 And then the minutes from the last meeting were sent out to everyone. If you had comments, show us what you think. Okay. And we have one item outside of the agenda. Is that right? You have your end-of-the-report. I need you to save me shoes on. Okay. We'll now get to the public hearing. And we're starting with DHE-23F2, which is 410 North Street. Do we have the opponent here? I'll swear you in, but since this isn't a deal, we'll have the city go first. Attach the review. The basis for the staff denial was multi-faceted. It was based largely on the definition of a duplex. This is on page 5 of your staff report. That a duplex is a single structure containing two separate dwelling units, regardless of the type of construction. The structure with an accessory apartment shall not allow this encroachment. However, we'll be back also on page 5 of the staff report. It says what makes it something a single building. What, trauma to attend to. Yeah, a single structure. Well, how much of a substantive relation is there? Yeah. I, in background, I can tell you similar requests. If you don't have much slides, I don't know if I want to share these, or is that something that people use to do? You're welcome to do that. If it was on? No, it's all, I'll try to keep it brief. I'm sure you've all read the staff report. So yeah, essentially, I wanted to just connect the two units. And I don't know why Mary keeps using pergola. It's going to have a group, so it kind of looks like a pergola, I guess, but it will be a solid group. And it also kind of serves two purposes. I also do want to, obviously, want to try to make this a duplex, but I also have snow plowing issues. So it would, that was also part of the intent. Second page, you can kind of see the picture of what it looks like currently and what I propose it to look like. And then, so you have my reasoning for why I think the definition would grant me approval is the definition makes a point of saying regardless of type of construction, which to me implies a group does not substantially transform the two detached buildings into one single structure. If the duplex definition wanted to limit what would constitute a single structure, like the stats now suggest, it would need to opt to the language of regardless of type of construction. There's no language in the audience that also excludes from achieving a definition like Brad just mentioned. And I also just wanted to bring up the last applicant that tried submitting this. He never fully submitted his permit, so it was never formally denied. I don't know if that matters. And also if you just kind of know this doesn't matter, but I put this in here. If you Google the cat structure, it pretty much says a structure or building joined or fastened to another structure or building by any means. The only one I could find that didn't say that was a Pakistanian block that popped out. And then going to the Eve issue, I agree with Mary that by article 13 the definition of Eve doesn't apply here. And it also would have extended to the side of your setback. But the route was designed with the same intent as the Eve to throw water away around the definition of Eve says to throw water away from the wall. This one, since there's no wall, it's to throw it away from the cars in this case. And then also per section 5.25B, side of your setbacks, it does say Eve overhangs and then to have Mary that ran. It also says similar features. So to me, yes, it doesn't have a wall, but it's pretty much the same thing as an Eve. To me it would be a similar feature. Then next also section 5.25. Parking areas are setbacks and 5.25B, the A8 and 5.35. The route does not increase the degree of non-compliance in this case as the current left setback. It's a weird setup, but my neighbor's house and my house is built right next to each other. They're touching the setback there at zero. So it would not be increasing the degree of non-compliance. And the board doesn't agree with any of these set-up exceptions. I'm willing to make it 1.4 feet narrower so it wouldn't be able to comply without any of the exceptions. And then just summary, I guess I've already countered everything, so I can skip that part of the question. Yes, sir. Why do you want this to be a good plan? So it's pretty much the owner occupancy. I was, when I first constructed this place, it was kind of my dream to do it. I was planning on living there for a while, but then an opportunity came up where I'm now building a house that I'm sure a lot. It's kind of an even more ideal dream situation, so I'm planning on living there afterwards. And I built the accessory dwelling. I put a ton of effort into it, and I would hate to sell it. I have a question for Mary. There's no definition in the CDO for type of construction, right? I mean, that was part of the appellant's argument was regardless of the type of construction, but is there a definition of what that phrase means to us? Not that I'm familiar with. We do have the definitions that I've mentioned for what a duplex is and what a theme is. I know. I mean, typically, in the building code, there's lots of definitions of type of construction, and I would think that might be what it refers to. Construction, techniques, and materials more than anything. Yeah, we're firing in different classes of construction of different types of construction that you're firing. It seems that you're still going to have almost the same snow plowing issue, even with this roof, and that you're still going to have to back-drag that area or a snow blower or something like that to be able to plow snow. Well, yes. The problem with the snow plowing is... So it's kind of just a driveway that goes right down the middle, so right now the plow will push all the way in, but my neighbor's fence is right there. So if you... And it's already like, pretty much you have to park right up to that fence for you to not back into my neighbor's property, which she was here, she would make a strong point that you can't do that. So the fact that the cars have to be pushed all the way, if you push snow up to that fence, then you would create a buffer of then having the snow in between the fence, and then that would push the cars even further back to make the turning radius smaller. Should have to back-drag it. What's that? You have to back-drag the snow right now with the plow. Well, yes. Right now we pretty much... You have to shovel. So I go out there and shovel and throw it over the fence, which luckily those neighbors are a little nicer than my other one. Okay. More Canadian. Put it that way. Thanks. We have no definition for type of construction within the CDO. Any other questions? Remaining comments that you wanted to make? Okay. And then I guess I'll make one more point, too. So when it says it's in a definition exist, and the... I don't have this in front of me, but it says like you can use... If there's no definition exist, pretty much in the Brownington Orient, then you default to the American Insurance Association's definition, and the FEMA definition of a structure is something with two bridge of walls and a roof. But I think Mary found that as adverse findings. So. Thank you. With that, we'll close this public hearing and move on to the next item on our agenda. We may deliberate tonight. Well, thank you, everyone. The next item is the AP-23-325 Oakledge Road. We have the appellant here. I am. Is anyone else here to speak on this item? No. Okay. I will start by swearing you in. Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth under opinion and penalty of perjury? I do. Okay. And then since this is an appeal, same as the last one, we'll have the city go first. Is this yours as well, Mary? It is. I've got a handout if I can. We'll have the city go first. Wonderful. I just did. I just did it. 25 Oakledge. This is essentially, essentially it was a request for a parking, to establish a parking area in front of a single family home. If you have your staff report in front of you, I would direct you to page three of the staff report. It's an unusual lot with irregular boundary lines. Zoning amendment a few years ago provided a footnote for waterfront properties to establish a front yard setback. So that setback now is the maximum is 50 feet from the front property line. So on page three of the staff report, those red annotations are mine, showing the front property line in front of the house for the 50 foot setback. And the proposed parking area falls right within the front yard setback. So that's one prohibition within the zoning ordinance from article eight, that there shall be no parking in the front yard setback unless it's within a driveway, a driveway leading to parking spaces or parking in front of a garage. So the next issue is a limitation and location of use of facilities and also the description of the zoning ordinance says parking spaces in all residential zoning districts shall be located in the side or rear of the principal residential structure. So as the parking area is proposed in front of the residential structure, it's contrary to the standard. And again, parking is located within the front yard setback, which is also a prohibition. So the permit was administratively denied. The appeal was filed in a timely fashion. And that's the question before you tonight. So there's no provisions, Mary, for the garage in this case is in the front of the house. So the remedy is that they have parking separate from the garage. The illustrations that are provided as guidance within Article 8 allow parking in front of a garage access. As in you may park in front of your garage. Your garage may in fact be converted to living space if you're parking in the driveway in front of it. Those parking spaces are allowed. But this is the creation of an additional parking area off of the driveway in front of the house. And that's because of the description of that area. Whereas in my view, this could also be viewed as a turnaround area. The application was for a parking area. Any other questions from the board? As the driveway currently stands, they can park on any part of it. As it currently exists? Or at least any part of it that is on their property? Well, again, if you were to look at the diagram that I've included that the applicant has provided on page three of the staff report, it's a very senuous access. There are at least three drives coming up to this house. It's an existing situation. The drive area on the immediate south goes right to the garage. I can't explain how the other paved areas were created. Certainly not under this ordinance. And I did meet with the applicant in February to discuss design options. They chose not to revise the plan because they like what they're asking for. So isn't in the current plan the only quote-unquote legal approval space would be right in front of the garage? That would be an approval parking space. And the rest there is not really approved for parking because it's all within the front yard setback. So they have whatever the width is there for parking spaces. I guess I want to follow up on Leo's question. I am confused by the current proposed, the current layout has the sort of circular drive or maybe multi-pronged drive. They could drive up right now and park in any part of that driveway. Well, it's pre-existing. I don't know how it became what it is now, but under today's ordinance, they could drive up and park right in front of their garage. I'm confused by, I guess what I'm confused by is the Article 8 definition. There are some guidance illustrations within the Article 8 itself. I did not include those, but you can imagine a driveway accessing, say, a two-car garage. And Article 8 would allow you to park in your driveway in front of the garage, whether it was a garage or whether it was enclosed in the front yard setback. I'm confused by what they're asking for. In front of the garage, whether it was a garage or whether it was enclosed for more habitable space. And so the real issue, though, is a little buttress to the left, if I'm looking at the site plan. There's already a curve and a pad generally in front of the driveway. I mean, there's a northern prong of the driveway which seems to remain in existence. Then that comes to a pad in front of the garage, both in proposed and existing. The real issue is variation from the creation of that extra sort of squared-off pad area to the south of the south sort of east, right? Correct. Can I ask that in a different way? They left the existing driveway in an exact configuration but just took off portion of the driveway that goes down to the road. So they had, like, a little tail. Could they still park in that? That alteration is creating front yard parking. Because it's no longer a driveway. It's only parking. But let's try this the different way. If they took off the northern prong and left the southern prong, they could park there. Because that's now a driveway. Right. I think it's still near as interpreted. Right. I think. And I would remind you, the request itself is driveway layout modification to accommodate parking. And they're clearly adding to the existing. Right. That's right. Okay. Now the appellant has forwarded to me and I have uploaded. The last image is new, was just uploaded yesterday morning. And I would direct you to look at that. The site photos? No, no. Submission together. I have to find my way. I have that in paper if it's easier to find. It is called an appellant submission. Screening mechanism. The desire is to, from the homeowner as I understand, the desire is to add additional landscaping to screen the house and the drive area from the public way. Yeah. Is Oakledge Drive public way or is it just Austin Drive? No. No, no. It's South Cove down there. And Oakledge is private. I believe this property owner owns and our appellant may confirm that. So, but the setback is measured from Oakledge Drive. From the property line. Any other questions for staff? We can turn it over to you now if you want to pass out. I do have a specific knowledge about some of the things that or that specific knowledge I guess I should say about some of the things that came up and I try to clarify them. Well, those property records. Do you guys want to have one? Do you want one, Brad? Sure. Yeah. All right, good. I guess I would like to clarify the language in the application doesn't ref in no way coming from me referenced putting in a parking spot. Our submission to the city and we could probably dig through the records suggest that we wanted to change the driveway layout. We wanted to remove hard surfaces and replace that with plantings. The homeowner of this property has been in residence for quite some time and she has always felt exposed on that rise of ledge and has wanted to be able to provide herself a little buffer from the traffic on Austin Drive and Oak ledge inner center Austin Drive and South Cove intersection as landscapers. I don't often have to defend our our projects because generally they're viewed as quite acceptable. We're trying to make things better. In the case for you, we have tried to meet the homeowner's intention of reducing impervious surface, increasing vegetation, removing lawns and reconfiguring the driveway. The current driveway, as you can see in the picture leads you right to the garage and from the street side, it's in our view we would say exposing the garage door and that's not the most interesting thing you can look at. This is my perspective as the landscaper and so if the customer is asking us for screening options so she feels a little more secure in her courtyard, she specifically wants to reduce the hard services and we've done some incredible plantings there in the past and she wants us to keep doing our good work. When I applied for the permit, I didn't say we were putting a parking spot in, although that parking spot, as Mary describes it, is the egress and you can see on the third page there is a little demonstration of how a car might want to pull out of that driveway or out of the garage. In order to meet her goal not, well one of her goals is preserving the trees she's got, mature oak trees that are there that are contributing to wildlife and contributing to shade and contributing to moisture management so in order to put a egress in that we need to, she needs to be able to back out of her driveway comfortably she's not a young lady and so we wanted to provide her with the most reasonable way to back out and go forward. We don't want her to be the gal who goes through the donut shop window. So those were the, that's a description of the project from my perspective. In terms of the setbacks and the road, she does own the road if you were to measure from the closer side in this picture she's outside of the setback area there is no where to put parking on her property other than closer to the lake which doesn't make any sense and she's not looking for parking she's in her age she's not entertaining she's not looking to have people over she just wants her private place. Were there other questions that I didn't address in that description? There's an entrance that comes up to the driveway right now. We are overall in the project removing hard surfaces we have changed due to the traffic turning studies that we've done we've changed the orientation of that we call it a hammerhead in our business and so when she backs out of the driveway she'll engage the turn so she can then get herself out the new route. So that's why that configuration changed. So I guess I'll ask it this way would it be used as a parking space or not? She parks in her garage but is it a desire to create a hammerhead turning space or parking? The project description that we submitted to the town the city said that we were reconfiguring the driveway that we're considering to be a reconfiguration that is not intended to be a parking spot if somebody parks there she often has a garage door open and if somebody parks there they could park in front of the garage which would then lead them say the lady with the vacuum cleaner could go right in through the garage door which is her typical way of doing it. If someone said that that if like the permit were approved on the condition that there is no parking there she would accept that. I guess I Mary I guess I'm confused by one thing here a couple of things. Usually we are happy when people move towards more compliance when they have something that's non-compliant like the amount of driveway that different radiuses and axes and everything else and as in this current driveway just because somebody can park somewhere doesn't mean that the parking space you know I mean that's well that's how we have to count somebody has to have a legal parking space even if they have little places to park that are not complying parking spaces. So in this case the only parking space they have that's legal right now is in front of the garage. No in front of the garage parking the front yard set back in front of the garage right in the driveway that's a legal space. Well the garage spaces are also legal. Right but I'm on the So Brad you just said it's illegal to park in front of the garage? No no I said it's legal. It's legal okay. And so in the so they have all this pavement and there's only one area they can actually park in on the pavement that's legal and that's in front of the garage. So why doesn't that apply to the new one where they can have all the pavement they have which is less than they have right now and the legal space is the same one they have now in front of the garage. Why worry about this other space just because somebody could park there? Because the specific request before me to review administratively was the creation of a parking area which is identified on the site plans in front of the house in front of the garage. So what identifies it as a parking area and like maybe are we missing something from the original application? I'm reading the cover letter and it says application for a zoning permit on behalf of the applicant Marisha Taylor to approve a revised driveway layout and associated site features. On the appeal. I'm reading the February 2nd 2023 driveway modification application that was submitted on February 13th. The description of the proposed project is driveway layout modification to accommodate parking for residents. So if the applicant is going to accept a condition that says there's no parking in that area. If this is the deliberate creation of parking in front of a single family residence. If not this owner resident then how would we ever follow this subsequent residence? The owner got a email of support recently they didn't share the details but a neighbor effectively was pulling their hair out to see that she had to defend the project on her neighboring property to the south. What's that little call that has got a few houses on it directly south of hers there's a little south cove Eastmenway that's it. So on Eastmenway the neighbor lives on Eastmenway they say everybody's got parking in front of their house. That is true. And then further on Oakledge there's a parking spot in front of a house and so I'm not here to make a parking spot for her I'm here to let the old lady get in and out of her garage. We appreciate that. I can say in project review for other properties on the street where they have proposed something similar we have guided them under the ordinance regulations and said this is front yard parking it can't be approved so that doesn't even come before you when our staff is working with applicants during project definition. Other questions from the board? Okay with that we'll close this public hearing and move on to the next item on the agenda which is ZP-23-141 80 Archibald Street cannabis home occupation and I'm going to pass it over to AJ. Great. Is the applicant here? Yes. Okay great. So would you raise your right you haven't sworn in yet I imagine you raise your right hand just where to give that the testimony in the matter under consideration is true and correct under the pains and penalties of perjury? I do. I do. Is there anybody else here to speak on this application? No? All right. So just seems like a very narrow permit request just you want to use 54 square feet of your basement to cultivate. It's correct. It's my house and that's correct. Legal cannabis? Yeah. Have you seen the staff conditions? Have you seen the staff report? I don't under what they don't understand what you're asking. So on the staff report on what? This is the staff report? Yeah that's the the city staff before our hearings puts together a staff report. Okay. And yep. And I had forwarded a link to that on two occasions prior to the hearing. So there are some particular conditions in there and I was wondering if the board had any specific questions before I asked this anybody from the board have any factual questions? I guess just to know who's who would be and you are do you live there? Yeah I'm having trouble with the contacts. I think part of this whole process is that I'm familiar with it. Just to know who lives in the house. Oh we both do. Okay that was my question. That's my occupant. That's my residency also. What I'm trying to ask is do you have any issues with the staff report from a random you have in front of you? Um I'm not too sure what particular issues you're speaking of but I know there are some questions that you all have for me. Maybe. Maybe. On page 8 and 9 there's a list of conditions as recommended by staff and that's what AJ is specifically asking about if you're okay with all of those conditions as listed. Let's see, let about a quarter to sewer capacity have that in progress of getting the state licensing. Of course that's also dependent on information that they get from the city of Burlington. So we're in a bit of a chicken and egg situation here. Let's see, expansive with a whole lot of vacation. Yep, any expansion. That makes sense. Yes, residence occupancy outside storage. None planned. No exterior signage. No plan for special delivery vehicles. Um Yeah, I can't see anything in there that that uh and Mary, this is a question for you just to be clear this is the state separates cultivation and packaging from sale, right? At least I will tell you that there is a state process that is entirely separate from us. Okay, then maybe I'll ask it this way. The city of Burlington under the home occupation, at least in this application is separating the cultivation, drying and packaging from the sale thereof. Because I think with the home occupation it's not customer facing. You don't have customers coming to the business. There will be no retail sales there. Okay, that's correct. I wanted to confirm that. It's not stated as a condition, but I would add that as a condition if we improved it. Just so that we're clear that there will be no retail sale of cannabis from this location. Because I think that would require a different level of review from us. That would require a different level of review from you and from the state. I just want to state that because we'll be getting a few of these over time and we want to be clear with people the difference between cultivation and sale licenses. That is written into the law though. Sometimes it needs to be stated twice. Understood. Under the special use regulations, AJ number 11 is exactly that question and he has defined it in his home occupation submission that there will be no retail sales. Great, thank you for that. You're welcome. Any members of the board have any questions on this one? Yeah. You say that there will be no ventilation in this space. The plants need a certain amount of fresh air. Correct. So if you're getting fresh air you're going to be exhausting air also, right? Right back into the dwelling. Fresh air from outside? No. No plants need carbon dioxide, water and sunlight, right? And also oxygen depending on the time of the day that they're growing. So they can all get that from the same air that we're breathing. I guess my question is, do you have any sort of intake fan into the house anywhere in the... Other than the kitchen? No. So what do you say... What are you just setting up like a tent with a light system? Pretty much, yeah. That's the idea. So it's just whatever air is in your garage circulating we'll just feed those? In the basement. Oh, basement, okay. Yeah, we'll feed those, exactly. So there's, yeah, there's no exterior changes to the property whatsoever. And I noticed someone in the the questions, there was questions about potential light pollution coming from the tents themselves. Those are all, I mean, they're inside the tent with the idea of being that the light is contained, so that's not going to be an issue, so to speak. So I think there was another one where I'll put potential combustibles or other things that might be a fire issue. And I would be more interested to know what those actual questions were or concerns were, because my brain starts to go sideways, especially with my name Ishmael Amman. I think public, I don't know how the fire safety review is done. The building official has specific authority for the safety and fire code. There is a specific standard for cannabis review and there is an excerpt in there from a response from the building official. So he waits for it, this application to go through our process and then he has the authority to review the application himself. This is not the place to resolve these questions. No, the fire marshal will do that with you. This is wonderful. This is like new for everyone. We're all learning here. I'm glad I can help in that. Any other questions? No. It's twice. Very sold. With that, we'll close the hearing. We'll talk about it after our hearings concluded tonight and we'll vote on it and then get a decision out quickly. I guess I do have a question. Okay. Thank you for your time. So this is specifically for cannabis production. If I want to use the same space for growing other... Don't do that. Don't go down that road. Just say you applied for cannabis cultivation. We close the hearing. Let us make that decision. Then I'll ask my questions later. That makes perfect sense. I just want to say something. So if we... Let's just ask questions later. Yeah. We've come to the point. We've gotten through the procedure and this is a good place to stop. Get up off the table. Yep. We're done. Well, you just might see me back. Any other requests? So next on our agenda. 7173 Peru Street. Great. Thank you. 1093 North Ave. ZP 23 116. A request by the City of Burlington Department of Public Works. Is the applicant here? Yes, I am. Okay. Okay. I'm going to recuse. I wouldn't go far. I won't. So before I swear you in, I have a question for the board. Is there anyone else here to speak on this application? No? I was wondering... This seemed relatively minor and I was wondering if the board would have any objection to treating it as a consent agenda item. I don't feel like we really need testimony from the applicant on this one. It seems pretty small. All right. So what that means, unless you have questions for us and have read the staff report and are okay with it, is we would just not open up public hearing and approve it on the consent agenda. That works for me. I'm fine with everything on the staff report. Okay. A.J., I'm going to be admonished. No, you're not going to be admonished. Real quickly, this did go to Conservation World last time. They unanimously supported it. So that was an open end in the staff report. So now it's closed. I was about to say that you unanimously did not approve it. Okay. Can I get a motion? So moved. All right. All those in favor, second? Second. All those in favor of approving ZP23116 1093 North Avenue? Aye. That's everybody. When does this start construction? Well, hopefully within this month we've got our contractor hired for this. So another break in the bike path. Yes, yes. We'll be detouring everybody through the parking lot there. We'll be building a little side. We usually bike through the bus six in the morning. Well, you won't be interfering with construction. It'll be perfect. Thank you. And with that, I believe that concludes our public hearing agenda for tonight and our meeting.