 Okay, so we'll get started. This is the Development Review Board for Burlington for August 17th, so to get to December. And this is a mostly Zoom, but not entirely Zoom meeting. We will take up items that they are on the agenda. And when we call each item, Scott will be admitting people to participate at that point. And when appropriate, some of the items that we have to swear people in on, we will do that at that point. Also, when people are going to participate, we ask that they give Scott a mailing address so they can follow up for party status or other issues. I guess we'll go right into the agenda. There are no changes to the agenda. Is that right, Scott? That's correct. Okay, well, communications. I think there were some updated plans for the May 49 Main Street that were posted today. Yeah, UVM, and I think there was some updated info for the sketch plan as well. Okay, that's right, some other surveys, I think came through. Okay, well, minutes, I think posted too, let's see. Posted after the last meeting. Oh, okay. Got a couple to sign. Okay, thanks, Allie. Okay, if you can review the minutes that are posted from last week's, with last week's minutes, last week's meeting, I mean, if there's any comments, let me know. Then we will go right into the public hearing. First item is 92 Farrington Parkway. This is a continuation, I think, from a previous hearing. And I see the applicants is here. Is anybody else here to participate on 92 Farrington Parkway? Anyone on Zoom wishes to speak to this? Raise your hand. And I can enable you to speak. Are there any speakers to speak on that now? Looks like just the appellant, Brad. So, Brad, you can speak. Ray Ingram, I just swear you in. Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth on the pain and penalty of perjury? I do. Okay, so you're back. I believe you have some signed affidavits. Is that correct? Yes, I did. I got the documents. She said you needed, and I didn't know what you needed earlier. And I appreciate you giving me the time to get that. So, I have a question. Is this your Scott, or? Yeah, right. So, Ray, I just wanted to ask Scott a question, if you don't mind. So, if I understand correctly, there was a notice of violation, but when the applicant was informed that he was in violation, he moved the van to not be in violation at that point. The warning letter went out in October in 2020, I believe, and the vehicle was moved in March. So, if I, I'm just trying to understand the timeline here. So, we have affidavits now that show the 15 year continuous. And the staff's position is that since, if I understand this correctly, that since he moved the vehicle at the point he was told it was in violation, he lost his 15 year non-continuous use. Is that, am I understand that correctly? That's our take, and I believe it was AJ who pointed that out at the April hearing that he's corrected it, and it seems to remain corrected. Brad, that's right. I don't know if you can hear me. Yeah, I can hear you. Yeah, that's right. I mean, that was something that we brought up. I was like, wait, is it corrected? What do we have in front of us? So, Ray, did you follow that to some extent? Only one of final one came because the complaint was in October, the fall of October. Right, and the issue was that you moved the vehicle so that you were- Right before our first meeting, yeah, in April. Right. Not until then, and I was working on it. So, April, April, May, June, July, August. So, it's not exactly six months, right? Is it 60 days though? That was the- So, 15 years, 60 days, a non-conformity of the year. What was that? The issue was that it's 15 years without continuous use and that if you don't use it continuously for 60 days or more, it's deemed not continuous. And what was pointed out was that if you moved it in April, and I'm entirely sure I'm comfortable with this position, but if you moved in April because of the violation, then you weren't continuous. You had a 60-day break, more than a 60-day break. Yeah, this one's a little strange to me. I mean, you know, I think it came before us not in exactly the form we thought it should be in, and we asked for additional information and it seems like it's part of that. We've gotten the information we wanted in the form of affidavits saying that there was 15 years of continuous use, but Ray was trying to be responsive to the violation notice and corrected the violation in the middle of the proceeding. Right. So I'm not entirely sure what to do with this. I was the one who was asking for something more than the signature of neighbors because they were unclear. I think the affidavits are much more clear about the 15 years of continuous use. And we do have signed affidavits now, notarized. I have a question for the appellant. Like, what is your goal from this outcome? Is your goal to have parking in this location or is your goal to have the violation go away and not have this be an issue anymore, or both? I think if my goal is to park there, both is gonna have to happen. The way you put the question, my goal is to park there. And the only reason I... The second part of your question, please. Yeah, I mean, I think that you have addressed it, that obviously you want the zoning violation to go away, but you moved the vehicle then in response to the violation because that was your understanding of what you needed to do until this was worked out. Is that right? I waited till April to move it. The violation was reported in October. I believe it was October. Yeah, so, and I was also working on it. It was easier to work on it when I moved it away from the fence. I've been parking my pickup truck there too, off and on since I moved it. So you've still been using that space as parking? Yeah, I have. Since April. Correct. Off and on. Was there a period of 60 days or more where there was no vehicle there since April? No, matter of fact, there wasn't a period of 60 days or more where that van wasn't there. The vehicle you see in the pictures, never. It can probably wasn't more than three or four days. If I moved it on the driveway, I put it back over there afterwards. So the only time it's been moved is, well, since we were undecided in April and I didn't know the outcome. I got it running and moved it. I felt like moving it back. So I'm not, I kind of, the 60 days, I suppose I should have tried to hustle up and get the affidavits quicker. Because that's kind of where the 60 days are going from. Well, we have the affidavits. I think this might be in our court to talk about a deliberative, I don't know, are there more questions that we have for the volunteer? I'd like to use it because another reason is the garage is too close to that fence by the ordinance. Yeah. So that reduces the billability of the driveway. Yeah. Are there any other questions from the board for the applicant here? And Ray, I think this is on, we need to discuss. We see here affidavits, they seem to cover the period that it's supposed to, they're notarized, that's helpful. And I think we just have to discuss this at the end of the meeting. Okay. Okay. Thank you for hearing. Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you. We'll close this public hearing. Okay. The next item on the agenda is 64 East Avenue. It's a two lot subdivision to create, creating one new single family building. And is the applicant here for this one? Right. It's one of them. Yeah. Matt and Doug Gillette. So Matt, you can speak and Doug, you can as well. I'll do a screen share with your round. Is there anybody from the public wanting to speak on this one, Scott? So raise your hand and zoom the folks here in person aren't speaking to it. Can you guys hear me by the way? Yeah. So it's just the two applicants. Yeah. Okay. So Matt and Doug, if I could swear that you two in, that you would swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth on the pain and penalty of perjury. I do. I do. Okay. So if you want to present what you have on this, that would be great. So I'll do an overview if that's okay, Doug Gillette. Yeah. From Lamarrow and Dickinson Engineering, 14 Morse Drive S extension. So this project is a two lot subdivision on a property with a street address of 64 East Avenue. The existing parcel has a house on it, fronting on East Ave. It's got a driveway coming off University Road and it has sewer and water services on East Avenue as well. It's in the RL Zoning District and it's approximately 12,400 square feet in size. The proposal is simply to split it almost in half to create one new building lot, which is seen as lot two on the plan. So lot one would contain the existing single family home and the driveway in the garage and be 6,036 square feet. To meet the coverage requirements, portions of the existing garage and driveway are proposed to be removed to get it within the maximum lot coverage as well as having the garage meet the new setback to the new property subdivision line. Lot two is proposed for single family lot, single family house, 6,406 square feet. Its access is also proposed to be off University Road. It has, we're connecting or proposing to connect municipal water to a water main along University Road and to connect municipal sewer to the West across University property to an existing city sewer line. I don't know, in a nutshell, that's about it. And I will stop here and oh, I guess one other point of clarification. University Road is privately owned by the University of Vermont, it's not city owned. So the applicant, Matt has obtained an access easement to be able to use University Road for lot two as well as utility easements for the water and sewer lines. He's obtained easements for that as well from the University. Matt, did I miss anything that you need? I think that's about all of it. They should have a copy of the easements as well, if needed. One minor point, I went through the staff report it all looks in order. One minor discrepancy, there's some lot coverage calculations on page two that are slightly different than what show on this plan sheet one. And I think that just represents that staff was provided an earlier version, slightly different than what we're looking at now. And Ryan, correct me if I'm wrong, maybe whoever wrote the staff report might have been referencing a slightly older version. Sounds accurate. Okay. So the new one's got the correct lot coverage that we're looking at right now. Yes. Yep, so long as it doesn't exceed the 35 and 10% bonus for the amenity structures on lot one, you should be fine. I think you were pretty well in the clear the first time around in whatever change I don't see much with regard to the lot lines that would affect the lot coverage in a negative way. So it would be leaving the how much of that slab gets removed to address your coverage issues if you have any, is that right? I mean, I'm the existing property of removing for setback reasons, but also maybe a lot coverage reasons. That's right. Yes, there's a lot of hatching going on but right there's about half the garage structure is going away. The structure itself is going away. Some of the concrete slab underneath that will be retained for storage and such. The gray area is the portion of the paved driveway that is also going away, one to bring it into compliance with the 18 foot minimum width. And coincidentally, that area also brings it slightly under the lot coverage requirements. Okay, so Brian, do we have those corrected numbers? That I'm trying to verify. I didn't realize that I didn't know that they were changing from the first plan that I saw and based my staff report on this, Vanim can't pull up the ability to pull the staff report because my internet's not working. Yeah, and the plan blown up, I guess. Well, we can ask for verification in the conditions of approval, Brian. Thanks. Okay, any questions from members of the board for the applicant? I don't see any, okay. Anything else that the applicant wants to add at this point? So I don't know. So we will probably deliberate at the end of the meeting tonight. Okay, thank you. We will close this public hearing. All right, thank you for your time. Thanks. Okay, the next application is actually 489 Main Street and 184 94 South Prospect Street University of Vermont. And I see the applicant is up. Is there anybody else who's gonna speak on this side? Scott? Well, Lani, who else should be speaking tonight as a part of the applicant team? And the second part of that question is, do you want to present or should I just screen share? The team with me tonight is Cheryl Dowling from SAS Architects. Scott Goodwin from a physical plant department at UVM. Derek Reed from Krebs and Lansing. And I believe Luce Hill is also here. So that's the entire team here. Okay, you can all talk. Need to present, let me know. Otherwise, I'll just screen share. Any members of the public, Scott? We do have some folks here in person to speak. And I know Sharon Busher wants to speak as well. She's on the phone. Okay, so the two folks who are there, Sharon Busher on the phone and the five members of the applicant team, I'd like to swear you all in that you would tell the truth and hold truth on the pain and penalty of perjury. I do. I do. I think everybody has it. Could Cheryl Dowling? Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, hi. Okay, so I just wanted to say that this is a project that is part of a larger landscape and building removal project for the university. A plan is to beautify the area that is one of the first views on campus, for students who are considering UVM as their potential cognitive choice. So it's part of a larger story of both making improvements to a sensitive and important area of campus, as well as fitting in with the university's overall historic preservation priorities. So you may know that we did some prior work in combining the lots so that we could have a comprehensive unified project. The other thing I'd like to say before we get into more of what the project is about is that we reviewed staff recommendations and we support those recommendations. Cheryl, would you like to take us through the project? Sure. Well, we are, I mean, the goal of the project is to provide an inviting accessible pedestrian friendly and just plain enjoyable experience from the moment of perspective, UVM student comes to campus with their guardian or parent, parks their car, makes their way to the admissions barn and here's the information that moves through to campus. The current path that students have to take to do that is really lacking in terms of what is offered at UVM and I think this project is really addressing that. But there are a lot of other pieces that are sort of tied into that. So current students, can you see my mouse? Am I presenting or is somebody? I'm presenting, Cheryl, if you want to, I can let you or I can just screen share. Okay, so I can't, okay. So could you go to SP 1.0, which is down maybe four or five, yeah, let's get some, almost there, get in there. You'll see some green, so that's a good sign. Maybe that's, yeah, that's probably a good place to start if you want to do full screen there. So the admissions barn, can you give me control so I can point or? If you want, Cheryl, hold your breath for 20 seconds and we'll switch this around, all right? All right, sorry. Okay, Cheryl, you can present if you wish. You need to do the share screen. I do. Yep. Okay, maybe that's not possible with my, wait, I got it. Many of us have the plans up, if you want to show us, just direct us to where to flip through to. Okay, so I thought I'd be able to do this quickly. Let's see, it's telling me I have to leave the meeting and come back to it, so. You're in as a panelist now, Cheryl. All you need to do is have the plans up on one screen with the Zoom and then you do the share screen, the green button at the bottom, or I can go back to it. Sometimes on Zoom, it is necessary to leave the meeting and come back to be able to share. Hold on, maybe it'll work. Can you see my screen now? Yep. Awesome, okay, thank you. Thanks for being patient. So currently the admissions barn sits right here and folks have come to campus, come down Prospect and come into this two-way driveway and park here, close to the barn and here. And the experience is, they park and then they walk through the driveway up to the front of the door and come into the space, listen to the presentation and then come out the back of the building, traverse down a set of stairs that dumps you directly into the driveway again and then you come around to campus. So it's not accessible. There aren't, anybody who needs a wheelchair has to once again come back at the front, gather, come down the driveway and gather with the rest of the folks. It's just not an equitable, equitable situation and it's not accessible. So what we did is we created a link from the admissions building through to campus. And by doing that, it's a path that anybody can traverse. We've added two parking ADA parking spots here in addition to the ones that are already in the spot. So folks can park in this newly created parking lot and the Allen lot, come up to the admissions building and participate fully. We've got spines out from this main walkway into the parking area. So we park in this area, you can come up to the building on a walkway that's fully landscaped and be safe basically from cars that are coming through that space. We disconnected these two parking lots to create that car free zone essentially. And we're taking the slot down total parking number from 149 to 146. So it's a minor reduction of parking spaces. Let's see. So I talked a little bit about how these lots were reconfigured. So we added park, well, one of the things, another thing we had is the Wadams Barn which is right here, these two are also historic structures had parking pulled up right against it. We pulled that away when we had, and so we had a creation of green space as we, and then there's also a strong connection now between this lot and the admissions barn which wasn't there before. So anybody can park here or here, have a safe pedestrian and accessible way to get to the barn. They can park in this lot, come up through the space or here as well. Just changes the whole dynamic of the pieces of property that we're touching here. Additionally, this is where 172 was located and there were two driveways out to prospect that we're now removing and adding a pedestrian way. So you can still get out to the city sidewalk if you need to be, but just really pulling all that driving parking, excuse me, all those driveways away from the buildings. And then we also added a sudden, an electric charging station, double charging station here as well. I think it's the second one in the slot. Third thing we did was landscaping this entire space. I mean, we're trying to create an area that people can truly enjoy when they're walking through the space. There's a birch grove here and we're continuing that through this space as well. All these historic buildings, the barn, Wadham's house and Wadham's, excuse me, Wadham's barn and Wadham's house all have plantings, seasonal flowering and leaves, alternating season. So there's always something blooming. We've got a screen hedge here that creates a lawn space with some tall grasses behind. So you're screening the parking and creating a pause point if people wanted to stop. Benches and then in the Pomeranian barn area, we have the plaza, which is more of a destination for admissions where folks come and they gather their benches here and there's a row of trees for shade and trees here with some other round granite benches for folks to sit. And that's where you can gather for presentations before people enter campus and go on the tour. Another piece of that landscape was the UVM arch. We've shown it moving from, if well, this piece of property is the city of Burlington's and if UVM does obtain it, the arch which is currently located down here on UVM property will be moved closer to Main Street and really act as a gateway to, between Main Campus and Redstone Campus. It works from the south as you enter in and also from the road, you're gonna be able to see it as a sort of placard, as demarking where they are. Lighting is also part of the project. We're adding walkway lighting, which is the historic lantern type design typical of UVM campuses along the walkways. And in the parking lot, there's more of a pole and shoebox type design fixture that is also standard for UVM. I know in one of the design review comments that we've gotten was that the foot candle levels were a little bit high. We did a little bit of adjusting and got those down to 0.5 and below on that latest set of plans you'll notice. The other comment we were addressing is there was a setback, a hardscape setback along this property line that we changed in this concrete in this corner. And we think this is what someone was referring to. We're gonna make that green space and pull that hardscape back from the property line to make that work. So let's see, so I guess the last thing I kinda wanted to touch on is that we've been working closely with Vermont Division of Historic Preservation when it comes to the Pomeray Barn and how to demolish that and also the 172 self-prostate. And they're fully, they've approved that work and we've been working with them on mitigation as to that we're gonna document it and prior to taking it down. And then in addition, the two other historic buildings on the property, which is the Wadams Barn and the Wadams House. Wadams House is currently undergoing some repairs and repainting foundation work to really restore that back to a better maintained building and the Wadams House as well is slated for a full exterior restoration next spring. And we've been working on those plans as well. So I guess in conclusion, I guess between the demolition of the two buildings, creating new accessible walkways that everyone can use, reconfiguring the parking, providing new lighting, restoring historic structures and landscaping the entire area. I mean, I think this is a project that I'm really excited to see this portion of campus, transformed into a place that, the university community, the prospective students and existing current students can really use and truly enjoy just was really a transformative project. So thanks. And can you just explain one thing as long as you're on the site plan as to the property line that you're talking about relative to the arch in the city? Sure. This right here, this North South property line separates UVM property from the city's property. So currently as this line comes down, the arch's current location is right here. And we're proposing to move it up onto this, into this location. Is that the new property line you're proposing there? You've got a property line that sort of runs parallel with the walk for ways. This is a bubble showing the area. No, there's another line there that looks like it's property line. This one? Yeah. I think the property is a triangle. It's a small wedge. So I think this is... I believe the line that you're referring to is a fence. Oh, that's right here. Yeah, that will be the property line. I haven't seen it. Can I answer that? The property line to the east of the triangle has not been determined yet. So we don't know that yet. I think Scott's right that this is a fence currently. Yeah. Okay, thank you. Yeah, so Alani, is there more that you wanna be presenting? Well, like I said, we accept all the conditions. We've already addressed most of the conditions actually. The property line adjusted, the property line negotiation with the city is ongoing. It's probably not gonna happen right away. We're going to move forward with the project prior to completing that negotiation. And when we do, I've already been informed that we'll need to get another zoning permit for the arch, which is what we'll do. Okay. Okay. It looks like a very nice project. Some of the detailed landscaping is quite nice and rich in a lot of ways. Are there questions from the board for the applicant? Seen anybody with any questions here? Quietly forward. No, our review, I mean, the review is really focused on exactly what you're presenting though, the landscaping and the site plan there. And I think that the drawings are fairly explicit in terms of what's been presented. So you're gonna maintain two driveways off of Prospect Street. Is that correct rather than three? Lonnie? Well, we're getting rid of two driveways. The main driveway that Cheryl is showing, those are the two driveways that are gonna remain. Right, right. And that both, if somebody's coming to the university and wanting to go to admissions, both of them will get them there. Is that the sign that you're gonna show that or is one of them favored in the future? They can both get you there. So they're both labeled that way? Yeah, they're both accessible. Okay. So aren't any other questions from the board at this point? I'm not seeing any. I know there's members of the public here who wanted to speak. Scott, you mentioned there's two people who are present at the... Two folks in person and Sharon Bush was on the phone, on the line. And who is it that's there? I miss what you just said. We have Barbara Hedrick in person and... Nelson. Nelson, well, I like Nelson. Okay. How about if Barbara Hedrick is first? Can you let her speak? All right, so let's start with Sharon. Okay. So Sharon, you're up. Yes, hi. Good evening. I understand. I appreciate DRB and the staff for facilitating or trying to facilitating a meeting that has public presence and then people remotely participating. I know that's no easy feat, so thank you. I wanna speak in support of what looks like a beautiful plan. There is one thing that is incredibly troubling to me and it's addressed in the staff comments and the DRB can't do anything about it, but I do want to just state that it's of great concern to me as a resident of Burlington to have a residential structure torn down and not have an entity responsible for the housing replacement ordinance. I know Article 9 doesn't allow us to do that with the University of Vermont, but I just need to state that since they create so much stress for housing, it seems ironic that they can do this without replacing or contributing to a fund. And I find that frustrating and I just wanted to share that with you and plan to try to go to the legislature to have them look at this again because it doesn't, maybe it made sense when it was first brought forward, but I don't think it makes sense anymore with the housing crisis that the country is in. The other thing, and I know this isn't a, I can't ask a question, but I wasn't clear about this. With the land negotiation where the arch will be, I heard Lonnie say that they would have to come back for approval for the arch. Would that be administrative or would that go before the DRB? And maybe that could be referenced in writing as you discuss it and I can read it, but that's just a question that I have. So that's it. I think the project is as usual well thought out and well planned, but I have great concern about housing replacement. Thank you. Thank you, Cheryl. Barbara or Nelson? I'm going to call you the next bit for the next one. I want to sketch my end. Oh, I take that back, Brad. It looks like folks are in person here to speak to the last one. Oh, of course you already won that for the public. And can you answer the question on that, Scott? Or is that? If it's just the arch being relocated, that would be an administrative permit. Okay, thank you. And I guess I'll ask Lonnie one question too. That is at 172, is that the right number? Is that currently, what's that building currently used for? That building originally was a residential structure. It had been used for a few years for visitor, visiting professor, housing. It's a very small unit. A few years ago, it got damaged accidentally. So it's actually not usable. It hasn't been usable for a while. So it didn't make any, it was not repairable. It has deteriorated. Animals were using it. So it's not like it was a useful, it wasn't really a residence for the last few years. Okay. Thank you. Okay, unless there's any other questions for the board, we will, thank you, Lonnie and the whole team there. We will close the public hearing. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. So the next item on the agenda is four different lots on Elbow Street and on North Avenue. Is the applicant here for that one? Hey, Brett, I have to accuse myself in this one. Okay. I'm gonna stick around for deliberative later. Great, thank you. They have the applicant or, yeah, the applicant James C4. James, is there anyone else speaking to us tonight with your applicant team? Yeah, Doug, sorry. Doug Hansen from LEMRO, Dixon. Oh, that's funny. I see Doug with an ace. Looks like Doug, hey Doug, I'll get a dog. And then the two people who are there, are they there for this application? Yes, definitely. Okay. So four people, can I swear you in that you would, oh, this is sketch plan. So we'll be a little later on this. So this is for a create, I guess creating the four lots there. And I guess it was some question about the lot sizes. And I believe that was clarified in a recently resubmitted survey. Is that right? That seems to be the case, yes. There's lot sizes were questionable there. I think that got resolved in that latest thing. Do you want to present this? Either James or Doug? This is Doug Hansen from LEMRO and Dickinson. Yeah. Also go by Doe, because I'm Doug H. So these are four lots, two of them front are between Elbow Road or Elbow Street and the lake. And the other two are between what we refer to as Elbow Road and North Avenue extension. And so the two that are between Elbow and the lake are both over 10,000 square feet and the other two are both over 4,000 square feet. And so what Scott's got up on his screen, or Ryan, I'm not sure who. So the lot one and lot two are the ones that I'm saying are over 4,000 square feet a piece and lots three and four are over 10,000 square feet. So the acreages, the areas that are shown on the table on the right hand side of that plan are correct. This, these lots are in an area that nobody and I'll say nobody because I spent days and days as have other attorneys. Nobody knows where those properties came from. There was a, we traced them all back to Anelizakowski or Kuzowski and, there's no evidence of any estate being closed or. So Mark Brodsky, who's the owner of 2751 North Miami Ave, filed a quiet title action to basically clarify where those property lines are. That quiet title action was resolved in let's see 2008 and the judge in that judgment clarified these lots to say this is where they are and this is how big they are. So that's, I know Ryan had looked at a plan done by Vermont land surveyors and that plan was taken into account but was essentially overridden by the decree. So we're very comfortable with the acreages, lot sizes that show on this plan and believe those should stand. And with those sizes, as Ryan mentioned in his staff report there's some setback questions because of the way setbacks are calculated down there. But for as far as the sketch plan is concerned this is just to show that the lots are there. The lots are that size and the lots are capable of holding either a single family or a duplexed row in respectively. The elbow street or duplex and the other ones are a single family, right? That's correct. Okay. And the topo information on this survey is that sort of light our general? No. No, actual survey? Yep. Yeah, this plan was done long before a lot there was considered something good. Okay, okay. And so this is sketch plan. So one thing that strikes me is just having a little bit more information on existing conditions would be helpful just for the actual final application in terms of understanding maybe some photos of the existing buildings and the adjacent properties and things like that that would be helpful just as part of the application. Sure. And obviously more information on the buildings proposed but that's not necessary at this point. And the survey that this one is is from 2000, I'm looking at the date right now. This drawing is from 2021. Is the drawing that's in front of us? Is that the latest survey or this is based on the 2016 survey? This is based on our survey, which we did in 2000, the property lines are based on our survey, which we did in 2016, which is the plan that the judge issued his order on. And just to understand what's being presented there's a lot of the connection between Elbow Street and North Avenue. Is that a street there that's shown on this? Next to your North Avenue, got one. You could generously call it a street. Yes, it's really, I'll be honest, I hadn't been down there in about a year and a half, but the last time I was down there it was more packed dirt than anything. And is that how one accesses this property though? Is that the path? Yes. And again, that connection on the north side of lot one, that was a vacant parcel that nobody had any idea who owned. And so the judge said that my client can use that as access. And the north side of lot one. Yes. So lot one, let's see, how do I describe this? Yeah, above lot one as you're looking at the plan. So your client uses to access the other lots, is that? Yes. The Elbow Street lots, yeah, okay. Because there's no empty space between Elbow and North Ave other than that. Well, other people must use that same connection, I would assume. They do. Okay, good. And I guess we're not concerned about the adjacent properties and their setbacks. So, okay, other, you know, a sketch plan seems, if we believe all the setback information, it seems pretty straightforward. Lot coverage would become an issue for all these lots, but you can address that and the actual plan that you have. Again, we will stand behind the coverage that shows on this plan. Well, we wanna see the buildings and everything else that goes on with it so that- No, I understand that. But the buildings that we're showing in the driveways and the parking, as they're shown on this, allow all four of those lots to meet the coverage requirement. Right, okay. We just have to look at that in some kind of detail. And obviously the actual buildings themselves, but- Certainly. And that will be part of the actual application. Other questions from the board for this applicant? Any concerns about this? Can you explain some more about, I guess this is Elbow Street that is on the property of lot one, two, three and four? Is that right? That's correct. Yes. And so that currently exists within the setback. Yes, that's correct. Okay. And that access, so to speak, continues to access the property to the south of your lot four. Is that correct? No, they do not use that because they all, in addition to the building directly south of lot four, they also own the building to the east of that. So they use North Avenue for that. Correct. And my client has a letter from them saying that he can connect all four of those properties to Mr. Brown's pump station, which is that circle that's between the two buildings, which is how he connects to the municipal sewer lines. It pumps up and across the old rail trail and connects into a manhole just on the far side of the tracks. And power, how does power get to this, these properties? There are a series of poles down through there. As you say, unfortunately, it's a little tough to see, but there's a pole. Are they on your drawing? Yes. Is he sewer? Yeah, no. So how do I describe where they are? Beautiful. Oh, okay, I found, I'm blowing up the plan here. So I think really just next to the shoreline on lot two, like there's a power pole right there, but it looks like it's in the middle of the street there. It is. It is in the middle of the street. Well, it's in the middle of what could be a right of way. It is in the gravel. Okay. And that's serving the adjacent properties, it looks like. As well as the buildings on lots three and four, yes. And it's trying to figure out where the lines come from. So that's coming down Elbow Road overhead power to that pole. Correct. And then serving the last, this property and the property to the north. The several properties to the north, that's correct. I mean, typically we would, I mean, things low question was to say that power is supposed to underground, but that's sort of what the ordinance for new property. So would you be proposing and move that pole? So it's not in the middle of the street? We would need to, yes. Okay. And that pole is gonna provide for all four of these houses. Is that correct? No, lots one and two actually could be served. There are poles along North Ave extension as well. So they could be served off of that. And is it gas out here? I do not know the answer to that. Okay, so those are some of the questions asking about how the utilities serve these buildings are the discussion and the final understanding how that works, it's an interesting plan. Okay. And obviously landscaping that also be an issue going down. Understood. And at this point, you're not planning to do anything with that existing concrete retaining wall that's on the lake front. No. I have no desire to open that permit process. Okay. And you get to be above elevation 103, which is that's pretty much the new flood plain, isn't it 103? I believe it's 102. Yeah. So what was that Scott? 102 is the base flood elevation. So 103 is out of it. Okay. Okay. Good. Any other questions from the board on this? Okay. Any other questions that the applicant might have on this? And we have two people who are there, Scott, who wish to ask questions or participate. Can you- Yeah, I can sit there. Is that the screen over here? The screen over here. You can use that computer and I'll slide this. I don't know how you- You can just sit there and it should be on. If you can just introduce yourself when you speak, that would be helpful. My name is Janice LaPlante with the E of the N. And you can address- I'll mute that one so we can make feedback. Oh, all right. Can you hear it? Can you hear that Brad? She wants to speak up into this. This is the microphone essentially. Janice LaPlante. Yeah, I hear that. And if you can just give your address that would be helpful. Okay. Well, we go by 3211 North Avenue. Okay, great. So right nearby. Right next door. Okay. So the floor is yours. I just wonder if they're going to do one duplex and tear down that two houses that they're empty. One and two, I think on the lake shore, they got two buildings. They can do duplexes on that lot, on those locks. That's what they're- They're planning to make in four sets of duplex. Two sets. Two single-family houses and two duplexes. That's what the proposal was showing right now. So on North Avenue, it's two single-family and all of Elbow Street on the lake, it's two duplexes. What they're showing? Single-family, single-family, those two, and duplexes. So they are going to fix it up because they have done anything for years. I suspect they're tearing everything down. Okay. We'll ask the actor. They're not going to fix the walls. From the lake to shore, because that's falling down, but... The applicant said that he was not looking at doing that at this time, the seawalls or the lake walls. Move some of the trees. Well, they haven't come back with a landscape plan, so I'll have to- Apparently, they're dying anyways, but I just mostly came here to see what they're planning on doing because they didn't say very much on the favor. So this is just, you know, this is a sketch plan, which is a preliminary presentation. They'll be back and you'll get notice about that when they actually have more detailed plans. Okay, yeah, I came here for information, so. Yeah, yeah, well, I had you. I had you at any time, too, so. Yeah. All right, they were planning on four duplexes and two single-tips. Okay. That's the current direction to go again. When Abol Lane on our property is next door, on the north side, we own half the right away on some of that, so I want to make sure that's not interferable with it. Okay, and so which property are you to the north of what they're calling their lot one? Lot three. Lot three, oh, north of lot three, okay. Yeah, I'm right there. I see, and it does look like the right away does is shown over part of your property and part of their property. Yes. And that's how you access your property. No, we got a driveway in between, right away between Mitchell's and our property. That's the next one over. I see. Okay. So does anybody use Elbow Street now? Oh, yes. That's the people that used to own the other place and a couple of families, Mitchell's and somebody just bought the other place. So yeah, there's three or four of us that use that. Okay, okay, so it doesn't, I don't think they're planning to move it. Are you worried about moving it or anything else about it? No, I don't mind. Okay. They don't interfere. Yeah, in our section, our driveway. Yeah. Looks like the one thing that might affect you is if they move the power pole, they'll reconnect but it may affect your power for a day or when they move that pole. Okay, that ain't gonna bother me too much. Okay, good. Any other questions? No, thank you. And somebody else is there too, Scott? They're together, she spoke for the two of them. Okay, good. Okay, any other questions from the board on this one? Okay. I guess I have one other question for the applicant is the right-of-way for Elbow Road defined at all on this survey, is that definitive or is that just sort of an approximate location of it? That says the judge defined it. The judge defined it. That's the hatched area on the drawing. Yeah, there is no deeded, other than that decree, there is no deeded right-of-way with for Elbow Road or Elbow Street. Okay, good. The same can be said for North Avenue Extension from the tracks north. Good, if there's no other questions or anything the applicant wants to add, we will close this public hearing. Thank you, I guess it's not a public hearing sketch plan. Well, we'll see you back for the final. Very good. All right, and I think that's all we have on our agenda. Is that right, Scott? That's correct. Is it? So we will close the developer review board meeting and move on to our deliberative session. So I think AJ- The recording has stopped, is being recorded. Let's see, so on item agenda in front of me. Item ZP 21-136, 92 Farrington Parkway. I move that we grant the appeal and issue the 15-year determination. Got a second on that? Okay. Caitlyn, seconds it. I'm just curious, I guess for Scott, is how come the, on the, I'm just curious why the number is different on the staff report than on the hearing notice? Is there some staff report is 2106-290T? Am I just looking at different numbers kind of thing? Yeah, that's because this started in the old service system and I know it's in the new one. That's only different thread. Okay, so the ZP is the right one. Okay. Any other discussion? Okay, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? So it's 7-0. The recording is being recorded. On ZP 21-559-64 East Ave, I move that we approve the application and adopt staff findings with the added condition of aligning the lot coverage numbers with the staff making sure that that's there. Second? Keenan, great. Thank you. Any discussion? All in favor? Opposed? Okay. The recording has been recorded for both ZP 21-514 which is 489 Main Street and ZP 21-515 which is 184-194 South Prospect. I move that we approve the application and adopt staff's findings and recommendations or conditions. Second. Broke second. I have a question just for Scott on this. I'm always amazed when they have quick open permits going back 10 or 15 years on this. Yeah. So just... Yeah, more than 20 for one of them, I think. Does that really get tracked? I mean, they really do bring those into compliance. That's a condition. Yeah, we've really been tracking it for the past, oh, I don't know, three or four years. And so we're seeing a lot of these old ones get closed out. Yeah, that'd be nice. Okay. Any other discussion on this one? All in favor? Aye. No. Okay. And we're done. The recording has...