 Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the City of Montpelier Development Review Board for Monday, December 17th. My name is Daniel Richardson. I serve as the chair. The other members for my right are Rob Goodwin, Meredith Crandall, staff, Kate McCarthy, Tom Kester, Ryan Cain. First order of business is the approval of the agenda. Does anybody have any additions, changes, or a motion to approve the agenda? Mr. Chair, I'll move. We approve the agenda as printed. Second. Motion by Kate, second by Tom. All those in favor of the approving the agenda as printed, please raise your right hand. We have an agenda. So the comments from the chair are going to be a little bit more expansive tonight. And Kate, do you want to help? So we're going to stand down here. So why don't we go? So tonight, we have three former members of the DRV that we're honoring for their service that have long, I think collectively, probably more years of service than we've had zoning in Montpelier, or somewhat close. Modern zoning in Montpelier owes these three gentlemen a huge debt, that they have brought the DRV to the body that it is today. They have overseen a great deal of the development that the city has undertaken over the past 15, 20 years. And if you like the way Montpelier looks today, you owe each of these gentlemen a debt of gratitude because it's their hard work, their determination, their fairness, their employees, and practice that have brought us to the city that we have today. And we're really fortunate to have had their service here on this board. I've enjoyed serving with all three, and I felt very strongly that they all needed to be recognized for their service. This is a volunteer board. It's a thankless job. You get pushed on the street for appearing on TV and making a decision somebody doesn't like. There's no rewards. There's no pension system. It's just simply giving to the community. And these three members that we're celebrating tonight are exemplars of that community service. So it's really my pleasure. I asked them to come up. So Roger Kranz, Jack Lindley, Phil Zalinger, we have for you a commemorative map of the city of Montpelier with your names. Roger, this is yours right here. Oh, wonderful. So, Phil, I have one for you. Jack, Meredith has yours. So, yeah, we're good. All right, well, I want to thank each of you. I don't know. And Phil? I want to face these distinguished individuals. So I've heard that all of her predecessors that zoning is the worst job in city government. And that's because, you know, the firefighter leaders of the heroes, they come and save you and they come to, you know, the ambulance and all that. The police come and help you, but sometimes they give you a ticket. DPW, you know, they plow you, it's great, but then there's potholes. So, you know, they're kind of a mixed bag. Zoning, you can ask permission to use your own property. So even on a good day when someone gets a permit, they're still a little grumbly about it. And I think the only thing worse than being paid to do zoning is to volunteer to do zoning. And I think you folks have really given to this community for a long, long time. And I, as a staff person who's also been here for a long, long time, have appreciated the efforts that you have put in on behalf of the city. And in particular, not to sing anything else, but Phil, you know, Phil predates me on any of these boards. When I got here, you were, I think, chair of the ZBA and has been a long period of time. So I have a little special something for you. I'm going to give you a key to the city. And the astute amongst you will observe that it doubles as a bottle opener. So double 100 for use after the meetings. But anyway, thanks to you to all three of you on behalf of the city. We do really appreciate everything that you've done. Thank you. I would just say a few words. I've worked with every zoning administrator the city has ever had. Mike Jones was the first zoning administrator. And so he still served in mid 80s when I joined the zoning board of adjustment. So I've worked with every zoning administrator the city has ever had. They've improved exponentially. No, the administration zoning is exponentially in the last 30 years. And when I left, it was still improving. And I expect it will continue to improve. People take the job seriously. They dedicate themselves to understanding the ordinance and applying it evenly and fairly, staying on the reservation when it comes time to make decisions. Being judicious and being fair. So I don't expect that it won't continue to improve. And ZB, I think the DRB is a good answer. But thank you for the recognition. We never did it for the recognition. Wow, I was going to say it's a bad deal if it was for the. I can also tell you that the administration of our meetings changed dramatically when they became televised. It was just as west of the Pecos before the TV cameras started to run. But I think it's been positive for the city as well. Everybody can watch the administration of the DRB. Thank you very much. He came from the zoning side. I came from the planning side. And Mike Jones also took care of planning at the time when that was started with our good friend, Alan Blake. Alan and I came over. So he's the zoning guy and I'm supposed to be on the planning side. I'm happy to tell members here that service on this committee is probably the most important thing you can do for the city. And we should have a good time doing it. Don't let it get you down. There's going to be some tough times. But if you have Dan as the chairman instead of Phil, I'm sure he can get you through there. Good luck, Phil. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Merry Christmas to all and all a good night. Merry Christmas to all and all a good night. Why don't we take a five minute break if we can? I don't think we have enough members to approve the minutes from December 3rd. Which is the next thing on our agenda. Maybe next time. There's always next time. So let's go forward to the fifth item, which is the first item of actual business. That is the final subdivision plan review for 155 Northfield Street. The owner applicant is National Life Insurance Company. Chris, you're here to testify if you would actually first state your full name for the record, please. Chris Gerentkopf. And you're here on behalf of the applicant. Here on behalf of National Life. So if you raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give for the matter under consideration shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under a pain and penalties of perjury. I do. Please go ahead. As I think all the members are present, we'll recall we were here for a sketch plan review about a month ago for a subdivision of a two-acre parcel surrounding the existing preschool and apartment building located at 155 Northfield Street. Owned by National Life. National Life is subdividing this parcel to donate to the Waldorf School. The school has been renting slash leasing the facility for their preschool purposes for a number of years and National Life is going to convey them the property. On this parcel, which is an aggregate 17.85 acres, exists the preschool with the apartment overhead, a solar farm, and the community gardens. The parcels to be created are 2.05 acres with the preschool and the attendant accessory structures and development, play area, etc. And then the remaining 15.8 acres with the solar farm and community garden. The total area of 17.85 acres is demonstrated as a succinct individual holding of the National Life Insurance Company that has been merged for tax assessment purposes, but is a standalone individual parcel of land that they acquired in 1968, I believe. As we discussed the sketch plan review, the board seemed to be comfortable with it. The original parcel had been surveyed when National Life acquired it in 1968. We have not at this point endeavored to resurvey the entire property and have only surveyed the 2.05 acres in accordance with state statute and surveyors' board rule requirements. You don't believe that a boundary survey of the balance of the property is necessary to demonstrate compliance with the ordinance and unless directed so by the board. We don't intend to do so. I think Meredith's summary and staff comments pretty well addresses everything that we have to offer. A couple of things that the board did request at the sketch plan review that we have added to the plan. As mentioned in Meredith's comments, we're addressing the riparian and water buffers. I imported the VCGI LiDAR contour data and did my level best with that data to determine a top of bank. It's not, the data may be good, the data may not be good. The definition of the top of bank in field is my wonderment and my query and I took what I believed to be a very conservative top of bank to describe as the feature from which these buffers are measured. As Meredith noted in her comment, if anybody needs to, if anybody either national life for the remaining, for retained parcel lot number two or the Waldorf School will want to endeavor to do any further development on the plot, it's going to require a much more site specific analysis of what those, where those bank really are. But at least everybody's on notice that those potential development issues exist and since no development's proposed, no additional development's proposed at this time, we believe that's sufficient. The one area with Meredith's comments regarding the language of the easement to be reserved, there's a current access serving the solar farm that runs right through the middle of the project and we're intending to reserve it that national life will reserve that easement through the property. Of late this afternoon we were provided some, as part of our application package we were provided some draft language for that easement. Late this afternoon we were provided some additional language that we believe further addresses the concerns as to the maintenance responsibilities and abilities of individuals to not have a bunch of copies unfortunately. And the red change of what was submitted that further flashes out the ability of the school to maintain the area within this right way allows them to do whatever is necessary to maintain that area as long as it doesn't impede national life's use, to use the access to get back to the solar farm. In addition we would really like to be able to do, to reserve this easement as part of the final exchange of the deed, of the drafting of the deed and conveyance to the Waldorf schools as opposed to a separate easement. So we would ask that the condition that the draft language, if we provide the draft language to staff, which at this point we have, that we could get the condition modified such that the language appear in the final deed as opposed to a separate document agreement that would have to come prior to the issuance of the permit. We'd like to get the permit issued so that we can draft the deed and do this in one document so that those rights remain vested in national life as opposed to having two different documents that, although the potential is slim, that may not always align if it's everything's contained in one document, it's all going to be on the table in one place for everybody to understand the rights and responsibilities of that right away. So the idea would be to take this draft easement language and slip it into the deed. Yes, exactly. Before we go into that, I just want to make sure we check off a couple of boxes. Sure. So this is served by City Water and Sewer. Yes, sir. And the current building has the Waldorf School in the first floor and is the apartment on the second floor, residential, rented. Correct. And those are the only two uses on the property. Yes. On the two-and-a-half acre law one. Right on the law one. The two-and-a-half acre law one, yes. The parcel to be split off and actually split off. I note that just in looking at the staff comments that the current subdivision reports with density, lot size, frontage, and setback requirements, and that the actual buildings inside are within any of the existing setbacks that would be created by this new lot. Although the survey itself doesn't indicate that, but just measuring the distances would indicate that the buildings are within the setbacks. Yes. So we're not creating an inconsistent or nonconforming lot. Correct. I'm satisfied, personally, and just one member with the threat of stream illustration. I think that's just important to indicate to the, to future owners that there is this large feature that will obviously be any type of additional development. Yes. Then the staff findings are also the two lots of division without further development changes. And use will not cause a disproportionate or unreasonable burden on cities' ability to provide community facilities and utilities, not an undue adverse impact on traffic, and that a lot of arrangements are met. I think at this point, then, unless anybody, does anyone have any questions as far as the layout? I mean, I think we raked you over the goals last time to some degree. No. No. So I think this whole question really then comes down to, do we want to fold the condition about the easement with the deed? And actually, there's a two-step part to that question. First is, and this is the staff comments about, you know, seeking, and I think this comes from public works, seeking clarity, does the revised deed clarify which parties have responsibilities for maintaining the road access, road over the access to easement, and including a condition that the easement be recorded? Wow, that's the second part of the question. So I think that the additional language touches upon that maintenance point that the national life would have the right to maintain the easement, the road to make for its own access purposes. Right. Because beyond being a driveway, lot one, it has no other need for that access. No. No, it's not required to provide frontage or, you know, it's not the primary access to the remaining block two by any means. But it is an accessory. But again, the school would have free run of it as long as they didn't do anything to obstruct national life's access through there. No storage containers in the middle of the road. No plate. No plate bends. Right. As far as where the easement deed goes, I'm satisfied that it be a representation that or a condition that any deed transferring lot one contain the easement language. And, you know, I think we've always been not inclined to tell people how to write their easement deeds because of legal formalities of it. I think the language that's been included, not going to give a legal opinion on it, but it certainly meets the areas that we had raised from a zoning perspective and from a city perspective. So I don't have a problem with the condition just simply saying that a road maintenance agreement similar in form with the elements shown in the sample be contained in the deed transferring lot one. That's... Makes sense to me. There's no reason to require a separate easement document. I think it should just be in the deed transferring the property and I think it's appropriate just to condition the approval on that. Okay. I guess I would say that we just say it needs to be recorded regardless of how it's recorded. That doesn't have to be necessarily in that deed or it could be a separate. Yeah, we can just simply record it as part of either a separate agreement or as part of a deed. I mean, I don't feel as if we need to tell the applicant how to do it. Right. No, I think that's a fair point. Okay. So I think there's a general consensus. Does anyone have any other questions about this subdivision? I just...maybe you could summarize. I know you've been back and forth with the Public Utility Commission and maybe not getting an answer at National Life Fest too. Nationalized lawyers have been back and forth. Okay. They have reviewed the approval for the sole affair. Okay. And the answer from them, and I believe it was provided by email, by the Attorney Frank, one turk of it, two Meredith, I do not have a copy of that handy. Their review says there's no issue. I don't know that bearing some sort of formal application in front of the commission that we would have a formal answer from them in any fashion. But the feeling of the attorneys that have reviewed it on National Life's behalf is that this doesn't, in any way, impact that approval. I mean, my sense for that issue at least is that becomes incumbent upon National Life, which is if by selling this parcel and not including certain language in an easement, they come to violate their certificate of public good, it's, you know, they can always come back and ask for an amendment. And I don't think that's necessarily anything we need to condition it on. Yeah, I would tend to agree. I don't, I mean, I think, I mean, we can give zoning permission and it can turn out to be, you know, completely counteractive to the PUC CPG, in which case then it's incumbent upon the applicant to then figure out a way forward. Yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely. And they've had, at this point, ample titles. One of the first things I brought up when they first brought us the project on about doing this was that just want to make sure. Actually, though, I do want to ask one question at least. Do the utility lines for the power of that solar farm, do they stay on lot two where they cross over a lot one at any point? I have not the foggiest idea. It seems unlikely that they would have come down between the buildings there. The utility pole where, I shouldn't say I don't have a slightest idea, that's not completely true. The utility pole where the risers are is over here on the frontage where the conduits run up the pole. How they get there, I don't know. We didn't see any evidence of a trench. I think that it would be behoove them unless they have some as-built information which hasn't been provided to us. I would agree that it would probably behoove nationalite to make sure that that is covered in language. I mean, I think that's, again, that sort of easement language that doesn't necessarily affect our review but may down the road be something that they want to pay attention to before they have to ask for it after a transfer. Any other questions? Yes, Kate. I noticed a red highlighted comment from staff on page 13 which says regarding landscaping. It says the final plan does comply with section 3506F landscaping requirements. But the comment reminds the board that we may just consider and have the option of requiring additional planning between the community garden access road that we'll both found for Lot 1 and the preschool play area. So I'm flagging that as a staff comment that we've been invited to consider. What's the feeling of the board? And to picture the space between the playground and the community garden. It kind of goes up a little like this, right? Yep. It's up from what I think this play area was actually a horse cow or something. But it actually does rise up from here up to that field right there. It's unmaintained primarily. It just appeared to be the annual bush hogging, unmaintained field. I know that the landscape requirement says that one of the justifications for additional landscaping is to maintain and provide privacy both for adjoining property owners and between the lots within the subdivision. But looking at this and what you just said, we've kind of got topographic screening already on the Lot 1, between the western part of Lot 1 and New Lot 2. Did I have that right? Yes, Lot 1 and Lot 2. And then we have existing screening in the form of big tree on the other Lot line. So I think it's satisfied. The wooded gully certainly is separating it from the other residential uses to the east. Yep. It's helpful for me to know that we have the option to think that through if there's more benefit to be had that meets the zoning requirements. But my rate of it is that the benefit of additional landscaping would be marginal and that I would not ask for more. Yeah, I would agree. I mean, especially given that, you know, it's a community garden. I think if development were proposed additional development on either of these lots, then it might be more appropriate to consider additional screening for that development. But yeah, like you say, screening a play area that's already at a different elevation from a community garden doesn't seem like something that we should be requiring people to do. And aesthetically, I think it's pleasing the way it is teamwork. Good. Thanks. Any other questions or any other issues? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion if someone wishes to make it. Sure. I'll move to approve application Z-2018-0143 for two lot subdivision as presented in the application dated November 21st, 2018 in the support of materials. Subject to the following conditions within 180 days of the decision and prior to issuance of a zoning permit, the applicant shall record a final survey plot in the Montpelier Land Records for the procedures detailed in section 4405 of the zoning regulations and record with the city, either in the deed or in a separate agreement, an agreement moralizing the location rights and responsibilities associated with the access easement. I may have made a slight typo. I'm just suddenly questioning whether or not the recording of the subdivision plot, that's after the permit is issued. I think that was a typo on my part, but I can't remember for sure, to be honest. I just suddenly am totally questioning what I wrote in there. So it is recorded in the agreement? There's still need to record a final plot. Yeah, they still need to record a final plot, but suddenly my brain is going, wait, is that supposed to be after the permit or before the permit? 4405A says, after the Development Review Board approves the final plan, the applicant shall file a final subdivision plot for filing in the city's land record within 180 days. After approval of the project. Correct. So it's after approval, but I mean it's... So I would just strike the prior issuance of a zoning permit? Yes, thank you. Drafting too many garage decisions. So yeah, a condition to get a within 100 days final plot and then somewhere, whether it's in the deed or whether it's a separate agreement, have some language memorializing the easement and the rights and responsibilities of the parties over it. Yep, absolutely. Alright, motion by Ryan. Second. Second by Tom. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, please raise your right hand. Alright, you have your subdivision. I appreciate it. Thank you. I appreciate it. I expect school will. I expect the little children will be cheering. We're going to learn the word subdivision at circle nine. Some children who attended that knew before. Alright, that concludes any of our application business. I'll just note that tonight is the last meeting of the DRV for 2018. Our next regularly scheduled meeting is Monday, January 7th, 2019. But I believe, Meredith, as of today, do we have any applications in the pipeline? We have no applications for January 7th. So if unless you all want to have a meeting to do some training or some other board activity, it should probably be canceled. The next meeting would be January 22nd, a Tuesday. I think for the best way to, we can obviously discuss it, but my recommendation or at least since would be, let's pull the board. Obviously, I've had time off from because of the recusal of the garage. But I know you guys have been working really, really hard on a number of extra meetings. You may want a breather. And in which case, because it's not just the 7th, but it may be the other meeting in January as well. Technically, we don't have an application right now for January. There is one I know of that if they meet the deadline could be on for the 22nd. So one thing that we could do, and we've done this before, is in the winter when it's slow, we've gone to one meeting a month and just simply made that the mid month meeting. And we could, if we had an agenda, you know, obviously either do some training or discussion of other issues as they arise. But I think it may make sense to have that sort of by pull the whole board, have Meredith send out an email to each of us. And what I would encourage is not for us to discuss that, but to give Meredith our feedback as to what we thought. She could then compile it and, you know, basically see if there is a consensus for some type of training meeting or to have the 7th off or because I think we'll get a cut at this in February is my sense is that we'll probably have a meeting, a short meeting in January, the second meeting. And then February, we're likely to have the same situation where we may have one or two applications just because it's the winter. But there would certainly be time at that point. And it is the holidays, people may have plans or vacations. Certainly open to how people want to proceed. Mr. Chair, your idea sounds good to me. Maybe you can add to that by suggesting that when Meredith surveys us, you collect ideas of the kinds of things would like to be trained on, not necessarily so that staff can scramble to train us by the 7th, but so that there's a running list of things we might be interested in. So if these do come up again, there's actually time for us to make a reasonable request for some training. And that way you can kind of have in the pipeline some information for us. So that even if it's six weeks from now, we have a little bit of time. It won't be unreasonable to ask you to tell us more about open meeting law or whatever we're excited about. Yep. Nope. That's Mike and I had a very similar discussion earlier today. Excellent. Thanks. Good. That's a general consensus. Yes. Anyone have any other new business or any other issues they wish to bring over here? All right. Hearing none, I will take a motion for adjournment. So moved. Motion by Tom. Two seconds. Seconded by Rob. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. We are adjourned. Thank you all very much. Have a happy new year.