 So this is the Development Review Board for Burlington for June 21st, assuming that there's members of the public listening to this. We take up items that are on the order of the agenda. And when each item is called, we go through a process of admitting the applicant and anybody from the public who wishes to speak on it to become participants in the Zoom meeting. Scott will admit them. And we ask that people provide their names and addresses. And then we swear people in as appropriate for each agenda item. Communications. At this point, everything has been posted online. True Scott. That's correct. There's been some things that were posted shortly, a little while ago, but everything's there. Everything's there. Minutes. There are draft minutes. John, I will, Joe, I will get them to you signed. So we'll get right into the first item is a consent agenda item for 187 Pearl Street. Restoring openings in existing historic building. Is Chris Mason the applicant? Yeah. Hi, Chris. Hello. So this is recommended for consent, which means if you're okay with the staff's recommendations, we can move ahead on this. Are you okay with that? Yes, I am okay with the staff's recommendation. Is anybody on the board object to treating this as a consent item? Nope. And is there anybody in the public who wishes to speak on this one, Scott? If you'd like to speak on this item, 187 Pearl Street, raise your hand now, please. Nope. Just the applicant, Brad. Okay. So does somebody on the board want to make a motion on 187 Pearl Street? I can make a motion. Okay, Jeff. Thanks. On 187 Pearl Street, which is VP-22-62, I move that we approve the request and adopt staff's findings and conditions. Is there a second on that? Caitlin, any discussion? All in favor? It's unanimous. Thank you. So you're all set, Chris. Okay. Thank you all for your time. I appreciate it. Okay. So the next item is 77 Pine Street, which is a appeal of an adverse determination regarding compliance with inclusion and rezoning conditions. So I see that. Brad, I'm recused on this one. Okay. Thanks, AJ. And is anybody else here to speak on this besides Liam, Murphy, Scott? I see Diane Gair has her hand raised as well. Diane, are you here to speak on this application? Yes. Can you hear me? I can't see anything. I think there are a number of us and I had a hard time getting on. So I don't know how quickly you're going to run through this. Sister 77 Pine Street, Diane, inclusionary zoning, or is this a different item you're attending for? Are you seeing this as Elmwood Avenue? I'm thinking maybe Diane's here for Elmwood or 501 Pine Street, but not 77. Okay. Let me look. Oh, is that, if you, if you, is that the Foster Street Ben breakfast? No. 77. So your agenda doesn't go by 77? Yes, it does. ZAP 22-177 Pine Street. I think you're looking at the agenda for the next meeting right now, not the, that's the one that Foster Street is on. That's for the meeting on July 5th. Okay. So obviously it's not easy to negotiate all of this. Thank you. You're right that it's about the pods. Okay. So that'll be later in the hearing. Thank you. We're welcoming you back then. Thank you. Okay. So Liam, I think I need to swear you in. Do you swear to the total truth and whole truth on the pain and penalty of perjury? I do. Okay. And just a question about process. I'm always a little unclear about this, Scott, when this is appealing a adverse determination, is that something that the city presents their view first or do we correct it? Okay. So is that you, Scott? That would be me. Okay. So if you can clarify your adverse determination. Okay. Ready, set, go. So 77 Pine Street is the rehab of the People's United Bank. 40, 49 residential units, cafe and a bank space. So because it has more than five units, they have an inclusionary zoning requirement of 15%. And in this case, you know, we're still fairly early on, I would say, in the rewrite of Article 9, the inclusionary standards. And this is the first instance we've had under those rewritten standards of an applicant who wants to provide some inclusionary units on site and do the payment and loo option for a couple others. In this case, five would be provided on site and payment and loo would be done for the remaining two, ready for a total of seven units. And following discussion with the housing trust fund, both at CEDO, we at the zoning division felt, okay, sure, split it between on site and payment and loo. Why not? The zoning code doesn't say you can't do that. And that makes sense. We're still getting to the same place. So the problem, however, or the crux of the matter is the appellants take on the payment and loo fee due versus the city's take on the payment and loo fee due. So a quick background on the payment and loo fees. So those are intentionally split into three different tiers. Basically, smaller projects have a smaller payment and loo fee. Middle sized projects have a middle fee and the biggest projects have biggest fee. The intent there is basically to make the smaller and medium sized projects more financially feasible to actually build. There was a concern that 20 years, 20 plus years into inclusionary housing in Burlington is that it was basically cost prohibitive for the smaller and medium sized projects. So there we have it. We have the payment and loo fee split into three separate tiers, small, medium and large. An important piece here is that the fees are applied with a marginal approach. So I'm looking at the code in the CDO right now. And for example, it says the 17-unit project would pay a total of $140,000. So that's $35,000 for each of the first two units and $70,000 for the third. So the more payment and loo units you pay for, you start out lower fee and get higher. The CDO doesn't expressly call out the example we're dealing with right here. And so in some cases where the CDO isn't explicitly clear, our department has issued administrative interpretations. There's maybe a dozen or so and they're all posted online. And in this case, there's an interpretation that came into play here directly pertaining to this. And that interpretation is included in your packet. Basically it points out the intent at the lower fees for the smaller projects, the middle fees for the middle projects and the larger fees for the larger projects. Fundamentally, the larger projects are paying a higher rate. In this case, we have a mid-tier project and what we're saying is in light of the standards in Article 9 and this administrative interpretation looking to clarify that, what we're saying is that the middle tier fee is applying to you guys. The nuance here that the appellants pointing out is they're saying, well, it's our first two units. So right, our first two units we should get below fee based on the marginal fee approach. We don't think that's the correct approach given that it's a middle tier project and think that could be abused in the future. Let's say we have a 100-year project right going in. So that's a top tier project has a top tier payment and loofy. They just want to do a handful of payment and lose. We're talking about a top tier project paying the minimal payment and loofy. So fundamentally, the payment and loofy is geared at the small, medium, or large size of the project. And so that's what the determination said. Said you can split the difference between on-site inclusionary and payment and loof, but we really think you need to pay that middle tier payment and loofy. So that's our position. Everyone question, why in your example, trying to follow this, why was there an option for the first unit to be paid for rather than go at $35,000? Why wouldn't they all be at $70,000? Why wouldn't they all be at $70,000? I don't know is the short answer, except that those were split into the less fee, the smallest fee for the smallest projects. In this middle tier, in the example, if they had five units or something that they weren't building, wasn't it that the first unit would be $35,000, the next one would be $70,000? Am I misremembering there? No, I don't have the firm numbers off the top of my head, Brad, but if it was five that they were doing payment and loof, the first few let's call it would be the lower tier, and then the last, I think one or two would be the middle tier. Why is that? Yeah, that's confusing to me. I don't see in the ordinance where it says the first two are at the lower. Well, it just has that vague example. There's just one example. Right, we're in the ordinance that says it is at the bottom where it says a marginal fee approach shall be used. So why, I don't have an answer for you, Brad, as to why that choice is made. I do know that it was split into three tiers, again, for the smaller projects to have the smaller fee and they get higher with an increase in project size. I think what I struggle with this on Scott, one Scott is the example is one from the middle tier, like the marginal example is a middle tier one, but it's only one unit into the middle tier, whereas project is the highest number of units for the middle tier. Like is that part of the argument because it's the highest part like marginal wouldn't apply? Is it how many units into the tier you are that you're applying the marginal fee approach? Yes, that's correct. So let's see if I can do math out loud on the fly. So five to 16 dwelling units, I'm looking at this, right? 15% of that is going to be one, one to two, three, IZ units, right? So you're going to start out those first two or three IZ units with the lowest fee. And then inclusionary units required beyond that for a midsize project. After that, I think it's after the first three, you kick into the 70,000 per unit. So that's a numerical thing that works. So look, I mean, this is why we have an appeal and we're looking for clarity from you guys. Congratulations. You know, part of this is semantics in my mind, but it's important semantics, right? We're saying you're paying the inclusionary fee, the payment aloo, on the last two units, right? And that lines up clearly with the language in the CDO, the appellant saying, well, it's our first two units, right? So by calling it the first two, we should have a lower fee. Well, maybe we should let the appellant present his view on that. Yeah, let's. Okay, Liam. Good evening. Hope everybody is well. So, you know, the city's argument has been basically, I think, look, if we had thought about this, we might have written it differently. And we're worried that somebody else might abuse it in the future. I think the resolution to that is you can amend the ordinance and make it how you want it to read, but you can't read into it what is not there today. It is very clear what the language actually says. And would it be differently if they wanted to say it differently? They could have. You know, I obviously have court cases I can point to to tell you that the court says you can't read into something that's not there. And that's what's not there. But let me give you some background. I have actually sat and read every document that is online relating to that. This all started in, you know, 2015, there was a housing action plan and that identified that there's really a problem with the then existing intrusionary zoning that the payment was so high that nobody ever used it. And then the city engaged a private consultant who did a study on interim zoning and recommended that the fee get lowered because of a couple of reasons. One was that they wanted it to be used more. And much of the argument was they wanted actually some money to be used for purchase housing. They wanted to fund the trust fund with some buy out monies so that it can be used for different purposes than just rental housing. So it the there was a report written and the there was a presentation made by the a joint committee of zoning and then these consultants and they went around town. And I don't know it would be helpful. Can I share screen or is that not possible? Okay. Scott has to So Liam, I'll have to promote you to panelists if you want a screen share. So just wait a second. Yep. Is he talking? So Liam, you're muted if you're talking to us. I apologize. I don't know when when I was shared, I guess I changed the settings. So there was a joint committee after the consultant made their recommendations. There was a joint ordinance committee, community development committee, and they had some presentations and they presented a PowerPoint. And this is the first time that this incremental language shows up. Before that, there's a lot of discussion in the hearings about providing flexibility. But you can see that it says the language only incremental units pay higher rate. 17 unit project, which this is in that tier 35 for two units and 74 the third is the unit and so on. So it obviously contemplated that there could be, you know, two, three, four, five units. The next was another meeting of that and there was a chart issued. And then the language is slightly different here. It says that it's 35 for the first 70 for the third rather than 210 for 74 or three units. So again, it's clearly saying that if you buy out that you're going to pay this lower price. Then there it was first drafted and appears in a first draft of zoning amendment on April 9, 2019. And it is the language that ultimately became adopted by the first the planning commission and then and then the city council. And it talks about a marginal fee approach. And again, it has this language about 35 for the first two and 70 for the third. Now, I'll agree with Scott that I've read all the minutes and I've read the reports and I see no discussion of why it was suggested in this way. But that's what was suggested. And that is what was approved. So then I can stop sharing. The question is that that's what approved. The language is pretty straightforward. You know, one, two, three. That's what it says. For this project, what I think something that is important to take into account is the project was approved and underway well before this interpretation of that was administrative interpretation. The administrative interpretation wasn't made until after the developer indicated that they were to they were planning to do a partial buyout. And if you look at the interpretation that was made by well, I guess it's signed by Bill Ward. It just boldly states that, you know, the payment in lieu may be used to satisfy projects, inclusionary zoning and whole or in part, if used in part, the marginal fee approach shall still be used and based upon the number of dwellings within the project articulated in 9.1. And then for example, to inclusionary users on sites uses the payment option for the third and the payment in lieu would be 70,000 per unit. That's just made up language. I mean, there's no basis for say an interpretation doesn't say, well, I get this interpretation by reading the ordinance and I see this or here's a statement of an M or anything. So what we have here is a situation where a developer goes in, does their budget, gets approval, proceeds on that basis that a clear reading of the ordinance is what it says. This is a project that's in that 17 unit mid tier. The first is, you know, should be 35,000. Second should be 35,070. Should be the third. Now the city may want something different and you, you know, I would suggest that you might want to change it if Scott's concern is some big project coming in, but you can't retroactively apply a interpretation to a project that's already approved and under construction and then seeks to pay the payment. Now I would note we have put the full amount of money in escrow and paid half the amount of payment so that we're, you know, in compliance in order to get our certificate of occupancy. But we think that a fair reading of the ordinance is what it says. And there's no basis in any document to support the administrative interpretation. So just to clarify, Liam, your view is that the units that aren't built that are going to be offside or whatever are always the first couple of units and not the last couple of units. As currently drafted, that is how the interpretation is. It says it's the payment in lieu for the first, second, and third. It's not the payment in lieu for the last out. And it could have been drafted in a different way, but it just wasn't. Liam. Any other questions for you to Liam from the board? Yeah, I've got a couple. Can you hear me, Brad? Liam, I may be just missing it in the ordinance, but does the ordinance, I see that the interpretation says the payment in lieu can be used in whole or in part. Does the ordinance say that a payment in lieu can be used in whole or in part? It doesn't say one way or another. And as Scott said, since it didn't prohibit it, it was asked about early and gold as well. George, you can pay in part. I'm struggling a little bit because it seems like the examples we're dealing with are created by the challenge of applying the examples in the ordinance are created by the fact that it's silent on using payment in lieu in part. It's implying that it's payment in lieu for all of the required. So it would be three required units for their example. That's all the units they're required to provide. And so I think your client is relying in part on the administrative interpretation, which allows you to make the payment in part, but then is rejecting the part of that same interpretation that says, here's how we also interpret it when you do that in part. Do you see what I'm saying? Well, an ordinance, as you know, has to be read by its plain and ordinary means first. And there is nothing in the ordinance that says that it has to be a buy out of all. You know, second, the, you know, I believe I apologize. I'm just trying to get to the right spot in the ordinance again. I think it would be logical. And I can understand why the interpretation of the ordinance allows a partial payment in lieu. What I'm worried about is the interpretation is there to address an uncertainty. And we're sort of cherry picking the parts of the interpretation that we like or don't like. We could just read the ordinance to say it's silent on this. You either pay for all of them or you build all of them. Well, I don't think that would be consistent with the language. It says that developer of a constructive project might provide a payment in lieu of trust fund rather than construct inclusionary units on or off site as determined. And then it goes down through it and it talks about a payment per unit. So obviously, you know, there is a concept that there can be a unit. And then otherwise the example makes no sense because this says that a 17-year unit project would be 35 for each of the first two units and 70 for the third. I mean, I read that to permit that you could buy out one or you could buy out two or you could buy out three. And the language that was in the slide show, which talks about, you know, so on, it clearly implies that you could have a partial buyout. Okay. I think three is the number that would be required for a 17-unit project based on 15%. So I think that's where the three comes from. But it's not stated specifically, but that's how I interpret that. I have a question. I don't know if it's for Scott or for Liam, but in the original zoning application that we approved, was any detail included there on the number of inclusionary units? Like, is this a change that has happened since that approval? The number was noted as 15% or 7%. I don't remember offhand, do you, Liam, if it said whether you guys were pursuing payment all over onsite? I don't believe we were at that point. I think it just said 15% in accordance with this Article 9. I think we sort of understand the, but he's understanding what we don't understand. And unless it's something that either Liam or Scott wants to add at this point, appreciate it, we will probably. Sorry, before we go, I have another question. Either Liam or Scott, the phrase marginal fee approach taken alone, what does that mean to you? What do you mean taken alone? Not as part of this ordinance, but just in general a marginal fee approach. To graduated fee that increases or decreases in proportion to, what is it related to in this case? It's related to the number of units either increasing or decreasing. Yeah, there's actually a very interesting Vermont Supreme Court in a related manner on this by my old partner, Peter Langrock, was with a land use tax where they have that there's a tax of, I'll call it, 15% on a profit up to zero to 99. And then when it hits 100 to 200, it doubles, it's 30%. And the question was whether the tax for the first 90, zero to 99 would be taxed at 15% and then the amount over that would be taxed at the 30% so that you didn't have this notch. And in fact, actually, the Supreme Court said because of the way it was drafted that there was a notch and that if you had a project with 101%, then you're going to get taxed at 30%. And if it was at 99, you'd get taxed at 15%. So that's the concept of marginal fee is that that it's incremental as the more numbers that you buy out. And I think that, you know, that that's our reading is that the more numbers you buy out, higher the fee. Okay, I said we will probably deliver it at the end of tonight. Hopefully we won't be here too late. But thank you, Liam. Thank you. Good to see you all. Okay, close this public hearing. Next item is 501 Pine Street. Is the applicant here for that? Yes, the applicant's here. I just got to fish him out. Is that Kurt? Is there anybody in the public to speak on 501 Pine Street? Yeah, we have some folks looking to speak, Brad. Okay. Do you want to admit them now? I mean, how many people are there? I see two folks with their hands up. If anyone else wants to speak on this item, raise your hand and we can swear you in. All right, so we have four. Brad, so I'll let them all talk. Does that work for swearing in? Yeah, I don't see them up here yet. I don't know who they are. So we have Catherine, Bok, Ruby Perry, Gordon Clark, Diane Gayer, and Scott Mates. So I'm asking, there we go. Okay, so we've got the applicant, Kurt, and we got Catherine, Ruby, Gordon, Scott, Diane, and Andy. Do you all swear? I thought Diane was speaking about the pots. We'll find out. Yeah, we'll find out. So do you all swear to tell the truth and hold truth under pain and penalty perjury? Yes, I do. Kurt, that includes you too. Yes. Okay. Brad, I need to recuse myself from this matter. Sorry. Okay. Thank you, Jeff. Kurt, I think this was reviewed by DAB and there were some changes that you had made subsequent to that, I believe, in part of the application. And so I'm not sure what would you like to say in terms of presentation. Can we pull up the plan or the rendering of this, Scott? Yep. If you want to start speaking about it, Kurt, you can. Sure. We had a design advisory board meeting to them, actually, and we addressed the concerns. And so I'm not quite sure what else to say. Okay. So yeah, you had curbs so that it would end. We had curbs, we added overhangs, pictures and overhangs, awnings for the containers, restrooms were added. And the rendering shows solar panels, but you're not doing solar panels, right? No, no. But that's the rendering. That was part of the concept planned, but we chose not to go in that direction. Okay. Well, you can always add them. I just have one question really for Scott or Ryan. Ryan's one. Ryan, the graphics on that, I'm just curious, the graphics on that part of the construction here on the left side of the rendering. Is that signage or what is that? The tower looking thing, I guess you'd call that art. He did have a sign incorporated into that originally, but that didn't meet the sign ordinance, so I had him remove that and he has. So that's art, I would call it. And if he's going to do signage, he'll have to apply for that separately. Yeah, that's his intent. That's part of the condition. And we talked about that today, so he's going to address that potentially in a future zoning application just for signage. Okay. So we do have people from the public to speak, but I'll ask if the board has any questions for the applicant first. Yes. I was wondering about the car situation and just what the intended use is there? Well, for drop off of customers and pickup, some food delivery services can come up and grab their items and deliver them. And if the handicapped parking is required, although it's not presented in the rendering, it could be used for handicapped parking. Am I assuming right that this is one way and you'll have some kind of signage denoting this is one way? Yes. I could anticipate with food pickup or drop off that there might be a line onto Pine Street. Have you considered traffic and managing that? No, I mean, we just assume this would be sufficient. Can I follow that up? Go right ahead. When we looked at this the first time, I think it was last year. Right. You had the same general configuration, but the difference is these are now permanent structures. Scott or Mary, I forget whose project this is. Could you help me out with that? Yeah, it was just they just proposed pads and they would have food trucks be able to come and go. Did you have the same circular driveway entrance and exit? It did, yeah. And we don't have more trucks or less trucks, right? This time it's just instead of trucks, it's now containers basically. I think it was Mary serves correct me, but I think it was four truck parking pads with the same idea layout. That's what I proposed, yes. Is this something where TPW reviews the traffic, Ryan? For zoning standards, it's not large enough for development to trigger our requirement for traffic studies. So the threshold for needing traffic study, this is quoting Vermont Transit's 75 p.m. trip ends. So either AM or PM and this is nowhere near it. So we don't have a full-time traffic study. Do we have a trip generation estimate, Scott, somewhere? I'll refer to our applicant, Ryan. No, nothing's been provided for me regarding traffic and trip generation, nor was it brought up or, you know, previously a DAB or anything like that. It wasn't an issue when we first looked at it. Right. No, no, no. My recollection, it didn't come up. How many square feet are the shipping containers do we have? It comes to, I think it was 1,400 square feet total would drop-offs for supplies for the, you know, for the restaurants and pick up then be at hours other than 11 to 11. That would be the idea. Yes, that's correct. Do we need parking, Scott? There's no on-site parking requirement in this district. I have a question. Have the applicant gotten recommendations or approvals and any recommendations accompanying that as far as the Brownfield site, the permits and so on? We've obtained that. I'm working with the Vermont Department of Environmental Protection and the EPA and we're about to submit a plan for redevelopment and so I've been working with them for two years on this project. So they could directly have more recommendations for that project that yes they could. Okay. And our zoning permits aren't issued until that's finalized, Scott. Is that right? Or sorry, Ryan. That's okay. That's correct. That's again an addition of the permit. And sorry, just to clarify with the cars, there'd be signage or there'd be something to say drop-off only? I don't know. Well, there's going to be a one-way traffic sign and we can click handicap parking if that's required and but clearly in the rendering we don't have any of that. I guess that's the question. Is the intention that people are going to park their car there and eat there? No. So if they're going to eat there, they're going to walk there? Is that what the... They're going to walk, they're going to ride their bike. Hopefully we'll be able to get some accommodation through the local businesses like Dealer or maybe even the city, Burlington Electric. So the signage would have to say something about vehicle access for pickup only, right? Yeah. Honestly, it almost would be better if it didn't have the curb cut to me. Any other questions before we get to the public? Any other questions from the board? Yes. I have general questions about like birds nesting in there. Have you considered if that would be an issue? Well, there's trees surrounding this property as well. It's four acres of woods and fields. So no, we haven't looked into bird nesting. Can I see the rest of the public here? Okay, there we go. So I see this about four or five people. I'm just going to call on people in the order. I see them up here. Catherine Block, did you want to comment on this? Yes. I'm glad that you already discussed the parking because that was also something I was concerned about or rather the traffic because I think there probably will be a lot of people who are coming in there and parking and staying. And then there'll be a lineup on to Pine Street. But my main concern is that there will be a number of trees that have to be cut. And since this is a area with quite a bit of toxins in the soil that the trees are helping to keep that contamination from getting into the lake because of the coal gasification plant, I would be concerned that even the number of trees for that area that are being cut would make a difference in the number of toxins going into the water system. The other thing I'm also concerned about is the effect of for the neighbors of the noise and it being open so late. So thank you for for me. And Catherine, can you, did you give Scott your address? Once I'm in a North Prospect. Thank you. Thank you. I'm just going through the list here. Ruby? Yes, Ruby Perry. I live one block east of this site at 54 Locust Street. And I have several several comments and some questions that I'm hoping that you could answer. The first set applies to traffic and that I'm think I need to remind you that anyone who's been on Pine Street during the morning and evening commuting hours, this would only apply to the evening, of course, would note that traffic is bumper to bumper. And on weekends, there is no parking anywhere, especially when there's a a little between Little League and the farmers market, all of our streets in the neighborhood and the five sisters are full and all of the parking lots on Pine Street. So any cars turning off for a quick bite or pickup to take out would necessarily interrupt what little flow that actually is, especially if they're traveling north and wish to make a left hand turn. It seems critically important to consider the traffic issues already present on Pine Street and the 37% increase anticipated as a result of the Champlain Parkway, which is also waiting in the wings. Has the developer done a traffic study that takes into consideration the traffic flow and doesn't include the impact of the of the Champlain Parkway? And I know that I heard from Kurt's comments that no, the answer to that is no. And I'm wondering, I think there needs to be one, a traffic study, because people are going to go crazy on Pine Street when they're trying to get in there and stopping traffic as people pull in. And what if there's other cars in there? Also, have residents of Jackson Apartments, which is right dead across the street, as well as the five sisters been notified of these plans in the review. I live in the five sisters and I did not get any notification. And it seems like our input is incredibly important due to the certain impact of traffic flow on their day to day lives. In addition, any lighting, any noise from the project will directly impact those apartments. Has the impact on lighting to the neighborhood been considered ever? Okay, there are lighting standards, I think that's in there. So though, so that will be considered the impact on the neighbor? Nothing. The zoning ordinance has lighting standards, and they would be followed. And are the standards for a residential neighborhood? Because in that instance, even though it's a super fun site, it's across the street from Jackson Apartments, which is a working class neighborhood. Okay. So, so I'd like to point out just in passing that the zoning changes that are being called for in the south end calls for even more residential development is a second food truck patio. There's already one behind Myers bagels conducive to the changing demographics of the neighborhood. I don't know whether this board considers that. And if you don't, who does consider that because I'd like to talk with them. And then I just have a couple of environmental comments. I understand that you don't, that you don't, the environment, the environmental impact of cutting down trees is not something that this body considers in their deliberations. Yet, the presence of the trees on 501 Pine Street is not incidental. As you are aware, 501 Pine Street is a super fun site. You call it Brownfield. And in fact, the exact location of the coal gasification plant, which left behind quote unquote 52 contaminants of concern, according to the EPA. I understand that Kurt says that he's working with the EPA. I hope that also you are working with them. The only reason those toxins are not currently contaminating the groundwater in the lake is because nature left alone has contained them safely within the matrix of biology within the soil. This matrix includes the bacteria and mycorrhizal network that work together with the roots of the life growing above the soil and includes not only the floor, but also the fauna that is now resident in that area. These neighbors are protecting the lake and the groundwater. If the DRB, you people, isn't the body to consider these critical environmental factors. What city department, board of commission will be reviewing the impact of cutting down trees and disturbing the fragile wetland ecology of 501 Pine Street. And with that, I thank you and I, my name is Ruby Perry again. And I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this. And I would love to hear a few answers to those questions to know how to proceed to the next step. We'll get to that at the end and see how many we can answer. It also may be part of our deliberation. I mean, we understand and we hear your comments. We have to be careful not to provide any legal advice or legal analysis of what rights or remedies may exist. Gordon Clark, you did you want to make comments? Can you hear me now? Yes. Great. Thank you. Give your address to Scott. Yes, it's 58 Scarf Avenue SCARFF in Burlington. Thank you. Thank you very much for the time to offer input here. I really do appreciate it. I'll speak briefly on three different topics. The first one is the traffic and I got to say I'm a little shocked to hear that no one really thought about this or discussed this in previous deliberations. I assume you all are, you know, have been on Pine Street enough to know what that looks like. And to know that this rendering you have on the screen is fanciful to the extreme, you know, that it would be a line of cars coming out and a line of cars coming in and people jostling with bikes and you want to add a handicap space. You know, I've seen other development proposals in, you know, urban or close in areas where in other respects, like no one thought about the traffic and the traffic becomes even more hellish than it was before and everyone's like, oh, what are you going to do? So I would urge you for no other reason to take this back and take a serious look at what the projected traffic is and what that will do to an already extraordinarily busy street. Again, this rendering is just not realistic. With all due respect to everyone who's worked on this, it's just not the way it's going to look. And you know that. The second thing that I would say, and I was not going to comment on, but the question of the lighting came up and we were told that while there are standards for the lighting and they're included in the proposal in the zoning, I happen to live on Scarf Avenue between Shelburne and Well Street. And for reasons that are unbeknownst to us, this is not related to your deliberations, but it's an example that I want to give you. We had a relatively dark street with one traffic light on it, but we survived for the past five, six years I've been here. Then Burlington Electric came in and they put up 13 street lamps on our one short block, which we were told repeatedly, is standard. That's the standard. And it's like impossible for me to believe that anyone who believes that's the standard actually lived in a neighborhood that was suddenly impacted to become like an airfields landing strip, which is what it looks like out there right now. So I don't know what the lighting standards are for this, but if there are any concerns about neighbors and the amount of light pollution, I think that seriously needs to be looked into because the quote unquote standards are really not livable in a lot of cases. And the third comment I would make is on environmental issues and I appreciate that this is a development review board. It's not a land preservation review board. I would still like to think that at some point you acknowledge that open space has a value and importance and more than a postage stamp, a small, another food court. I think I heard someone say brownfields before. If I'm not greatly mistaken, 501 is part of the superfund site. 453 is the brownfield. 501 is part of a superfund site. And if the EPA wants to say that just paving everything over and putting up a food stand is okay, I might question their motivation. And it's not exactly a secret that the EPA is a few years behind the science in terms of what remediation looks like for polluted areas. And the idea of all things building a food court on a superfund site just makes no sense to me at all. So I thank you again for the time. I respect your process and what you're going through. And I hope you take these comments seriously because I honestly think the more that I see it, the more I have serious concerns about this project and it's in appropriateness for the location. Thank you very much. Thank you. Scott? Yes, good evening. And again, I think I can give Scott, Dustin, your address. Yes. Scott's got my address. Yes. This is Scott Nates. I represent Rick Davis, the owner of 501 Pine. And I've been working with Rick for the last 15 years or so on various development proposals on 501-453. We don't necessarily have any opposition to this project, but I do have a few technical questions that relate to how this development may impact any future projects on 501 or 453. Primarily, it has to do with the direction of runoff from this project and how the site is going to be either excavated or filled. We've done a fair amount of analysis across this entire property that has informed us as to what would be acceptable levels of height of fill or depths of excavation. And so we would certainly be concerned that this project would, one, create a situation where it's directing runoff onto 501. And in the other case, where to create this building site, are you filling the site up above the limits that we've been working with from our geostructural engineering analysis? Just to give you an example, their site plan, the applicant site plan references O'Leary and Burke's, that they're projects based upon that. If it's the O'Leary and Burke plan I'm aware of of 2004, we have updated the contours significantly more recently as 2016. And it would, that does create a bit of a discrepancy as to the depth and height of fill that would be required on this site, as it would be consistent with what we understand would be the limitations to meet the EPA's development restrictions. So while I do appreciate that there is a requirement, and I think Ryan mentioned that it would be a requirement that the applicant secure its corrective action plan approval from the EPA and the state, but I would suggest that you change the wording in the staff comments. You've got several prior to release of the zoning permit conditions. Then you get it to condition five, or at least the staff condition. You say prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall obtain all necessary approvals and permits from VT, DEC, and EPA with regard to its, I say, Brownfield site in the Bard Street's canal superfund site. I would change that to similar to the above prior to the release of the zoning permit. It just makes sense that we know that DEC who's reviewing this corrective action plan is well aware of other development initiatives on 501 and 453. So I have a lot of confidence that they would be looking at the continuity and integration of how those corrective action plans will work together, especially in light of the limitations that the geotechnical work has informed us about how much fill the site should take. And I think there was a design advisory comment at one point about how high the retaining wall would be in the back. And so those are the kind of things that would be concerning that prior to the issuance of the zoning permit that those matters aren't resolved. So I didn't mean to get highly technical in those comments, but if we have ourselves covered with the prior to the release of the zoning permit, I think that that would be satisfactory. So thank you. Thanks Scott. And Diane, did you want to make a comment? Yes. Hi, Brad. How are you? Good. Yes. And I was talking about the containers, not the pods that are later. So my confusion. I'd like to start with, I had a workspace in the Unsworth properties when Arts Riot first opened their weekend venues, which were in a lot of ways similar to this. It was all the trucks and they would start setting up at three o'clock on Friday afternoons and they would go into late at night with music, with vendors, with food. And it brought a huge volume of cars to what was still Unsworth space, so private space, but there was absolutely no place for parking. Those of us who worked there learned to leave immediately when things started to set up because it was unlivable. You couldn't work. You couldn't hold a meeting. You couldn't be on the phone. And if you had walked or bike there, you could barely get through the throng of people. So I'm coming from that as an example of what I see this conveying. Yes, it's dynamic. Yes, a lot of people may want to come into the city for this particular venue, but it's very much not contributing to the health of the neighborhood, if I can put it that way. So that's why it raises a lot of questions for me because I did live through that for about five years. And I think people have talked to the parking and the traffic, but what is curious for me is, and maybe you have a site plan that's to scale, but this drawing clearly isn't to scale because the cars are the size of the containers. And the, you know, there aren't any contours on this. And as Scott Mates talked about the contours of the site, there's, I can see you looking for the site plan. Yeah. It's always difficult. Well, there are the cars, are the cars really that big compared to the containers? It seems like the drawings and the trees don't look like that. So I'm concerned that there's a lot of push, pull in the drawing as it's presented. And so we're not getting the entire picture. And that does go back to how are the cars really going to circulate through there? And you only get three cars for the pickup and expecting everybody else to come by traffic by foot. So I don't feel like hard questions have been asked about this, knowing that you have a very current example from the unsworth properties in recent years and the current conditions, conditions from the Saturday farmers market conditions. And then others have also talked about, you know, what happens to Jackson apartments, and what happens in terms of lighting at night. And the lighting at night was very minimal in the unsworth thing. And that did work. It does not have to have high security lighting. And I think the lighting plan for Burlington does speak to non high intense lighting. So I would hope that people would seriously take the work that Kathy Ryan did 20 years ago in terms of lighting for a project like this. In addition, the stormwater issue, which is huge on Pine Street, and it's going to continue to be huge as other developments happen and as the Champlain Parkway moves forward. Currently, I'm not sure that you've required a stormwater plan for this site, which concerns me because the stormwater from the south end of the city, and you can look at the stormwater mapping that the city has, and I have copies of those flows across the site. So if you can imagine South Park, all of that water flows directly across right in here. And if all they're doing is a pad and not doing any retaining and I don't see any stormwater retention in this particular plan, that does shunt the water onto other people's properties. And I'm not sure that that's the way the planning goes these days. I think you're supposed to retain your own stormwater, your own stormwater mitigation. And I sent some of these notes. And then I'll bring up the liability. So the reference to the EPA to the Superfund site, the Brownfield site, all of that has a liability impact that if this property creates a problem to the rest of the Superfund site, this property is liable for the impact on the failure of that Superfund site. But I don't know what holds the owners responsible for that liability should it occur. And so I think there's something in how permitting occurs that has to be responsible for accounting for liability when you impact a Superfund site that you're part and parcel of. Yeah, I will say that that's outside of our jurisdiction. That's that liability is set by CERCLA and the Vermont equivalent of CERCLA. But it must then still be referenced in the permitting process by the city? Not necessarily. You wouldn't reference any other permits even by federal entities? There's some level of overlap, but we have to follow our standards. That's different than liability. I think we don't want to get too much into this. I would say there are a number of other reviews such as by EPA, by DPW and things like that that address a lot of things you've mentioned. The particular liability thing is not something that we would get into. Okay, I don't mean for you to look at it. I mean for you to acknowledge it in the permitting process. I'll stop shortly, but the impact on the natural resources that this does in terms of what happens to both the stormwater and the Superfund site sensibility of the natural resources in our city I think are of concern. Thank you for your attention. Thanks, Diane. Diane, what was your mailing address? 21 Redstone Terrace, Burlington. Thank you. Andy, Simon, are you there? I am. I am. I wondered if I could share a screen just to start with very briefly. I believe that you can. Scott has to do something for me. Yeah. Hi, Scott. We're going to promote you. It should be changed over in a moment. I have to unmute. Thanks very much. I wanted to share just a glimpse of we're looking a lot at the at the, you know, the the the macro view of this project. And I know that this isn't the planning commission. But I do want to have a look at the at the sort of larger view of where this sits in. And Scott addressed this a little bit in terms of 453 and 501 Pine Street. I've been working as part of a group called the Friends of the Barge Canal. We've been doing a lot of work, especially on the the city portion of the barge canal, which is this middle section that where it says RCO conservation. We're talking about 501 here and and specifically about 501 Gatehouse, this little cut out a tent of an acre in 501. There are big changes that are going on in terms of how this land is being viewed. And I think that to isolate out 501 Gatehouse is is limiting how you're you're viewing it. And again, I don't want to get outside of your purview as as the DRB. But I do want you to sort of look at a slightly larger picture, which is that 453 and 501 are both being sold as Scott mentioned by Rick. The prospective buyer is Jovial King, and she's indicated that she is planning to donate to do her project on 453 that I'm sure you've heard about, but then to donate 501 Pine Street as to the city to be used as conservation land. So to be included into the conservation zone, which would also include this land that's on the west of the actual barge canal to the east of the railroad. So this little postage stamp, as I think Ryan referred to it when I was communicating with him actually does link up with the rest of the land. And this, you know, container food food project is going to have some compatibility issues with if this 501 becomes a conservation zone, and and in fact the city park. So just where it sits, I think it's just an in important consideration as well because even though it's its own enterprise like manufacturing now it in all probability we will become conservation land. And I don't believe that this project that's being proposed is going to be compatible with the larger picture, the larger vision of what this land is going to become. Okay, I can stop sharing you don't have to keep staring unless you have any questions about that now. So okay. So the other things I wanted to talk about are some of them have been touched on already and I don't want to, you know, belabor these points too much but I think they're all important. The traffic flow question I just want to add to this question of traffic flow on Pine Street is as a biker in Burlington and a walker this shared use path that is going to go right by with the Champlain Parkway is going to go right by this this project if it comes to pass is going to send lots and lots of of bikes and walkers who are going to be intersecting those cars turning into the food truck patio the container patio and I I see a major problem in terms of safety for passers by in that in that interaction between the cars and the and the pedestrians and the bikers especially with the onset of the Champlain Parkway and the fact that this is going to be a major thoroughfare for bikes biking and walking right now it's you know it's a sort of a underdeveloped sidewalk but it will become actually an important area for biking and walking and the cars cutting into it are a problem and will be a problem. I also want to underscore the the thing that Catherine brought up earlier Catherine Bach brought up you know when this original application was put in I noticed that the applicant that Kurt put that the previous use for this land was a parking lot now I don't want to get into whether that you know was an untruth or not but this land was never a parking lot and the fact that there are 40-year-old trees something like 30 40-year-old trees on this property indicates that it hasn't been a parking lot and really never was and the rule the role of those trees I think Catherine spoke to already in terms of stabilizing soil sequester and carbon and other other uses are important and and should be considered and I'm wondering a question that I have for you is why isn't the conservation board taking a look at this project why isn't that necessary for even a project of a tent of an acre in a zone that obviously has conservation value and impact as Scott brought up in terms of stormwater and I would say also the movement of the mobility of the toxins in the soil I mean I would note again that there are 56 contaminants of concern in this soil according to the EPA and the the phase two environmental assessment that was done for for this site noted high amounts of heavy metal called vanadium that is was above in all the soil borings that were done all above Vermont non-residential standards for that particular heavy metal there were also significant amounts of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons total petroleum hydrocarbons these these are not benign substances and you know whether this is safe for for a food service business or not is not something that I can really speak to but I do know that there has been concern ever since the southern connector was ruled inadvisable or impermissible for this area there's been a big concern about the mobility of the toxins in the soil moving toward the lake and you know the gradient the the hydrological gradient as Scott made pointed out to me you know is down to the lake from here it's quite a bit the gradient goes toward the lake and I don't want to I mean I I think that's all very valuable information it's just not an area that we have the expertise to review and we have a requirement and that'll be part of our conditions that the right bodies look at that and I don't know what that exactly how that permit process works but that may be something we want to stay aware of okay I hear you and I won't speak to that but I do want to just point out one more thing is that you know connected to what I was saying in terms of conservation zoning that's going to be coming in this when it becomes a city park will be a park that focuses on as as the mayor has suggested in his memorandum understanding from last December focuses on industrial heritage indigenous heritage there there's quite a bit of history that is connected to this site not specifically to just to the gatehouse but in fact the gatehouse is exactly where the the manufactured gas plant was and so does relate to the history of of this this area and I don't think really I don't think that it's appropriate to put this kind of business especially when there's so many questions that have been brought up about it once the board brought up but also other you know members of the public have brought up that it's appropriate in a an area that's going to focus on all these different aspects of our heritage that a food truck patio just doesn't doesn't fit and I want you to consider that in your deliberations thank you so um I think uh one question I have from what Andy commented for for Ryan um is why isn't this part of the conservation board uh purview is it because the size of it or I think it's distance from the waterfront so the conservation board hasn't looked at this because it's not within any one of the identified natural areas or within a buffer it's been scaled out the property is too close to the road the larger parcel behind it has I think it's three natural resource overlays and buffers but this parcel doesn't okay I don't know if I have any more questions for Kurt if this time does the board have any other questions for Kurt no I think we should I have some deliberation questions for us just one more quick question I didn't see a utility plan um that wasn't in included correct a lighting plan you mean utility underground the how how things are connected no um I think there's several plans that probably weren't included that we're going to probably have to go through and deliberate but talk about Kurt is there anything you want to follow up on at this point um we have a lot of things we'll probably talk about in deliberative but uh well there's quite a bit of um questions asked I think one of the important things is that the DEC and the EPA are overseeing this and are requiring a corrective action plan that was mentioned many times that is pending it's still under review and so that addresses the environmental issues the stormwater currently the the lot dips down towards the lake currently so if it rains and there's stormwater it's running over this property and into all the other properties the corrective action plan Kurt the issue with the stormwater though is that you're going to be increasing the flow by having more hardship in there so that's the reason that it's quite different and that's the reason it gets addressed through the permit process okay yeah so I I guess I you know um the environmental issues are being reviewed and supervised by the DEC and EPA okay so stormwater is addressed through the city's stormwater program ryan correct me if I'm wrong but has that been addressed already uh it's certainly a condition of approval prior to releasing the permit that that get approved the erosion um and the stormwater plan gets approved before the permit's released okay but it's in process Kurt's it's in process correct yes okay good yeah questions from the board for the applicant good comments I thank everybody in the public who spoke thank the applicant um we as I said our goal is to probably deliberate tonight um we will see where we get to and with that I'm going to close the public hearing on this item thanks okay thank you so we have uh two more items tonight one of them is 23 North Champlain street Staffordshire Bend and Breakfast uh within an existing duplex and I see Abbott Stark is that right is anybody else here to speak on 23 North Champlain Scott you're muted damn it you think you're gonna have that figured out by now anyone else wants to speak on this item raise your hand please all right nobody nobody about Abbott okay Abbott uh I need to swear you in you swear to tell the truth and hold truth on the pain of penalty of perjury hi babe this is Abbott Stark and yes I do okay um so this is basically recommended for approval I think um I have to say I I like the cars in your site plan um when I threw a site plan my kids when they were five or six they asked me why they couldn't see the tires when I threw the cars and you've got a site plan where you can see the tires I like that very much but anyways I can't take much credit for that though Mary did help me get that all laid out and I thank her for that okay um I think this was pretty straightforward in terms of what you're trying to do in the staff's report I'm sort of curious Mary um what what's the line between consent approval and not consent approval uh it was how quickly mr. Stark submitted a final site plan to me so okay this would have qualified for consent approval had I had his final site plan it seemed pretty straightforward um on this I'm I guess I'm curious about one thing um is it Abbott or Henry it's Abbott it's Henry Abbott actually I do go by Abbott okay I was just curious so you're renting out one bedroom each of these units and one of them assumption is you live in one and somebody else lives in the other unit correct so this is it it's an up-down duplex with an apartment upstairs an apartment downstairs upstairs is two bedrooms which is where I live yeah and downstairs is one bedroom I see so it's wet okay so well and so the idea is that downstairs one bedroom would be um always rented to other people through the um bed and breakfast yeah and then on occasion um while I'm here you know if it's if it's just me and I don't have other family visiting I will rent out the other bedroom in my apartment on a bed and breakfast bed and breakfast basis um which is you know it's a lot of fun to have people come in and meet new people and then on occasion when I'm gone I would rent out both the bedrooms meaning my bedroom and the other bedroom in my apartment to a group so if it was like two friends visiting Burlington or like parents of UVM I mean the most common thing is usually parents of one of the colleges coming with their prospective student or their their student is graduating and they're bringing the sibling of their student or it's like two generations the parents and the grandparents of a student coming and staying together in my apartment and renting both bedrooms if I'm not here traveling for work or personal travel just jump in and ask if there's any questions that anybody on the board has for the applicant does seem like a fairly straightforward application your parking look reasonable um if there aren't any questions then have it I will close public caring we will hopefully deliberate not too long okay good luck thank you so much okay so we have one other item tonight um which is a continuation of a hearing on 51 Elmwood Avenue um and is the applicant here for this um yes so yeah so I'm I just want to remind people this is a continuation of a hearing where we had a fair amount of public comment we are open having more public comment but we are not wanting to have people just reiterate what we've already heard in terms of comments and concerns so um yeah right right I would say that when we continued it it was really up to the applicant to respond to what had already been said and I would I would stress that if people in the public have already provided comments either written or oral at the last meeting we've heard them certainly aware of the concerns and I would ask that only new people raise those comments or or make comments right I agree with that right this is Jeff I'm recused from this matter okay the other thing we may want to think about is a time limit on not on the comments yeah I I did that last time I would do it this time too with three three minutes per person are we meaning overall time limit well I don't I don't take a position on overall time limit okay yeah so I was doing that last time a three minute time limit per person I would continue to do that this time too um so can we can we get a sense though first of how many people yes want to talk and maybe then adjust whether it's three minutes or not yeah as if it's Scott can you uh figure out how many people are here from the public who wish to speak raise your hand so you can get a count please two three four five six seven eight nine ten okay we have ten folks raising their hand and I'm plus the applicants we have two for the applicant okay and I'm asking the people raise their hands that these are people who have not spoken at the previous hearing so Barry has spoken before yeah at least some of the folks have spoken before well I think that if people spoke last time we actually don't really I don't think need to hear them a second time you already have the chance to speak so I am without seeing everybody who's speaking at this hearing I am going to ask everybody who intends to speak including the applicant to swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth on the pain and penalty perjury and I can ask the applicant to say yes to this yes Brian are you here too uh yes and my colleague Malachi Brennan is if he is not allowed to speak if Scott you could turn him on please so I I think because we ended with the public comment I'd like to finish that up and then get back to the applicant to respond to things if that's okay with everybody and so Scott and again I'm asking people who have not spoken before um if you can bring some of them up to as participants Scott all right so if we're keeping these the folks who didn't testify I'm going to ask that everyone with their hand raised who spoke last time to lower it so that way I'm just looking at folks who didn't speak last time because I don't remember off hand everyone who spoke um okay I have a list Cooper Siegel has spoken before Barry Kuhl has spoken before Barry okay so uh who's going to be first up to speak Scott can you oh so Kelly divine Kelly if you can thank you Scott and Kelly do I need to join as a panelist no you're fine just where you are can you speak now Kelly you just muted yourself all right how's that good yes uh so my name is Kelly divine I'm the executive director of Wellington's Association I've been following this project as well as the changes the planning commission closely I have a couple questions that I've submitted to the planning commission that I think applied of this application that I still haven't really gotten an answer to and basically as far as this being put forth as a conditional use and in the staff report it talks about being consistent with the high residential use neighborhood I still have a really significant question in my mind about how the community resource center as a use in this location fits in with that staff report I read the staff report again today and I just I don't don't see how the community resource center which seems to be a very separate use falls under those same kinds of the same conditional use agreement I thought at the end of the last hearing that there was going to be some kind of better understanding after Attorney Byrne brought up the question of how the project was before it as a conditional use I do feel in terms of the community center which by day those people you know are coming in and out I'm part of a security team that meets weekly with downtown folks and we got a lot of reports about what was going on at this community resource center when it was on South Wenuski Avenue and there was people entering the facility there was also a lot of activity outside the facility there was a lot of peripheral activity in nearby garages reported by private property owners so you know I am concerned about that particular use as it relates to the site how it's going to impact those living in the pod villages I can't tell from the plan whether it's going to be physically separated and I do feel like that is a very different type of use and I don't think that it fits in with the other conditions and approvals on the application the second thing is I just really feel like I need to urge the DRB to not approve this without a signed contract with a management agency in place there are so many questions from butters residents downtown businesses that can't be answered by a sample management plan I mean it you know it talks in the in the regulations about how if you for this type of use that for emergency shelter use you need a management organization signed up and ready to manage it and so a lot of my constituents it's been very difficult to answer their questions because there's nobody who's responsible to deliver those services and to be accountable for how the community is operated until you have an actual management organization in place thank you okay thank you Kelly and we did have those comments previously too about the management plan being a concern thank you sorry Brad before we go on we were I believe told in this most recent iteration what our purview is and what exactly we are supposed to be reviewing on and I wonder well but one of the things I just follow up on that is at the last hearing Matt Byrne who represents the I don't want to get it wrong the neighboring house raised thank you raised the question of whether under 24 VSA for 24 VSA 4413 this is properly regulated as a city project or conditional use project we heard Matt's argument about it and I think the applicant submitted a letter from Malachi about their position on it and I think it's something we should talk about tonight I would like to hear about that and then I think it's up to us to deliberate whether we feel that it's in or out of the scope of 4413 okay thank you that is something we will I'm sure we're from the applicants on that Scott who else do we have for members of public that wish to speak we have we have Christopher Aaron I'll just make a general statement for folks if you received notice of this meeting you don't need to give us your contact info because we have it because you got notice if you didn't get notice let us know your contact info for mailing address with that said that's going to Christopher okay good evening my name is Christopher Aaron Felker I am a resident at 137 Park Street here on Ward 3 of Burlington I'm here this evening to request that the DRB reject this proposal I understand that it is reviewable for under location off street parking traffic noise and lighting and there are many concerns in the neighborhood in the neighborhood whether it's be the occupants at Mackenzie house that are directly next door or people in the surrounding neighborhood that the city hasn't put forward a complete plan that we can accurately evaluate their likelihood for success as a matter of fact much of their plan is woefully lacking and incomplete so anticipated occupants of the shelter are according to the city's application aren't expected to have cars that includes the 30 to 35 people that will be residents there and this is pure fantasy people who are experiencing homelessness many do have cars many will have these cars and they will be impacting the neighborhood the surrounding neighborhood because they need to be able to park them the design plans for this proposal only has limited amount of parking which is already allocated for employees and staff employees and staff that we haven't even hired yet because as Miss Divine had already mentioned before there's no management company on file or on contract to actually operate this which is another we've got many many comments about the and just in the interest of time it'd be nice not to go over that again and again just trying to get through my notes sir I appreciate it the impact of a hundred people coming to this homeless resource center should be evaluated on the impacts of this should be evaluated upon the neighborhood before we proceed there are better locations for this project I do feel that this is a valuable project that could actually have tremendous impacts upon helping our homeless population but this location is inappropriate the rules presented by CEDO and director pine state that if somebody violates the rules of this homeless pod village that they are then banned from an eight block radius but we have received nothing from CEDO on how they plan to increase security and patrols in the immediate surrounding neighborhood let alone how they plan on enforcing this eight block radius of anybody who gets banned furthermore other occupants we we have met resistance for when we've reached out to CEDO requesting that they be able to vet the residents of this shelter pod community specifically there are many members of the neighborhood including Mackenzie house that do not want registered sex offenders living right next door to them this is less than two blocks away from schools and daycares this is an inappropriate location and I request that the drb reject or kick back this proposal to the city and let them complete it again thank you for your time tonight thank you very much thanks Christopher okay scott who else do we have the public comment we have mark state your full name and address mark are you there mark doesn't have a very good connection we're not able to hear you mark do we want to come back to mark yes okay we'll try to come back to your mark again a better connection be great all right Rebecca click Rebecca huddling sorry if I got that wrong okay can you hear me okay yes okay so my name is Rebecca huddling and I'm the property manager for O'Brien brothers one of the properties I manage is Mackenzie house so as such I feel it's necessary to express my opposition to the proposed location of 30 shelter pods and a community resource center for several reasons first based on the drafted guideline guests of the pods will be permitted to have visitors between the hours of 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. these visitors will not be not be permitted inside individual pods or other buildings so assuming that each guest is allowed only one visitor at a time which is not specified in the guideline agreement it's plausible that there could be 60 people socializing outside at a given time um since the consumption of alcohol will be permitted inside the pods loud and unruly behavior will occur on site in addition the community resource center will provide other services to the public not just for guest staying in a pod and it's estimated that at minimum 100 people will go to this site daily so you know the sheer volume of the noise created from the site will be overwhelming and unbearable for our residents um in addition based on the site plan the location of the raised garden beds is adjacent to bedroom windows at the Victorian building so you know this too will be a source of noise that will directly impact the peaceful enjoyment of our property we do have some residents that work night shift hours and sleep during the day and you know the noise created from from only being able to socialize outside and the the constant foot traffic to the resource center is going to directly impact the residents at the kenzie house you know it's going to impact their ability to work as well as other major life activities um you know the drafted guideline agreement doesn't address the issue of trespass trespassing onto neighboring properties you know it's clear that illegal substance substances will not be permitted at this proposed site which means the guests are going to go to the nearest property to feed their addiction and you know as as you know Mackenzie house is one of those properties um there's already an issue with trespassers that cut through our private property so it's important to understand that the proposed project and the the sheer volume of people coming to and from this site will exacerbate this issue in addition it seems clear that sex offenders are going to be allowed to stay in the pods it should be noted that HUD requires us to automatically deny subsidized housing to sex offenders so you know naturally there's a strong concern about the safety of our residents and those households with children um you know and it's not clear if this project is approved how will the unknown managing agent ensure that our residents are safe and that sex offenders will not trespass onto our private property um you know lastly and more importantly I know it's been said we we still have yet to hear who will be managing the site 24-7 which at this stage it doesn't allow for any sort of a vetting process um and this is essential information and since it continues to be unknown this project should not be approved um and lastly I just want to say you know we we overall support the big picture goal of ending homelessness but the proposed location is not a good fit as it's going to severely impact the residential neighborhood and the vulnerable population of Mackenzie house residents so that's all I have to say and I appreciate your consideration thank you Scott David I just do what I said we we did have several hours of testimony a few weeks ago and a lot of the concerns that have been voiced today are the same ones we heard a few weeks ago um and this you know not saying that because I'm not discounting them I'm just saying we take them to heart so um anyways with that said David hi I'm David called 60 on an avenue can you hear me yes this is uncharted faith contract in our community what's uncharted is is we have a central location that's going to help our community with all the resources and address all the unhoused we have broken so many promises to the unhoused if we had one location I am a senior citizen with my sister for example I'm not afraid of this project because I think if they have all we have everything lined up counselors workers job programs this project is going to be incredible and other cities and towns will copy this project we just have to have a good faith that things will work out and it would be fine if we understand this one thing everything else is mentioned in our society but one thing's not mentioned is the unhoused and because of this we can centralize everything and if I can live with them these beautiful people that need a chance then what's I'm not afraid thank you so much thank you David can we get your contact info David call 60 Elmwood Avenue for Linton Vermont yeah thank you anybody else who's hey we have three more Ashley is next right Ashley hello hello yes go ahead hi so um we have actually three Mackenzie house residents um that would like to speak their residents that have not spoken yet they did not speak at the last meeting okay but I will say that saying the same concern over and over again does not really they just want to be heard hello can you hear me yes and it going to go first hi my name is Trudy Richmond and I live here at Mackenzie house and I just want to go on record is saying I do oppose you putting in these pods right next door to us my main concerns in placing a 35 bed low barrier shelter next to a low-income senior housing community is the increased lack of safety and security in the neighborhood and the welfare and quality of life of the senior citizens who live right next door to the proposed low barrier shelter the type of shelter CEDA was proposing is called low barrier and a low barrier shelter quote guests are typically allowed to stay while under the influence of alcohol and drugs and even to continue to engage in street activity or substance abuse there is no requirement that they work towards sobriety nor recovery and quote additionally quote low barrier shelter means an emergency shelter that does not require criminal background checks sobriety nor an ID and this is exactly the type of shelter and the type of behaviors CEDA wants to put in a residential community one block from church street the Burlington police force is currently stretched to its limits and they cannot they are not in the position to deal with this type of concentrated anti-social behavior if approved this project is going to put an increased demand on Burlington's police force while listening to recent Burlington city planning commissioner meetings two commissioners spoke about their first hand experiences of temporary low barrier shelters in their neighborhoods during the recent pandemic commissioner bradley who lives near the north beach camp brown had this to say quote you may think it was a success but not to the people living there it was a complete train wreck you had people walking up and down the avenue on a regular basis completely out of their minds end quote he also had this to say about the a new place low barrier shelter quote when a new barrier opened in shelter and roads surrounding neighbors noticed a really really big change in their quality of life that's not okay they didn't sign up for this it just sort of happened to them end quote commissioner lee who lives near a downtown temporary low barrier homeless shelter had this to say quote yeah it was a huge problem there were sirens drunk people walking around end quote this is three minutes i i timed it burlington comprehensive development ordinance part one section one point one point two entitled intent and purpose spells out the goals of the drb two of which are to encourage the use and development of lands in burlington in a manner which will promote the public health safety and welfare and to facilitate the growth of burlington and its neighborhoods so as to create an optimum environment i am only asking that you let the stated goals and objectives of the drb guide you in your decision tonight let not only the letter of the law but the spirit of the law prevail thank you for your time that was three minutes i timed it i've been timing from ashley thank you thank you um so we have two more residents that would like to go i okay i will say that with all due respect these are repeating things that were said to the last hearing from people that was not repeated okay go ahead all right my name is maria vidal and um i think my perspective is a little different did you speak to people that have been homeless and have lived in shelters i have i spent two years homeless and what you're proposing is not going to help these people they're going to trash this stuff you're not giving them a helping hand instead you should be building you should be making a building and putting counselors feeding them regulating their medications you're not going to be counseling them you're not going to be giving them a leg up you're making it too easy for them they're going to be able to stay there all day long when i was in a shelter we had to be out of there at nine o'clock we were not allowed back in until after three we had to go out and look for employment we had to prove that we were getting counseling that we were getting medical assistance if we had disabilities we had to prove that we were working to become a viable citizen and then they helped us to get into real housing you're not giving them a leg up you're giving them a handout and you're putting them in a place where they're going to hurt other people you're allowing them to drink you're allowing them to continue their bad choices and oh i forgot to mention i am very much against this our crime rate has already increased and the last three weeks my car has been broken into and somebody left the air out of my tire i'm not happy who's next thank you actually somebody else there actually was one more person to speak okay hi my name is steve holdridge i live at 43 elwood avenue i'm opposed to the project in this location i think it was put together in a very slap-dash way i think pods were ordered the mayor main mandated that this location was going to be it and that was it the planning and is anyway so when you when we go and say we're opposed to it we're we're characterized as being anti homeless people which really isn't a productive position to take um i think there's a lot of money going to be spent on this and i think this should be denied and the money should be used to put people in motel rooms for a year and not to dig up the parking lot next to our building to put in electricity and the and the next year should be spent on making a plan for permanent housing and figuring that out did anyone go to the why to see if we could the city could you lease the why to set up uh actual inside housing for people anyway i just think a plan this was a very slap-dash plan and we need to do better i think you all issue a certificate of appropriateness and this this plan is not appropriate it's not it's not humane i'm really embarrassed by us saying that we think this is a good idea we can do better i'm done ashley was that the looks like that was that those three from ashley so we have carry if you can't hop in who's up next okay cherry hello can you hear me yes can you hear me now yes we can hear you great thank you um i'm kary duekat hockman i'm the agency of human services field services director for the brillington and middlebury districts thank you for the opportunity to speak at this hearing as a representative of the agency of human services i deeply appreciate the deliberation and consideration that's being put into finding temporary housing options for homeless brahmaners as you are aware housing is a key challenge facing brahmaners this is especially the case for the greater brillington area the agency appreciates the innovative and creative efforts of the city and supports this project thank you for considering this critical initiative to provide basic shelter to the residents of our current neighborhood to the residents of our neighborhoods and our current neighbors who have struggled to access the greater housing market it's a truly vital project and i really appreciate your deliberation thank you kary kary can i ask a question yes so do you have any view on some of the comments made about how this is the residents here because of drinking and other things that this is maybe a challenging environment to have in a neighborhood i that is a great question um i i think the city has worked really hard to find the site that a site that would be the most supportive and housing the community resource center on site will really work to address people's needs i think there are community members across our our neighborhoods that that use substances and and i i i think we work to provide each of our neighbors the resources that they need i i can't speak to whether i think that this would be an increased access although i do think that housing definitely it creates circumstances where people have the the chances to access the services and supports they need to make the next step in their lives okay thank you thank you was there somebody else to speak to scott you're here it's scott we have alex twombly alex hi can you hear me yes hi so actually there was a little confusion because last week my boyfriend alex twombly used my account to speak so my name is cooper seagull i'm sorry for the confusion here tonight and i live at 50 elmwood av and i will try to be brief tonight because i know that um obviously you have heard a lot of comments already i you know i mainly want to speak here to the reality that um you know you are you are reviewing the project in large part based on noise light trash all of these concerns i think that the reality when you're placing this kind of project in what is a majority low income neighborhood those factors become amplified because the homes around here which are majority rental homes do not have the same protection from those factors there is little noise noise canceling there is little protection from light where there are much less safety measures in place most homes around here do not have security cameras so i just urge you to really consider those factors um very much as you're going through this program this sorry this process of reviewing the case because i do think that we're looking at a slightly different um condition surrounding the pod community um so i do urge you really to to think about that very strongly and the other thing i just wanted to comment on was just you know i obviously there are many neighbors here here tonight to comment on this project and i just do just want to point out the reason why there are so many people here tonight who want to speak about this to you is because we did not have the opportunity to learn about this project in time to speak at the city council meeting most people in our neighborhood were not aware this was happening i was lucky i happened to find out about the city council meeting a couple days beforehand this is not the case for a majority of residents in our neighborhood so i just want to say that is why you're seeing so many people who are wanting to speak tonight um and that is you know people want to feel like they're part of the process and i think that's really important that people have been here tonight to be able to express that anyways that's all for me thank you thank you cooper through everybody at this point scrap we have ryan allen and then we have mark that we can try again ryan are you're muted right now ryan hi all my name is ryan allen um i do um activism in burlington um i also work for cvo eo um though it's my activism that uh really centers my life i do a lot of outreach to the homelessness or those people who are experiencing homeless yes um to those experiencing unsafe housing um and i get it i i understand that it's hard when you perceive these other humans as just drug users and bums um it's i think it's really hard to get past that um my first real experience with um food not cops is when i helped clear a woman who has three degrees three i believe bachelor degrees maybe a master's from her home um a little one room apartment or one room in an apartment building um last fall um and she went on the streets um i don't know if she was on drug use i don't know if she um i don't know what her life story was but she had a dog three degrees um white lady white blonde hair and she's on the streets and um that wasn't my hardest time um doing activism in burlington no the the hardest time for me was watching a man um who i didn't realize was homeless who um as nerdy as it sounds we were gonna start playing dungeons and dragons together um and then one night uh when we were hanging out together um i realized that he was homeless that he had um he didn't have a home in burlington and uh i know what burlington's like for um the homeless those experiencing homelessness um we uh food not cops helps uh with camping gear with food every day at the parking garage from one to two um we'll feed anyone um and i'll even feed nazis um because everyone deserves to eat and i think that you can't change your mind with without safe shelter without safe water without health care without support without food um and really it's really just uh anti humane um stands that so many people have taken it's like get these people out of my yard get these people out of my city i don't like them they're gross i just want them out ryan ryan i i i hear you and yeah it's fine because like you're not experiencing homelessness and um it's fine because miral weinberger just decided to clear sears lane um and yeah it's fine because we can just ryan i i have someone else's problem because that's really what it is it's really that's not giving a shit about humans is it thank you ryan thank you um appreciate the work you do it's not necessarily germane to our deliberations tonight please try not to curse on our zoom thanks okay last one we can try and mark again all right mark you're up hi mark uh let's see if your connections any better hi hopefully there's this oh we can hear you yeah my name's mark mushet i'm vice chair of the marketplace commission and a property owner on the church street um i'll be as brief as i can i just want to uh share our concern that uh we you know we understand the need for a facility like this and and support a facility like this but we do believe it's the wrong location we think it's contrary to the uh burlington city plan congregating folks in uh who are vulnerable uh in areas where they have access to uh to substances uh is potentially problematic and we want the first project like this to be a success and we're concerned that if it's located at the elmwood location that it will not be that's all i have to add thanks for your time thank you mark well i do thank everybody from the public who has spoken on this it has been helpful and uh you know taking a while to get through so at this point i think um we'll go back to the applicant um and i i think there are some specific questions that have been raised through the public process um um and i i guess i'm just going to note a couple and we may ask the board to have other issues that they may want to have the applicant addressed the ones that i get concerned about is one is as people say without a management team it's very hard to understand how this is getting managed um without having somebody who's actually going to be managing it um the second one is i do have some concerns about how the site is laid out relative to the mckenzie house um is the site plan really thought out with respect to that um it seems to me it's laid out in a generic fashion without any uh view towards what's really on each side of the property um so and i just want to ask the board after going through all this and get back to the applicant um if there's any questions they have specifically for the applicant great um this is malachi brennan on behalf of cito um thanks mr chairman uh for your questions and focusing us um i guess briefly before uh i turned it over for more detailed response i just wanted to give an overview of what we've submitted in paper uh to the board um in addition to filing from our office we have a memo from cito that addressed uh questions from the staff comments including wastewater capacity uh setbacks and bice clerics and we also believe we addressed all the outstanding questions from the board at the previous hearing related to emergency access snow removal um with attached letters from fire department and tpw um we also submitted a legal memorandum which i'm more than happy to discuss with the board tonight i think it mostly speaks for itself and it makes clear uh the environmental court is made clear uh that section 44 13 uh does constrain the drb's role here and we really would like to focus our response on the information that's germane to the commission's review um specifically before i turn it over um to sam dunne um with respect to the management plan respectfully i don't think the details of the management plan fall within the enumerated criteria of section 44 13 um the applicant has already committed to have on-site staffing um it will be uh required to um keep the conditions on the site with compliant with the city's noise ordinance and we'll have staff there 24 7 to do so um given the uh authority that the drb has to review this project it's not clear from cito's perspective how the management plan um details or who is managing the site is germane to that question when you have i think you may you may be correct and maybe we'll come to that conclusion as we go through deliberative but in the process we ask these questions because we think they are germane and we understand you know when we look at noise setbacks um location uh density off street loading facilities traffic noise lighting landscaping screening requirements we see the some of those sort of maybe fitting into some of these categories now maybe maybe we're stretching maybe not but that's why we asked the question so that's we're with all due respect we we sort of like some answers from those certainly i mean i could see how most of the board's questions would fall into those categories but the managing agency does not appear to be the whole ability to control noise seems to rest on having proper management and if management doesn't exist it's hard to understand how the site is really going to be in compliance with noise ordinance so respectfully mr chairman management will have to exist in order for the site to operate and cito as and the city as owners of the site have committed to meet certain standards within their application including having it fully staffed so the site is operational and compliant with the conditions that the board is going to impose if it proves i don't need to get that that's enough to enough said if that's your position that's fine okay um and then uh with respect to orientation um screening and the overall design of the site um i of course turn that over to subject matter experts and if you have specific uh comments you'd like to direct uh to cito um don't at this point um you know the question's from the board for cito at this point you know this is something we would discuss it deliberative and see if it's any i have still just just a couple of questions for on the design and down the center oil where there's uh which is the access road is there's right now on the parking lot there's a center aisle to raise curb is that going to stay or is that going to be ruled that's going to be removed okay that's that was it thanks ron mr chairman uh this is brian dunkel you did receive a letter from uh or a memo uh from the mayor uh today um outlining their urgency of receiving a decision from the drb uh and so i just wanted to bring that to your attention um having a decision as soon as possible uh is really critical yeah we do that letter is posted on the uh website now isn't it scott yes it's posted on the uh yeah we did get it directly and then it got posted thank you so i want to say that if everybody's silent on this that um we have probably taken enough testimony and have enough information that we will be able to deliberate tonight unless it's something else that the applicant wants to add at this point either samantha malice wire brian i think i would just uh like to echo uh the point that brian made for the the need for a decision tonight and just uh want to read from an email that i received uh this evening at five letting us know that we've got 230 households in chitenden county that are no longer going to be eligible for the motel program starting on july 1st we have 41 people uh camping in the city of brointon who don't have access to shelter and the existing low barrier shelter shampolyn anna is currently turning away on average of six individuals per night that are looking for shelter so this is really a critical need thank you thank you samantha okay um well this is challenging i suppose um i will close public hearing that i think everybody for participating in it and uh we will actually be deliberating shortly so um we have other business don't we scott there's a the the other business item that can be taken up uh it's part of your deliberations and we will keep it there okay okay with that i am closing the uh ending the drb review board meeting line street which is the ap 22 dash one i move that we uh grant the appeal and find that the two remaining units that are being uh that are using the payment in lieu of option would pay a fee of $35,000 per drawing unit under the zone in ordinance second that if i understand that correctly jeff that would be then the third unit would have been at 70 000 yeah if that had a third unit it would be at 70 000 under the ordinance okay i see kim is over here at how is that you guys you know kim uh it is but um i know there's some questions probably in upcoming uh applications okay um this one it seems like you're already on a course i i think there is different ways to look at this the question of which ones the units are actually um you have the first three actually already being on site and then you have the split which is what's making the complication so there's yeah and the problem the problem came is the ordinance doesn't talk about how to deal with when you do it partially on site and partially in lieu and i really think that should be clarified because i can see why the zoning office issued the interpretation because it's not in the ordinance you could conservatively read the ordinance to not allow that either you build them all on site or you follow the graduated you know marginal approach in the ordinance i don't think that that's not how i read the intent of the ordinance so i'm going to say we have a motion and we're a second on it and um let's say any further discussion i'm going to take all in favor of the motion not opposed none and there's one abstention so and i would just echo katlin's request because it should it should be the other way we should correct the ordinance so that this doesn't occur in the future to deal with staff's concerns about the implication of this thank you for the attempt to clarify recording stopped do you need to record recording in progress on zp-21-800 501 pine street i move that we approve the application and adopt staff findings second discussion can i point out a procedural item so this application has been in the queue for at least six months maybe a little longer so your motion we're going to continue it she'd also acknowledge a three month time extension for the application okay but this motion was not continued continue the other thing the suggestion that the uh i forget which agency it is the one that reviews the environmental on the state level and federal level that that would be required before issuing the zoning permit rather than prior to the start of construction i'm not in favor of doing that i think it's a requirement either way they're not going to be able to do anything with it so like i'm going to be able to move forward till they get them anyway yeah okay the comments on this okay all in favor i'm going to vote for this too okay i changed yeah i'm going to vote for it yep so and opposed to 42 recording stopped right let me make sure i have the right thing up in front of me um i am making a motion on zp-22-199 51 elmwood avenue i move that we uh approve the application and adopt staff findings with the addition of limitations for residents and guests against any sound amplification outdoors second motion i'll second that but with a another friendly amendment i think there should be two overnight staff at all times that's under section four there shall be on-site management by qualified adults uh it says one management person for every 25 beds i think this needs two management people i'm fine with that friendly amendments you know we could we could talk about light you know strong strong lights also um well hold on one second katelyn are you okay with that yes okay they're required to meet the lighting ordinance of the city so yeah right and i think they're using some of the existing lights that are there i think that was part of the the plan is that they're using existing lights on the property um i'm confused but one thing on your motion there's 30 pods and five of them have am i remembering right 30 and then there's five of them that have two occupants is that yes okay so it's under 50 occupants is that that's their memory okay i just wanted to make sure i wasn't but that sounds like it would require two anyways yeah but but i think i think a explicit yeah it's good someone brought up the issue of parking and cars and i don't know i thought that was a interesting point i don't think we can i mean do you what what are you proposing i'm not sure uh our our preview uh at least in this uh let's us consider off off street parking which i'm not sure i don't know i i don't know how how i would address that but um i think that it is a good point to consider um theoretically if a new 30 unit apartment building were going right there with no parking inside uh no off-shape parking then then you know there'd be certain requirements i don't know how i'd fix it i don't have a suggestion uh but i just thought that it was it was interesting i have to say i've never been a fan of this this um 43 whatever it is um when we go through UVM um i'm less than a fan of it here but we have a motion second you know the discussion of motion all in favor all opposed so we don't have approvals um so recording stopped that was three to three bread yep on zp 22199 51 elm would have a move that we approve the application adopts desk findings and recommendations subject to the following additional conditions there shall be no playing of amplified music on site there shall be two overnight staff people and the applicant must submit a management plan to staff for this application prior to the release of the zoning permit amplified sound outside a j is that what you meant yes is that okay gross yeah and management plan i'm just trying management plan of what like can we specify what management plan for all the well they're saying they're gonna addressing the operational management of the system who's responsible for compliance with the terms and conditions okay um and a contact person i think the management plan needs to have a contact person if there's an issue who are you calling are you just calling randomly the city are you calling the police or is there an actual management number to call i think that's important the residents should have some way to contact the operator well to use their language to ensure you know a safe plan to ensure the project's functional use right deal were you gonna say something i i'm good i'm good so kim this is my my take on this is this is what we need to do so we can approve this thing and maybe we're pushing the bounds of it but it doesn't sound like it's going to get approved without this so is that a question or just telling me i'm just saying that i i understand uh that situation i appreciate that it's challenging uh all in favor of the motion happen that you oh you don't you don't like the thing we need to plan recording stopped we went