer any questions and chat through what we're doing. All right. Thank you, Greg. Real quick question. This is entirely gravel. Am I reading that correctly? It is going to be gravel. Yeah. There's no plan to pave it. That's not for any other reason. Besides, they just don't have the need to pave it. It's not permeable or anything like that. We might consider trying to do that once we get into the stormwater calculations, but with the sands that are on site that I've found in the 11 Tiger Street project. And then we've also gone out here and done a test pit and two perk tests. We have like an incredible amount of sand that really has a good ability to take a lot of water and we're not adding a whole lot of impervious. So I'm not trying to claim that that is pervious service, but it will just be gravel. Yeah, it will certainly take more water than asphalt would I would think. Yes. Thank you. Any other questions for Greg? It's basically filling in and moving that slope to the edge of the property. It looks like you're making the flat area larger. So it will fill in, but that area in general, I think, has also been used for disposal of certain items. So I imagine that we will be cleaning that all up and actually taking it out. You can kind of see where the contours start to, I believe, just over the years. It's been used as a bit of a dump, not for anything. It looks to me like old concrete, old asphalt, stuff like that. That stuff probably won't be suitable to leave in there as structural fill. So it will probably take a bit of that out, but effectively pushing that slope towards the edge of the property. And that slope is suitable in gravel? That slope, it's not going to be gravel. That will probably be rock. It will be a two-on-one slope, probably made with some pretty substantial stone. So that whole side slope will be rock. And I'm curious about the property to the bottom of this page that's not shown here. What's down here? To the left is Tygan Street, and to the right is the properties along Weaver Street. I will give you a map here so you can see. That was the 11 Tygan Street project that I was in earlier for. Here's one Tygan Street, which we're talking about now. So it's this area back in this corner here. This is 11 Tygan, which we just did a site plan review on two meetings ago, one meeting ago. So part of the industrial park, and then gateway zoning along this northern part of Weaver Street. So no predicted impacts as far as runoff to the property on Weaver? Yeah, the water just doesn't go in that direction. We are, from our plans, you can kind of see, I'm going to add a bit of a berm at the top of that parking area to try to collect everything into catch basin and then bring it down to the bottom. We first thought about sending it over just over the edge, but I was worried about erosion with that slope. So this will be a sort of deep catch basin and then a pretty shallowly sloped pipe that would then go into that infiltration basin at the bottom of the hill. Try to take the velocity out of the water. And the hope is that there would be little to no runoff coming off of that rock. And also because it's pretty angular, large stone, if there was anything it probably just go into the rock itself. But you can also see the grades on the properties along Weaver actually quite a bit higher. So everything actually drains into 11 Tygan Street. And their stormwater systems are connected. You can kind of see it on the edge of 11 Tygan Street. That pond right there that Eric has his hand on actually takes a good portion of the stormwater from our parcel. So it's all interconnected, eventually all going down into those wetlands and ponds behind biotech. So it's all interconnected, all the water from this project will flow to that area eventually. I'm sorry, I just keep going. What's going to be placed on here? You said it could be semis and connex boxes. I think it will mostly be connex boxes. Those are effectively what they would put on semis. I think they're about 8 feet by 20 feet, but mostly just storage space. By 8 feet, how high? I think they're 10. What you would see on the back of a semi truck. The ocean containers. Those would be permanent. They would be either permanent or semi-permanent. I think how that aerospace company works is they'll get big engines and they'll slowly take them apart filling these connex boxes. And then somebody comes and just takes the box and they get a new one. I believe they were explaining it to me, but it was going over my head a little bit. But I believe that is that plan. But it could also be used for semi-parking in the same idea as a little bit of both. But I do think it will be semi-permanent to permanent. Maybe one would stay there for an extended period of time, but probably one would come right back into fillet spot. So Eric, are we at any sort of gray line between buildings and parking here? Are these structures? Well, I think so. In either case, what we'd be looking at is both the height, which they would be based on what Greg has just said. They would be below the maximum height. And it's impervious cover either way is the way that I would look at it since it's not an engineered material to be pervious. It's still lot coverage, so they are below the maximum lot coverage in the zoning district. So in either direction, it doesn't affect how I would review it because I would still consider it lot coverage. I'm going to think about the setback along that eastern edge there. Oh, I see. Yeah, that's an interesting question. And Greg and I talked about that a little bit with the setback. And as parking, we don't have anything in our regulations that talk about that parking is not permitted in a setback. But for structures, yeah, that is obviously we do require that structures are not located in the setback. So I think it depends on what the intent here is. It's a structure with a foundation. It's would be viewed one way. This I may even view as a temporary structure if it was considered that so or an accessory structure as well, since it's not part of the primary, which would be a reduced setback. I believe in this district as well. So actually, let me look at that. So yeah, that's a good question though. Actually, in our regulations, we don't say anything about setbacks for accessory structures in the industrial district. It doesn't have any anything identified so as far as a minimum distance. I didn't get around a little bit. I seem to remember reading something or hearing something that if if whatever it is is considered portable, then it's not a structure. It's not a structure as far as the legal terms. At least that's that was my understanding from several years ago, but interesting. Any other questions for Greg. Hearing none. Seeing nobody raising their hands. I will invite any other interested parties to come up. We have nobody online currently anymore and the only other person in the room is I believe here for the next item, correct. Okay. Well, Craig, you know the drill will probably meet later tonight and we'll go into the deliberative session to discuss. Make any recommendations that kind of thing. And we will get back to you very quickly. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Yeah, perfect. Thank you. And actually, Greg will be staying for the next item as well as he is the engineer for that project. Okay. It's very close to having three. Oh, sorry. Before we before we leave one Tiger Street, I have the exhibit list for the exhibits exhibit a through J that will be included as part of this record. And I will be providing that to the applicant so he can see what those exhibits are. Okay. Perfect. Next up on our agenda is a planned unit development at 205 West Holland streets. And Greg, you are still affirming that you are telling the truth. So let me jump in here quick. If I may. So this is this is not on for a public hearing tonight. This is just for a sketch plan review. This is being proposed as a planned unit development, which requires it come forward first as a sketch plan. So we were with this is not a formal hearing. Anything that comes out of this, we will provide comments to the applicant on on the sketch plan that are non binding. The applicant can choose to include those comments or ignore those comments if they want. However, what the next step would be a preliminary plan or a preliminary final plan. That's one of the items we would discuss as part of the sketch plan review when they do come forward. If they do come forward with a future preliminary or preliminary final plan that will require a formal public hearing with notification to the adjacent property owners via certified mail posting of the property. Anything else we do for a sketch plan. We notify the adjacent property owners, but it's not be a certified mail. So the this is, as I mentioned, a sketch plan review for a plan unit development to be located on West Allen Street. So with that, Greg, I will take it away. I still swear to tell the truth. I am here on behalf of 802 developments LLC. My client purchased this property earlier this year and then sort of asked me to take a look at it and see if what we could do to enhance it. The first thing that I found, which Eric and I have talked about a lot is actually that the deeded or sort of the town record of the amount of acreage on this property is incorrect. I have not done a formal boundary survey, but from what I can tell it's only about 0.25 acres. But it says in on town records that it's 0.4 acres. And actually when they went to go buy it, that's that's sort of what they thought they had to work with at the time. Their original intention was actually to subdivide this property in half similar to some of the other properties on West Allen Street, as you can see the property next to it's about the same size. That would have been possible with the 0.4 because it would have met the minimum area for subdivision, but with 0.25 it does not meet the minimum for subdivision. So we were not able to subdivide the property, which is what was originally the client's plan for the project. So then we started to think a little bit outside the box of how they could develop the project to not only fit into Winooski's desires for some more single family housing. So sort of three and four bedroom houses, but but also just make more of a community feel for for this parcel. So what we come up with is a PUD in the PUD regulations, you still can only have three dwelling units. And so that is all we are asking for to start this. We would leave the existing building in place and then we would build two other buildings on the property and they would share access and share some parking and some community spaces and outdoor amenities and stuff like that. But these would be three separate units that then could also be condominiumized to then be sold separately as well. Obviously that would be a condo plan. They would have an HOA very similar to other condos they would have that HOA would sort of take care of a lot of the combined and community spaces and stuff like that. But this is sort of what we're we're asking to see how how the city would would think about a project like this because it is a PUD we have to abide by the most stringent setback in this district that is a 15 foot front yard setback. And so we just use 15 feet for all front side and rear. And we feel that this we had some other ideas that Eric and I looked at having multiple curb cuts that that wasn't really going to work and then multiple iterations sort of through everything but this is sort of an idea that we kept coming back to. So this would, yeah, I think I probably talked in circles enough, but I think you can get the gist of what we're trying to do and be happy to answer questions and would love the opportunity to chat through it and see what next steps could come out of it. So two other just two other things to point out with this. One, as you can see the existing curb cut is being shifted. So that is permitted. They are allowed to have one curb cut per property. In this case they're moving it from the east side of the existing house where it services a garage as well in the back the garage is being removed. And they're relocating that curb cut to more, I'd say more centrally on the property. The other item along with this is this existing dwelling is within the front setback. I believe it's in the front setback even under existing conditions as well. So it's a pre existing non conforming structure based on the setback. So we'd be looking for a waiver to the front yard setback for that existing structure. The proposed new structures are within the 15 foot setbacks which are required around the entire perimeter of the property. One other item to point out is the existing dwelling at 205 West Allen is listed on the the state and I think the National Register of Historic Places of historic places. So there is some historic significance to this dwelling. So preserving it is, you know, seen as a good thing in this case. That was just Google mapping. It's a beautiful old house. I believe it was built in 1886. Yeah, I think it was part of an original. There's actually a little historic district in this area. There's about 10 or 12 properties that are included in it, because it's an old worker kind of worker house mill mill village type of area. All there's all the houses are basically the same base house and then they've been added on to over the years. But you can, if you look at them, you can see a very distinct architectural pattern of the houses in this area. This one is included. Yes. I'm not sure if it's included in that district, but it is listed on the on the register state register for sure. Cool. Oh, yeah, sure. Sorry. Are the other houses on the street that close to the? I believe they are. I think it's all generally. This is sort of like a policy question for not for now, but I mean, as a former resident of West Allen Street, my house was very close to my neighbor. I mean, we're not like improve anything by requiring that setback and it might even make things weird. Yeah, so I almost would ask for a waiver to put it. That's just me to put it up front. I mean. So this is the property. So you can see there's multiple properties along at least the north side that are right up close to the road and then several on the south side as well. That's what the parking turning into that garage. If you move it forward. Yeah, that's that is helping us out right now. Because it's offset. I must reconfigure it. I guess the parking. How many bedrooms are you estimating for the new structures? Again, this is very preliminary. Our hope is minimum three. That's sort of one of the positive aspects that we're hoping to bring to the board is that these will all be three to four bedrooms. We're hoping for four. I did a really quick sort of sketch up plan for the team on square footage that could possibly be yielded with the two new houses. And I thought I could maybe get about 2000 to 2200 square feet of living space, which would be pretty substantial single family home. So Eric, can you just summarize the PUD like how this is allowed? Yeah, so with a plan unit development, what we do is we look at the total area of the property and determine how many individual lots based on our maximum. Sorry, based on our minimum square footage, you can you can create out of that square footage. We don't take into account setbacks with that or other infrastructure. It's purely based on the square footage of the existing property and how many lots. In this case, the minimum lot size is 7500 square feet. You take the number of lots that you can create off that property and then you take the total number of units that are allowed in on each lot in that district. So this is in the residential C zoning district, which allows up to three three units per lot. So that's how you get your base. That's how you get your maximum allowable density for the property. Now that has to be balanced with the lot coverage. So we still enforce the maximum lot coverage. So in this case, they while I don't know the calculations off the top of my head, but say they were allowed to do eight lots or sorry, eight, eight dwellings on this property. They may not be able to get all eight because the maximum lot coverage is still 50%. So they have to work within the maximum lot coverage as well as the overall configuration of the property. So as a plan unit development, they can develop any of the types of dwellings that are permitted in that district. So we do allow for single unit dwellings in the residential C. So by going through this process, it does require we considered a major subdivision. So it's it's requires review and approval by you all as the development review board. This could be three triplexes. So we only allow for single and two unit currently in the in the residential C. We do have a provision for priority housing that does allow for multi unit developments in the residential zoning districts, but it requires. I believe it requires both three three bedrooms per unit and the units have to be affordable. I just thought I heard you say three units per lot. Well, three units per lot, but they can only be configured as single single unit or two unit buildings. So you can do three total units per lot in the residential C. We can only have three, we can only have three dwelling units. So these can never be turned into multi unit houses. Because I think still in the PUD regulations, it says you're only allowed to have the maximum amount of dwelling units that's allowable in that in that zone. That's correct three in this zone. So instead of having another idea that we had was having a duplex tearing down the building, putting in a pretty substantial duplex and then having a cottage, which would be allowed in this zone, which would have, which would yield three dwelling units still. Greg, what did you say the lot size was the point two five six. Yeah. So, so the these buildings will always have to remain single family homes one dwelling each unless city regulations change in the future. Yeah, so based on the lot size, they can only get one lot one full building lot at 7500 square feet. There's about 10,000 little over 10,000 almost 11,000 square feet. So they can only they still only have one building lot. So they can do a maximum of three units configured as single units or two units because they're proposing to do it in this configuration through the plan unit development. They can do miss three individual single unit dwellings that can then be sold individually through through kind of minimize of the property. But I understood, but why could this not happen without the plan unit development in this configuration because you can't have three primary buildings. And I and what we're asking basically how we're asking for three primary buildings is by doing a PUD and having a condo plan. What the maximum of what would be allowable would be a primary building and either an outbuilding or cottage. So that would be your duplex and the college that you said that would be the other option. So that still is an option, but the project team and I think it lines with what Winooski wants, which is more single family homes. This is why we're looking to do something a little bit more outside the box. And I thought the PUD was a good avenue to ask that question. So understanding that we can't actually match the building that currently exists there is any plan for the buildings two and three to have some contingency. I'm not an architect. I'm sure there is. I know I've worked on other projects where it's sort of the main building and then they have some sort of a stable look to the side buildings or something like that. I'm sure the project team would be open to something like that. At this time right now, obviously, this is mostly a bit of a fact finding exercise at the time. And I think that higher on an architect and really better illustrate what we would plan to do with those next two buildings, but connectivity between the three buildings. I don't see that being. I feel like we definitely want to do that and be happy to do something along those lines. The silence is palpable. I don't know that I have any more questions. I'm trying to think. It feels as though everything's fairly well covered and it's just a review. If nobody else has anything, I think we can we can move on and discuss and deliver the session. We do have a Jason property owner here to talk about this or to. Yes, yes. I didn't realize that. Okay. Well, thank you, Greg. Let's let's hear from the adjacent property. Yep. Yep. So Ms. Jane Ransom is here. She is a resident of. Well, she's an adjacent property owner and was notified of the project. So if you have anything you'd like to share or add or questions you'd like to ask, please come up. My concerns would be my privacy. These houses are within. We have a have a two foot space between our driveways. These houses, my house was built in 1875. My family has been in the house since 1925. So that's like 97 years. These houses aren't. They aren't very strong. I don't know how that construction, if there's going to be any blasting or right now, the train track runs right behind us. Every time the train goes by, my house shakes. So I think it's great that you're good thinking about moving the driveway to the other side. But I have to have a little bit of privacy, a fence or some barrier. If there's going to be three houses next door to me. I think that's only fair. Put up a privacy, something. And the fence that's there now is a wood fence. That's it's a half rotting, not mine. It's next door between the railroad tracks. And I don't know, is there a law how close to the railroad tracks. The fence can be or do they. It's it would be based on the property boundary itself. So a fence can be located up to a property boundary just not on the property boundary. So depending on where that property boundary actually exists is they could be right up to it. I'd be curious to for where my property line is because I think that it starts at their garage. But I guess we'll find out. Do we see the planning? Sorry. Here's the. This is also, I did a little bit of research at the town office of the old property lines. But it's definitely not exact. So I don't I don't know, Aaron and Matt, if you could hear what Greg was just saying, but he they haven't done a formal survey of the property yet. So that's what what's what's shown here is just some general information based off of tax maps and some some brief research of the town records. But that would they would need to do a formal boundary survey with the with a preliminary submission. Okay. And as far as the construction trucks. It'd be almost impossible. It's so small in that area to use the existing driveway to get around that way. So if the driveway could be moved before during construction so it wouldn't have to be right at my door. So that's, that's really, I really want to find out what was going to go on next door. I mean, Elaine has been there for 50 years. We've been neighbors. So it's new for the neighborhood. You know, there's a lot of history there. So that's all. Yeah. But with some, it sounds as though with some cooperation, you're, you're okay with the development though. Correct. Absolutely. We need, we need more property taxes and that's what I say, you know, if we can get single family or two family, you know, duplexes. Twice as much tax revenue. That's great. I didn't catch your name. I'm so sorry. That's all right. Jane ransom. It was under the name more would for till night 1998. Okay. And you're at one, is it one night? Seven. 197. Okay. It seems to me that if this is approached correctly, it could actually benefit you because the garage will be taken off that side. The driveway would be moved to the middle. And it's, but depend, you know, this is just a preliminary suggestion, but it could be done so that the entry to all the, to that back unit is off the center rather. It looks like it's shown off the side now. Exactly. I don't know if that's intended to be the main entry or speculative. Our old, our current driver would turn grass. Right. But I mean the entry to that, that upper house, where would that be the main door to that? They'd likely probably access 95%. Again, we have more conversations with fully developed. Again, it's more of a fact finding exercise to see if this is something that would have hold the ability to be looked at. I say, I say yes. I mean, I think it's great, except for the driveway privacy part. So I think it would benefit me if they moved the driveway because right now we can see into each other's houses, which is fine. I mean, as long as the same people are normal people are, you know, looking. And if the driveway moves, then they wouldn't be using that side of the house to try to make it shorter for them. Go around. A new fence and on the property line. Yeah. Okay. Sounds good. I'm glad it's not a huge apartment complex going to be built in like on Mallets Bay Avenue. So it's good. Thank you. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else? Any other interested parties here? There are not. Okay. Well, thank you, Jane and Greg. We will talk it over and deliver session probably in just a little bit. Next up on our agenda, we turn it over to Eric with city updates. The only update that I have for you is an item that I just learned about today. You may recall, there was a proposal for a detached cottage on George Street some years ago that we reviewed multiple times that was that we, I believe, denied both times it came before us. And then the third time it came before us, we denied it based on successive application doctrine that was appealed to the environmental court by the applicants. The neighbors entered appearance in that as well to take an opposing position. I just got word today that the environmental court is granting the appeal. So basically they, the environmental court agreed with the applicants that that project was consistent with our regulations and would meet the standards for conditional use approval. I'm just waiting to get the official word from the court and the update. I believe there was an updated plan that went along with it. So that will be potentially going forward. So that won't come back to you at all. You won't see that again. An activist court striking us down. Right. Striking for our plaza judicial rulings. Yeah. And then I know somebody asked about that not too long ago where that stood. So the courts are moving slow as they tend to do, but that's okay. They're thorough. And it is a, as it's known a de novo review. So they basically start everything over. There's no, we are not what they call on the record review. So our testimony and our deliberations basically don't exist when it goes forward to the environmental court. They start over at the beginning. So we'll be able to see that. Wait if we wanted to look at the decision. Yes. Yes. Absolutely. Yep. That is the only item I had for city business city updates. Okay. Any other business? The only other business that I would note is that our next meeting is currently scheduled for December 15th. The deadline to make that agenda is tomorrow. I have not had any discussions with anybody about any materials that they need to come forward to you all. So presuming nothing comes in tomorrow, I would recommend that we cancel that meeting. We'll cross that bridge tomorrow. The only thing that we may have, and I probably should have put it on tonight's agenda is just our review schedule or our. Our submission schedule for next calendar year. So I believe that's something that's more of an administrative thing that I can just circulate. After the fact, and then we can get that posted so folks know what what those deadlines are. Perfect. All right. So the time is now 801. Is everybody okay jumping into deliberative session tonight? Sounds like it. Yeah. Okay. That being said, why don't we, why don't we reconvene on the private zoom link at 810. Give ourselves a 10 minute break. And I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Sounds like LC any seconds. Second. Sounds like David all those in favor of adjourning, please raise your hand or say aye. All those opposed. Say no. Any abstentions. No abstentions. Okay, we are adjourned. We'll see you in 10 minutes. Okay. Thank you all very much. Thanks.