 Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the City of Montpelier Development Review Board. My name is Daniel Richardson. I am the vice chair at the moment, although one of the first orders of business is the election of new chair and vice chair. I'm going to have the members introduce themselves. Just going around from the right corner stating your name. Rob Goodwin. Kevin O'Connell. Deb Markowitz. Meredith Crandall. Staff. Kate McCarthy. Tom Kester. Brian Kane. All right. First order of business is the election of a new chair and vice chair. We have several new members of the board. Under the new procedures, every August in our first meeting, we will elect a new chair and vice chair. And so I will take any nominations that wish to be made. We can start with chair first. I'd like to nominate Dan Richardson as chair. Second. Nomination by Ryan. Second by Kevin. Any other nominations for chair? Hearing none, all those in favor of the election of Dan Richardson as chair, please raise your right hand. Say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good. Well, that brings us to the... Take a breather here. That brings us to the election of a new vice chair. I'll take nominations for the vice chair. I would nominate Kate McCarthy. Nomination for Kate. Do I have a second? I'll second that. Okay. Kate has been nominated in second. Do I have any other nominations for vice chair? Hearing none, all those in favor of Kate McCarthy as vice chair, please raise your right hand. Any opposed? We have a new vice chair. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you all. And so let's start and I'll have some comments from the chair addressing our new members in a moment. The first item of business is approval of the agenda. And this is the way we start out every meeting under the new rules for public meetings. The first item of business is to either approve the agenda as printed or to add additional business if such is warranted. So I will take a motion to either amend the agenda or to accept it as printed. Mr. Chair, I move that we accept the agenda as printed. Okay. Motion to accept the agenda as printed. I'll second it. I'll second by Deb. And all those in favor, please raise your right hand. Have an agenda moving right along. So, comments from the chair. I want to welcome all the new members to the board. Rob, Deb, Tom, Brian to full status as a board member. Thank you all for agreeing to join the board. We really look forward to working with you. And I do want to make a note that we have several members that were not reappointed, Phil Zallinger, Roger Krantz, and Jack Lindley. And I'd officially like to recognize their service to the board. I think together, collectively, they represent close to 100 years of zoning experience for the board. And that is no exaggeration. I think Roger was an original DRB member, certainly Phil and Jack date back to early days in zoning in Montpelier. So I want to thank them very much for their service. And I anticipate that we will have further recognition for them in a more formal way. That's all the comments from the chair. And we have one piece of business, which we I've done the math. We have to approve the minutes of July 16th and we have just enough people to do so myself, Kevin, Kate and Ryan were all present. Do I have a motion to approve the July 16th, 2018 minutes? I'll move that we approve the minutes as trapped motion by Ryan second second second by Kevin. All those eligible to vote and in favor of adopting the motion for the minutes of July 16th, please raise your right hand. The minutes have been adopted. Okay, the first item of business is 27 school street. This is a key Turner properties LLC. The representatives would come forward to the table. So under our procedure, I'm going to have you both sworn in under oath to give testimony as to the minor site plan review and conditional use design review and demolition for contributing structure review that we're going to undertake tonight. And then I'll have Meredith introduce where we are at to orient the board. So if you raise your right hand, you solemnly swear affirm that the evidence that you're about to give for the matter under consideration shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury. All right, Meredith, if you want to give us an overview. So a brief overview here is just procedurally. I think it's what you're looking for at this point, Dan. Yes. Is that we have an application. It was brought up at the last meeting, continued because we just didn't have time for it. And at this point with the number of new members we have, because it wasn't discussed substantively, everybody who's here can review this and vote on it. We also need to keep in mind as we get testimony and as you look through here that some of the work may have already been done that required approval, but you need to review the application on its face and without regard to whether or not any of the work has already been completed or not. Another thing to keep in mind is that this is different parts of this have gone before the design review committee at three different hearings, including this evening's hearing. So when we get to the demolition part of the application, I can discuss how design review dealt with that today. Okay. So, Spierce, if you want to start us off and just give a summary, I know you gave a summary two weeks ago when we were here, but new cast of characters, if you could just give us an overview as to the amendments because part of this has actually already been approved and we're looking for the changes to sort of target our questions. Right. Okay. So, I don't remember what all that is. The rear stairs, maybe? Is that on the... Well, I mean, what... No, we didn't approve anything two weeks ago. What I'm looking for is just sort of the changes that you're seeking now to the... Didn't they... Haven't they gone before? No, they haven't come before the design review board. That's what I'm saying. They came before the design design review committee. They haven't been here. They haven't been here. No, they have not been at the development review board. Start from scratch. Okay. Take us through what you're looking for in this project. So, we propose to move... I'd say demolish a set of stairs in the rear of the building so that we can lift the rear of the building, which we found had no... There were rotting sills and no foundation. The only way to get to the entire three sides of the foundation was to remove a set of stairs that were sitting on dirt, as it were. So, there's that. Then we just propose to move those stairs that access to the... It's a five-unit apartment building. So, there's... This rear stairs needed to be moved... Well, we propose to move it to the side of the building, which was still within the footprint of the original building because there was a falling down roof structure there. Then, let's see... We would like to paint the building. This design development doesn't need to know that. We would like to add a sixth apartment to an attic space. It's 1,000 square feet. And when we're doing that, we're going to add... We need to add a secondary egress for the attic space, which we would like to bring a spiral staircase down to land on the proposed new stairway, which Chris Lumber has approved as far as the building and exit for fire code. Let's see... A deck. We would like to add a deck to the roof of the rear part of the building, which is only two stories, and the front part is three. That roof would also act as a walkway to get to these rear spiral stairs, which is an exit, fire exit, and egress. This is just exterior? Is all you want to know about exterior? Yeah, primarily. Maybe it would make more sense. Let's take these pieces one at a time. And I think the threshold issue is the demolition of the contributing structure review. And so can you give us a sense about what was demolished on the building? Okay, so... Is that past tense? I believe so. Unfortunately, my bad. I didn't actually realize I needed to get a permit to take something down. I'll fully admit to that. It was a stairway that even if I didn't meet code, it was ultra steep, very thin, and it was that only access to this rear apartment. It was, I want to say, about four or five feet from the wall-to-wall staircase in between four by four walls. It was built with four by four miscellaneous pieces of lumber. It was kind of thrown together. It was definitely not a very well-made structure. It had homosode on the outside. So when I went to buy the building, walked up to view it, there was ice completely covering the inside wall, and this was their entrance to their apartment. So there was no wheel sheathing on the outside. It was literally homosode, like white unpainting, sort of rotting, basically, paper. So what came off was just a four-foot section that's not historic of the rear of the building. What it got replaced with was a pair of pressure-treated stairs on the outside that met code that were much wider, that were at the right angle, were safer, that had metal grates. So it was actually attached to the to the building that you... No, actually it wasn't attached. It was tapped on to the building, but it wasn't part of the original. He was in very close proximity. Yeah, it was siding from the original building on the inside of the stairway, so it was tapped on with nails. But the stairway itself sat outside of the building. Well, it was the roof line, yeah, but the stairway it did. It actually was exterior to the building because it was siding on the inside. Then they put up this... So it was an enclosed staircase. It was an enclosed staircase. And so I'm looking at this photo. It's a little bit blurry. That was included in a packet. It looks like it's actually taken from State Street, East Street Street. And so it shows the rear of the building. And is it this facade on the back? That's where the staircase was? And so there was cladding on the outside of the staircase. The staircase ran against the actual back of the existing building. So really, all you've taken off is the very sort of end of the building. Yeah, it was about five feet off the building, about 15 feet of the back side. And the reason why this came up was because Meredith was asking us about the impervious surfaces. I said, actually, we created more permeable surface because we are taking them. Then all this came up, literally, because she asked a question about that. It had never even come up before because it was like one... We replaced an exterior staircase for an exterior staircase. But we did it within code and we placed a better staircase than the existing one. It was no like it was not. Right. Well, I mean, part of our analysis for contributing structure is trying to understand what is the... What was the function of this staircase before? Was this original to the building? No. Because the original building was the foundation. We had to get to the foundation to... We had to remove the stairs to get to the foundation because the found... That was sitting on dirt. It didn't... It had no foundation of its own. So we had to remove it to get to the original foundations. That way, I know it definitely wasn't part of... And at one point, there was a barn there, I was told. And that's why there was a piece of pavement that was like eight by ten and that burned down. But Ethel had told me at some point that I think they must have built those stairs after it burned down and added that second floor apart. There was probably one that was left over. So can... Excuse me, I apologize if it's in here. So you were getting to the foundation as part of this renovation or because there was deterioration that... It was... Yeah, foundation is... It wasn't actually... It was some stones in the dirt and the actual eight by original sill, which is the post and beam structure was sitting below grade in the dirt on top of the stone and rotting. We had to replace all of that. There also was nothing carrying between... So there's three different foundations to the building. It's kind of a complicated build. Obviously over the years, people have been adding on to this house. So structurally, it would have fallen down. It was extremely unsafe. The floors were... It was seven inches from one corner to the other over 10 feet. So my question is, is the foundation work part of this application? Or was that not... Did that not need to be part of this application? I mean, it's part of the project, but... I think that would be more of the building permit. So it didn't come through here. Right. And so you had it covered in a different... I had it covered in a building permit. That's why it didn't even cross my mind that I needed to go zoning to get demolition to get... That's what I was trying to get. Hard to the whole thing, because it's a learning experience for me. Yeah. See you, please. Meredith, did you say the design review looked at this recently? At the demolition. So the design review looked at this demolition a couple hours ago, and they approved it and didn't have any comments or recommendations. They didn't have an issue with it. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Just so I understand part of this... The reason for the demolition was that the staircase itself was unsuitable for continued use. Well, that was also part of it, but it had to be removed in order to get to the foundation, which was hidden behind the stairs, because the stairs came out beyond the foundation. Okay. Because they weren't part of the structure. It shared its own... Well, actually, it was just sitting in the dirt. So in order to jack... Because we actually had to jack the building up and dig out all the way around it down five feet to put... It didn't have a foundation except for the stone. So we had to remove the stairs. We could have braced part of it, but it was an unsafe situation. I wouldn't want my guys underneath any of that. It was falling apart. It cribbed the whole building. The whole building had to be cribbed, lifted up on that corner and corner by the driveway. So it was pretty extensive work to save the whole back half of the house, which had been neglected for 30 or 40 years. And the sheeting on those stairs was not really acceptable for anybody to be using them because there was ice coating the stairs in the winter. They were just exterior stairs with like a fake enclosure. Okay. So I think... Yes, they did. In short, they did have to be removed in order to put in the foundation. There was no saving it. So I have a question for Meredith. It's my understanding that in order to approve the demolition, we need to have a detailed demolition and site restoration plan. Is that in the packet? I didn't see it. And I wonder what your advice is. This is sort of unfortunately part of what the board is going to need to decide tonight as to whether or not they need that. I know that you're supposed to be reviewing this based on as if it hadn't happened yet. On the other hand, it's sort of like the entire project is the demolition site and remediation plan because everything that they have done within this application is part of... There's not really remediation going on. They're just building new. They've moved the stairs and they're planning to put a patio in that back area instead of where the stairs are. So if the board decides that really something else must be provided for that, then that can be a condition. Okay. Do we have a picture of the actual back of the house as it's been renovated? Is it renovations? Yes. Well, I might have one, but I would be a four by six. So it's not this one? That's the side. That's the stairs that replace the ones around them. The gable end is where the stairs were. So the stairs we're seeing is where the demolished structure was. The new stair. The stairs you're seeing in that picture I just saw, that is the new stair that replaces the falling down roof, which was also within the footprint if you look at the original picture. Is there a photo of the pre-demolition condition? I only have, I mean, there might be one somewhere. I've looked everywhere. I can't find my own. Kevin, the best thing that we could come up with for pre-demolition condition is the last photo in your application packet. Last photo, okay. That's the best thing that we could find. Yeah, so you have a four foot structure, because that's the Let me ask this question, because I think this goes to our analysis. Was there any way to have preserved the stairs and to have done the foundation work that was necessary? I had three, three different guys look at it that they specialize in lifting, jacking buildings, and they all said that's got to go. There just wasn't a, and they also, a lot of them are covered under different work safety, site safety rules than I am, because I'm a sole proprietor. These are large companies and they said that they wouldn't, without, without extreme cost to save something that wouldn't have met code anyway. There was no way really to do it. I know we would have had to add another foundation underneath it. Any other questions about the demolition of this staircase structure? And that's the only demolition that was done. Other than getting the interior of the building. Right, which is an under. Let's not open up that. I appreciate Meredith's point that the materials are a site restoration plan by virtue of what you're doing. And I don't think that it affects my decision one way or another, whatever, whatever I ultimately decide. But having those things kind of with an arrow pointing to them in the future is a helpful thing that just to check the box on our review to make sure that we have the specific thing that is requested like labeled as a demolition plan or labeled as a, you know, the more information, the better, especially when we're trying to weigh something in this way. So like, like you said, we're living and learning. So that would be helpful. Part of the analysis that we have to do on the demolition side is to determine the historic nature of what's being demolished, because not all parts of a historic building are necessarily equal as this indicates, you know, this was attacked on peace. It's different than this is different than say, if you wanted to take the man-sert roof off of this, as well, you know, there's a question of safety, there's a question of economics that the regulation requires us to look into. And so often times when we're dealing with the demolition, it's good to know exactly what has been removed, what it looks like, you know, in this case, what it looks like now is helpful, as well as the idea of, you know, the purpose for this removal and how it meets, how it meets the ordinance because Mr. Chair, I would just add to that. It would also be helpful to see a plan before demolition, I think, as the ordinance requires. Right. I mean, this is, and I think we have to take a close scrutiny of this only because this is exactly a type of situation that the ordinance is meant to avoid, which is the post hoc justification for a demolition of a contributing historic structure. I don't think it is historical. It is part of the building is, but the rear of the building is not. We could go there. I mean, we don't, we don't, I think at the 70s or 80s upstairs. Is that historic? I don't know. I'm asking you. I don't know. Well, that's, I mean, when a building's a contributing structure, it falls upon the applicant to prove with some degree of other than I heard that it was built in the 70s to to show that it was, it's not either not a contributing or not an important contributing factor in this. I mean, in some respects, we're looking at the national, um, register of historic places that that makes these, that puts these structures onto this list of contributing structures. I mean, you know, be one thing if somebody built on an addition in the 90s, and you could show that it was built in the 90s, that it was never, you know, part of the original historic structure. I think that's a different thing than, um, you know, suggesting that because it's shoddy or because it's may not be. No, no, no, but Kate, Kate told us when we went tax credit, she said the back of the building is not historic. Okay. I was telling you the information that I have from our appliance, Kate, at the store. Not me. She said the front is, the back isn't, we don't care about the back at all. This is, this is the state. The face is the street, and it's only the part with an answer, right? Yeah, not me. Different Kate, different Caitlin, right? Yeah, she was at the bill. She came into the site, Caitlin, Corkins, Corkins. So that's the information we had. I'd recommend to the board that we, we move on to the next issue, um, and not take a vote on any of these until we've sort of taken a look at the entire proposal as a whole. So the next piece and Meredith, you can walk us through the conditional use of the design review elements. Are there any other design review elements other than the demolition features? This would be because of the changes to the staircase and the proposed deck windows. Landscaping, is that the case? Yeah, so hold on one second. So there were the changes of the windows, just got to find my right form here. That the design review committee reviewed at their first hearing and I, yeah, and they, do you need me to go through all the criteria, Dan? No, just the decision of the. Yeah, so they approved it, so they reviewed the windows and they reviewed the lighting at that point as well as painting the building, the addition of the decks and the exterior staircase and they approved everything. Their only comment was that the security lighting, any security lighting and wall fixtures being added or replaced beside doorways at the rear of the building needed to match existing fixtures on the building. And then at this evening's design review meeting, pictures of those fixtures were presented to design review and they were acceptable. Do you have extra copies of those, a few extra to hand around? And then at an intervening design review two weeks ago, wait just a minute. Great, thank you. We can share if you don't have enough. We'll have a similar hanger. And then two weeks ago, design review also looked at the landscaping plan and including the back patio area and they were, they had really no comments on that at all. They actually determined that they didn't need to take any action on those items. Okay. And that wasn't, you know, that was landscaping review with regard to design review, not the landscaping criteria within the general zoning regulations. Okay, are there any questions about the design review? Just traditionally that tends to be, we defer to the design review committee and their findings unless there's a reason, however, we're not bound by them. If there's questions that anyone has as to any of those features, you're welcome to make those. Hearing none, let's move along to the conditional use review portion. Meredith, you want to introduce that? So the conditional use at this point, what we're talking about is the change from a five-unit dwelling to a six-unit dwelling, both of which are conditional uses within this district. And what we're dealing with here is a increased intensity of the use. So we're going to six units. And if you look on page 22 of your staff report, that's where that analysis begins. And you need to, during my review, in your review, we look at the capacity of the various community facilities and utilities for the increased intensity of use, impacts on traffic, potential impacts on the character of the neighborhood, and making sure that this increased use fits with that neighborhood, which includes various items, including architecture, yards, landscaping. That would be the major points. So let's, we have your application for conditional use review. But, Chris and Wynn, if you could walk us through what type, this is a one-bedroom apartment that you're proposing to add on. What are the other bedrooms in in the building? Four two bedrooms. Four two bedrooms, there's a one-bedroom. And the first question is the capacity of the community facilities and utilities. So you have to demonstrate the proposed development will not cause a disproportionate or unreasonable burden on the city's ability to provide community facilities and utilities, clean local schools, police fire protection and ambulance services, street infrastructure and maintenance, park and recreation facilities, and water sewage, disposal and storm water systems and infrastructure. Let me start with the last one first. Is this on city water and sewer? And will this additional bedroom make any change to that city utility hookup on it? Well, it does not. It will actually decrease, I think, because we replaced all the toilets with low flush, high efficient toilets that have two buttons, if you want to get a specific one for a liquid waste and one for the solid waste. In every element of the building, we've replaced energy, you know, spray foam, the sills and spray foam, the building. Everything's much more efficient now, so in terms of just efficiency and all new shower fixtures, every appliance is new, so they're all now required to be low flow, which before there was lead pipes and everything was high flow. Just to answer your question, how many guests will be negative impact in terms of water? Emeritus, did they meet with the technical review committee on this? They, well, DPW reviewed the whole package and so they will need to get, if they haven't filed for it already, the indirect sewer and water connections and a state water and wastewater permit. Okay. Is that the state permit is being worked on right now? And so as a single bedroom house, I mean, sorry, single bedroom apartment, your testimonies, you don't believe any of the other community facilities would be affected, local schools, parks. It's just one more. Positively, if any, by adding another few people to town, the tax base. And the second issue is on traffic. And the applicant has to demonstrate that the volume and timing of traffic generated proposal will not be substantially greater than what would normally occur in here by uses that the traffic generated by the proposed development will not unreasonably disproportionate contribute to a reduced level of service for the affected streets and intersections. And that reasonable measures been taken to minimize or mitigate the account, the amount of vehicular traffic. So if you could just discuss what you think the impacts of the traffic are to this, I think they're none. I mean, a couple of tenants that have been there previously have asked to come back and they didn't really drive anywhere because the place is so close to town. So it's really minimal in terms of traffic. We're also putting up some bike secure stations. And so if you want to ride a bike, they could, but typically people don't even do that. They just go around the corner to town. You know, we sit between social services, which has some traffic, and between Verizon, which also has traffic. So in terms of our impact on that street, it's minimal to nine even with this added apartment. It's because a lot of times people don't even have cars. In your driveway already serves multiple vehicles going in and out because of five units. Yeah. It's large enough. If you do the math, we did the measurements. It's large enough to accommodate a new tenant, a new car. Was it 55 by 30? Maybe I don't remember exactly. But within the codes that are set by the town for parking, we can put another car in there without doing any work to the current parking. So the third item is character at the neighborhood. And that just seeks to be compatible with enhance the neighborhood character. Proposed development must be a look head designed in accordance with the following architectural compatibility. Yard block coverage and landscaping, lighting and noise. So let's take each one. So the architectural compatibility, you're not really changing the footprint of the building other than what we talked about with the demolition of the staircase. Is that correct? Correct. And so is this what is this space? This is this was unused space within the apartment or is it a reconfiguration on the building in the first place? The attic is just incredible. Yeah, right. It's an attic. It's an attic, but it's a tall one. It's just beautiful. It's a beautiful space. You can see it as a dance studio or something. It would have been too hard to do a commercial space up there, but it was gorgeous. And it is gorgeous. If you could describe for the second element about the yard and lock coverage and landscaping, just give a brief sort of what is on the ground there now? And what are you proposing? Minimal, there's like one there's one large maple tree out front. Um, you know, and, uh, Dutchman's height growing up the side, which is perennial. There's no, there's no evergreens. And there's a large fence around the back. The rest of it is just grass and dirt. So we would augment building by adding proper I guess it's the new the new rules for shrubs and so we would put some loaded bedroom shrubs. We have some lilac shrubs right in the front. And then the back there'll be a patio with a stone wall from the sleep that we dug up. Yeah, so we dug up on the property. It just feel a lot nicer. And will it meet the five feet per shrub? No, we didn't apply to meet that. I'm telling you that now, but we can see the shrubs are bigger than five feet. So to have five feet per shrub, you can't really plant. We can we can talk about that when we get to that that particular one? I'm just letting you know that seems to be right. But we have to take affirmative testimony on, you know, what you're proposing and what you're what you're changing. And the patio deck area is that open going to be open to all tenants or is that going to be just? Yeah, no, that's okay. And then the light noise. Are you adding any additional light? Yes, we're going to have one light will be added upstairs to the third proposed department, sorry, the sixth proposed department on the third floor on the deck. And that would be one of those sconces that I showed there. So that's that then the deck where the main entrance to the building on that's on School Street will replace an old I don't know where they got it fixture with the ceiling fixtures to match the rest of the building. Sorry, the second floor door. Second floor door. Well, the second floor door will out of sconce as well. And there's a security, security light around the back over the patio, which is actually was already there. We're just moving it around the corner. So in terms of ambient lighting, social services had an incredible light. You really don't need our lights, honestly, because that building is a federal building and it has unbelievable lighting. And then the parking lot in the back, there's a parking lot that we're sort of adjacent to as well. It's a large city center, the city center. Yeah, there's actually quite a bit of ambient light. There's a lot of ambient light from there too. So I just want to be clear on the record that we're not going to affect any of the lighting in the area. You won't become the new beacon downtown. No, you won't become the new beacon downtown. No, we won't Okay, does anyone have any questions about the character of the neighborhood? I have one question. Yeah, go ahead. So the patio area in the rear, that is a common area. The deck on the roof, that is going to be the third. Just for the sixth apartment. It's a small building. Although everybody probably would want to go up there. Well, I mean, are you going to take steps to prevent people from going up there? There's a spiral staircase. Okay. It would be obvious that it is the other tenant. It's there. But that's the place for 4th of July Firework feeling. Right. And New Year's. Okay, let's let's talk about the performance standards. There's eight performance standards. We'll just go through the noise. You're proposing basically one more residential apartment. Do you estimate there to be any additional noise created as a result of this? That would be appreciable outside the building? I don't believe so. No, and social services has had a huge structure on top. It's made unbelievable. Oh, that's so loud. Anyway, again, I think that's since they completed the renovations. That's been helpful. It's a little less. Yeah, I'm aware of that. So they would play. I'm sorry. No, no, no, no. This is interesting. It was really noticeable. Yeah, it was. Well, I'm there. It's loud all the time. I'm worried. I have your plug in. Okay, I can tell you that. But anyhow, this apartment will not affect any outside noise. I think glare odor and vibrations we can tackle as one those because you're not proposing any new structure outside of the building. It's basically have its same impact outside. We're talking about another residential structure. So there's not any new odors created. And there's no vibration. Electrical or radio interference. I would say no. Excuse me, Dan, we're bouncing around a little. Could you reference the page number? Oh, sure. It's just on the back. Okay, you're looking at the application itself, not the staff report. Okay. Thank you. Can I interject just one second? Yeah. So for these performance standards, these are no longer listed individually within the regulations as required things for the board to consider. But they're on here because you may consider performance standards. And so in case something really big were to come up, this is a way to elicit that information from the applicants. Right. Just making sure everybody was clear on that point. That's helpful. They're just the normal issues that we often go through. I think it's the worth at least listing. Okay, agreed. So well, though, I mean, probably not applicable electrical or radio interference. Waste storage. Where is the trash to be stored and recycling? So we were just going to use the Cassella large cans. That's what's been there since before. And we proposed off, we thought about a dumpster, but that would be, I think, too high impact of a truck coming in and out of there to make a lot of sense. So the way they do it now, they actually pull into the Cassella truck pulls into the Verizon parking lot, and they just walk over and grab them and put them in the back of the truck. They're on the back side. It's just the way they've always done it. They've done it since we can. Will you be increasing the number of cans as a result of this apartment? Well, it just depends on people measure it. And the guy from Cassella is pretty good at letting us know what we need. So we trust it. There might be two instead of one, you know, two. As needed, I would say. As the location of those cans indicated on a site plan, there are a number of different sketches, but I don't know which one is you're considering the site plan. So the right side is where we put the right side, the right side. Yeah, by the fence. So I'm not sure which of these diagrams would be best suited for it, but it would be helpful if a couple of those site site plan type elements could all be on one, you know, the snow storage and the things like having to do with circulation and parking. They're all in different places and be really helpful if this was updated as before it was issued. That's what we're doing. The sketch is good. Yeah, that's what we've always done. And so you're you're noting them by the back, the proposed back patio area, right? Towards the rear of the lot. The remaining two sort of normal performance standards that we've is particulate matter and airborne solids and flammable toxic or hazardous waste and substances and waste. The particulate matter and airborne solids, you're not expecting you're not putting in any type of HVAC system for this unit. No, we're expecting any type of discharge from this unit. Yep. The only thing that we've done is taken, we've put in propane, high-ficiency propane boilers, and they emit, you know, steam and carbon monoxide, but that's pretty normal for them. And these are unit-based heaters. Correct. So they'll be six of them. Okay. These are these the standard residential or they differ? Yes, standard residential. All right. Any other questions about from the board about the conditional use? So at this point, I think we're down to the last one, which would be the, are we doing site plan? Miner site plan. Okay. Um, just for efficiency, I'd like to, unless the board has an ejection, just go through some of the points that the staff has raised. Jane, could you point out exactly where we are on the application materials? Sure. We'll start on page, sure. We start on the district standards, which is on page five of the staff report. And a lot of these aren't necessarily controversial or raise issues. So it just goes through the various standards that we were talking about multi-family five plus units, which it already is, and the dimensional standards, which are not triggered by this project. We're not talking a setback issue. The use standards we've gone through with the conditional use. And we've discussed the demolition. This is in part why it was helpful to you do this overall at the end. And then wetlands and vernal pools repairing areas are not triggered. So we do talk about erosion control practices. And one of the staff questions that was raised is about the construction of the patio and whether erosion control practices are being used in that. And would you accept a condition on that? So let me unpack that one at a time. How is the patio being constructed? Is it stone or is it? So we're going to use, there's, we retrieved a lot of stone from the old foundation when we actually put in a propane tank, buried a propane tank. We're removing one from the side of the building and bearing it. When we did that, we found a lot of old stone. So we can use that to build the wall. And then the flat ones, there's a lot of flat, flat pieces. Those will be used as the patio, which will be on a permeable surface, which was a impermeable piece of pavement that was, I guess, a parking space at some point in its life. So we'll be replacing it. We have taken the pavements already been removed. And then it's just sandy actually very drainable surface, very drainable areas. I think we'd impacted positively, not negatively. What, what are the dimensions of the patio? Propose, what do we put 12 by 20? It's on there. Should be to scale 12 by 20 is a 240 square feet or so. All right. And is this you? Okay. And the area where this patio sits, is it a level area? Or is it a slope or incline? It's, it's leveled a little higher than the rest of the rest of everything. We're the height of the foundation. So so under section section 3008 talks about erosion control, and this applies to any land development that disturbs soils, which is what you're proposing to do. And it says that all projects that will disturb soil, disturb approximately 600 square feet of soil. So it applies if it if the project will disturb, let me take a step back. You said 240 square feet. I don't think it does. We just said that I'm going to do the math right now. Well, I think based on based on what you had given me for dimensions before, I think in our emails, I came out to 375 square foot patio, and then it's surrounded by a stone wall. And yeah, there is a typo in here about the 600 square feet of soil being disturbed, but might be 400 something with the stone wall, but probably not even that. Either way, it's less than 10,000 square feet. Regulations call for a professionally prepared erosion control plan. Mainly so that as you're building this, that there is one construction that doesn't cause erosion itself. And given that you're putting it right next to your new foundation, I presume that's something you want to take care of as well. And two, that once it's built that the erosion as you described, Chris, would any water would permeate the surface. So one of the conditions that the staff has asked for is that you would essentially prepare an erosion control plan. No, no, no, no, no, just simply just just a just a statement that they're going to follow the general erosion control practices that are in section 3008 D in because they don't need to have the professionally prepared erosion control plan. That's only for projects with 10,000 square feet of disturbance or more. So because we don't need to require that, the request is that in the the permit if approved, we just require that they follow the general erosion control practices in section 3008 D. That's all. We accept that condition. Sorry, we were talking that's okay. Well, Meredith was clarifying that it's actually not required for projects under 10,000 square feet of disturbance. We're just simply asking if you would be amenable to a condition that would require you to follow the erosion control practices under the regulations. Any other questions? All right. So again, the stormwater management because they're storm sewers. Are there any new storm sewers being put in to this site? Because you're not changing the driveway access and circulation. You're not changing the curb cut. You want me to just cut to where the next issue was. So in my overview, the amount of parking they had sufficient parking spaces. And the location of the parking is compliant with section 3011 G. The only real issue we found was that the aisle behind the parking area is supposed to be not less than 20 feet wide. But with the space that's available for both the parking and that aisle, which was the evidence that it was 33 feet in depth and the parking spaces themselves need to be 18 feet. So that means the aisle behind is only 15 feet wide. Now, this is a, you know, prior nonconformity. It's been in use. They're not making any changes. So really, it doesn't need to be updated, but it's something to call out for you that it is a nonconformity. And, you know, Department of Public Works didn't feel like it needed to be updated. But if you felt like it should be some additional factor, you could. So it sounds like we are not exacerbating the nonconformity by making that narrower than it already is with the addition of the sixth parking spot. So the function will be quite comparable to what it is today. Exactly. Okay. Is that an accurate statement? Any other questions on that issue? Then the next issue is about the parking itself, the Director of Public Works indicated a strong preference for a fully detailed and scaled parking site plan, including the property line. I think this goes to Kate's earlier point about showing where snow removal is, showing where the specific parking spaces for each car are to be, at least in the plan that's been given right now. While the, I think the math has been done such that we can see that six cars will fit here. We don't have a drawing that shows where they are located and the width of the actual individual parking spaces. And that would be very helpful for me to have all on one piece of paper. It would have been very helpful for reviewing the application to see how it all fits together, including the circulation. But in the future, if we chat again in five or 10 or 15 years, it establishes the record of what we discussed and how the site is set up and functioning. And that, that would just be very good. You provided written evidence, but visual evidence in the form of a site plan for site plan review is useful. We did discuss some of it with Meredith and showed where the snow. Yep. And we, we, we have that in the record and then we have a written, we have written evidence about the parking spaces, but having it all in one place to show how the whole thing works together is a pretty typical approach. One, one or five different maps you want. One map to rule them all so that we can see where the parking spaces are where the snow storages because part of this is if you come back and want to do something different, then we have a starting point. Sure. And I think, you know, while at least for myself, it, you know, I think you meet this, the standard, it's going to be important later on down the road. So you don't have to recreate that work and pull in from the disparate elements. Yeah. So, but now I'll just put together that's what we call the site plan and it ends up being very useful. So that would be great as a, I don't know if we do that as a condition. Or, uh, you, you for you mean before the permit is issued to request that at the end? Yeah, you can totally do that as a condition to make sure everything is pulled together on one site plan. I'm including the garbage, the landscaping, all of that could be a condition on the permit. I was just peeking through the zoning. I'm not sure that we can request the location of the garbage. I don't know that it fits in. So I might be under conditional use since you're asking about waste storage. Yeah. Thank you. We're happy to put it in there. So thanks. You did a good job here. I'm interested. Thank you. Support Kate's recommendation. I mean, the hardest part that I'm having with your application is the fact that we're looking all over the place here. It's just kind of like a shuffling of deck of cards and trying to find that. I think it's also important to, because, you know, if you think from practical point of view, what happens to this application and permit is it goes into a file downstairs in the zoning and planning department and you or your successor and title is going to come back again at some point and having that single map then makes it easier. So I think it's it it's in everyone's benefit. And then that way we know exactly what we're approving as a and then make sure that when Meredith issues the permit that it's consistent with what we approve. So I mean, in essence, when we try that we give it to Meredith, she makes copies and then no, it would just go into the file as long as when you bring it to me, I can judge that it has included all the disparate elements and pulled in and any other conditions that might come out of this meeting. Then I will include it in the permit. Got it. So the next the next issue and it's really the last big issue is about the landscaping. And so part of this is the regulation 3203 G requires one shrub for every five feet of building perimeter and one tree for every 30 feet of exterior principle building exterior. So my understanding is that the landscape plan that you're proposing is less than than that. And you were starting to explain earlier why design review did it for for design review purposes, but this is different. Correct. And this is what Meredith was alluding to earlier, which is that we need to understand. We have the authority to to lessen some of those requirements, but there has to be a record of why such a thing. So essentially, you're saying, one, I think it would be helpful to give us a lance your landscape plan, describe it. And then to the extent that it deviates from the the standard that I just articulated why? Is it so? Yes, if I want, it's not a plant every five feet. It's a plant for every five feet of the building. So we put four four shrubs in one space and that would be considered for 20 feet of building. So in doing that, we haven't actually figured out exactly where everything would go. We want to screen the fair point communications building from the tenants, because it's probably one of the uglier buildings in town. But have to, you know, I'm not a professional landscaper. I don't know Vermont trees very well. Meredith gave me a little cheat sheet to figure that out, but we're still kind of going through all of that. Like to meet as much as we can, as close as we can. But it's also financially, it's pretty difficult to plant and pay for that amount of shrubbery for this size of the building. Well, there was really no landscaping where there was not a place between those two, but it doesn't mean that we're not going to have any replanted some lilacs and some shrubs. We drew them out, I think, in the landscape design. So why don't you all look at that? If you don't like it, you can give us suggestions. We'd be happy to take them. We'd have to do that. And if you if there's something, well, I mean, it's not our job to redesign. So then don't look at what we have. I mean, I think it's a far improvement from what was there. A big improvement. And you have, you know, the site is between two commercial buildings and there's a parking lot in the back. We really think we've done a lot to maintain a historic building that was going to fall down. The back half was falling down. And so what we're saying is that, you know, that landscape plan is one we can afford. And so it will include lilacs and road adventure. And and there will be and it will it will not get to probably one every five feet. So just so we have numbers to put on this understanding from the staff report that we're talking about two hundred and forty seven feet of principal building perimeter. Is that accurate? Doesn't sound like a lot. It's possible. It sounds small to me. Two forty seven. It is that what it comes out to? Yeah, I pulled this number from the property card information, as well as the scale of the first floor plan and measuring what this is based on the arts building. I believe it. Based on the first floor plan that's in here. So that would require on the one shrub for every five feet and the one tree for every 30 feet that would require 50 shrubs and eight trees. Now there's an existing maple tree that's not to be disturbed. Is there any are there any other shrubs or plantings currently? No, the only one is that Dutchman's type. And that's that grows up decided. I don't know if that's and that's like a vining perennial that goes on a porch. Yes. Yeah, pretty typical Victorian thing. So you're proposing what looks like three lilac plantings at the front. Is that just one lilac plant for each of those plantings or would they be a clump of lilacs? That's what I proposed. Yes. One one one freeze. Okay. So and then it looks like one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fourteen shrubs along the side between Fairpoint and OK, so so instead of 50 you're proposing 17 shrubs and instead of eight trees you're proposing to keep the one large tree. Yeah, technically. So there are some lilacs that could be within the tree range. Just that is a possibility. But I wonder if I could add a question. So as I understand it, this your proposal has been approved by the design review board. Is that right for the landscape within the design review parameters, which don't match right, which is outside of this that the actual number of shrubs and trees. And so I would be interested in that we generally defer to them. I understand what you'd said that often or Dan had the chair had that we often defer to their findings. So I'd be interested to know what testimony you gave them. So how you describe this project to them, because that would help inform how sort of this the number game we're playing fits in with how they approach this issue. That's a fair question. I think we're telling them all we just said. I don't think there was there wasn't. It was that you're essentially making better. What was pretty sparse? Yes. Many of my legs will grow much bigger than five feet. Over time. Ten. Yeah. And the Rotary Gendrons and the shrubs on that side, spacing of those bushes might take. You guys have a question. Given the existing size of the lot and the building, do you think it's like either practical or reasonable to to plant 50 shrubs and eight trees on the lot that you have? That's a very good point. I don't think that the only place we could actually put that amount more than what I've proposed is in the back lawn. And at that point, I mean, it would be screening to the the fence that's already existing. But I believe the fence was put in for screening in the first place. I don't know unless we're going to have a tree lot. I'd like to actually pick up on that. The fencing along the perimeter. So the back of your lot, there's a fence along it. And what type of fence is it? It's a red sort of wire fence. It's a metal fence. It goes up probably six feet right feet. And it and it's and it's not only on the back, but it's on the sides all the way up to the two buildings, you know, to where it arises, it starts to where the back of our building ends. And also so it's a three sided fence. So I I understand and part of what is important. So this is this is this is this is a this is a a metal fence, but it has some privacy features. Is that it has told me it has the the the red inserts that's red inserts all the way through. So you don't see it. So if you're standing, if I'm standing on the lot behind you, I can't look into your property because of the the fence that's there. And I'm looking at the map with some of the drawn in landscaping. And it seems that the fence comes not quite all along along, but stops about the back of the building. That's right at exactly at the if you continue the building it would just come right into it. And then on the side that you share with the Social Security Office, does the fence go how far does the fence go? Security building and stop. It's actually posted on the Social Security building. But that's I think that's probably like 15 or 20 feet from the other. You know, it's it's shorter than the other side. It does screen it screens both screens because the building's there. So I think both commercial buildings are screened. One of the points is that at least for screening in the back, because, you know, if you look at and this is Section three two oh three talks about the purpose of these. One is to enhance the appearance of the built environment as viewed from the public vantage. Yeah, another is to create shade along sidewalks and walkways and within parking lots. Third is to provide a landscape buffer between residential and non residential land uses and for screening land uses and development that creates visual clutter and distraction. And in three two oh three G I was reading from three two oh three a three two oh three G talks about site landscaping saying that landscaping should be used or installed to a provide direction to an enhanced building entrances, enhance and shade walkways, provide visual breaks along blank building facades and intercept and filter storm water runoff such as a rain garden. So your testimony is that at least in the back. The fence means that any shrubbery wouldn't provide any buffer or landscaping because of the fence that's there. It would simply be nice to look at for the tenants and be about it, except the top support. And let's look at the if we look at the front of the the property, the maple, the way you've drawn it. I think if we can get do you have a picture of the here, the front of the building, the Google map picture. There should be some also when we're looking at the windows. So the blue one shows it. If you look in that top downward, you can see it as well. The Google satellite picture shows it. So as a satellite photo shows this tree is basically in the entire front yard. It's a fully mature maple tree. And it almost looks like there's a tree behind it. Is that on your property or is that the Social Security? It's right on the line. It's both it's on the property line actually. So with something potentially that is yours, if we want to count that towards us. Half of it. Half a tree. I'll give you full credit. Okay. Perfect. I mean, I think that's fair to give you because that's functionally. And then, you know, I'm at least noticing that it would be hard, difficult to put in another shade tree in the front yard. Definitely. And might look awkward too to offset that beautiful big tree with some tree that's off to the sea. It would just be unbalanced. But shrubs, shorter evergreen shrubs would definitely augment the building, make it look nicer provide screening throughout all seasons. That I fully get. And then along the I don't have the this would be the western boundary between you and the Social Security building. Is there a strip of grass between the or is it does a driveway come? There's a strip of grass five to 10 feet wide from the building to the driveway. No, no, but I mean on from the social security from the boundary that you share with the Social Security building to two year driveway. So going from west to east to small how it's it's maybe three feet. Yeah. Minimal. So it's a very minimal strip. And that's almost OK. That's under your control. Right. Because it's not a pin. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's under our control. Well, no, but I'm trying to also understand me a three feet small section of grass like that Yeah. Would suggest that it's difficult to plant a tree in that area under your control. Let's just think of plowing. So. Yeah. So the driveway side is pretty much out behind the building. We definitely could plant trees. There really is no place on the the western side next to Social Security that you could plant a tree without digging up the driveway. Maybe at the very end of the driveway, but then that may make, you know, snow piling difficult or getting to the back. That'd be the only place to put them. It's definitely out of the question to stick something on the driveway. It already doesn't meet your turn around or three point turn standard. Right. Mr. Chair. Yeah. I seem to be grappling around all directions, trying to come up with something that it's the criteria for the landscaping aspect of this application. Yep. I wonder if we might want to change direction and look at the materials that are actually here versus what would give us the information we need in a cohesive way that allows us to make determinations that make sense. I think that's a point well taken. I would note that one of the proposed conditions in the staff report related to this calls for it says an updated site plan. I'd say a site plan with filing that that incorporates planting locations for the trees and the shrubs is required by section. Those numbers are what we are talking about, but as far as the precise location of them. I think this board could consider whether that could be left to just closing out the process. I think that's a responsibility of the applicant and we really are stepping outside of our purview when we're trying to fit this in fit this in ourselves. Right. No, I'm I think it's about as far as we can we can go to so. I think my sense is what the chair is doing is he's trying to help the applicants be clear to us about whether or not it's practical or practicable to meet the requirements of the bylaws in the event that we in our decision making are deciding that we're essentially going to wave them to accommodate what they've proposed. Is that correct? That's a fair assessment and I think we're just trying to understand you know part of this is you know because of the screening this is a relatively new requirement and I'll the numbers you know are large and we haven't had to grapple with this and I think what we're what I'm trying to do is sort of suss out because you may not be prepared to describe some of some of these issues but I think they're relevant to this and as we do this examination why we have these plantings or not what's missing is a landscape plan is a drawing there there's a drawing that's what I'm saying so if you like that there's a landscape drawing there right but we can't if see I thought what Kevin's saying too you got it if you if you want to say we grant that plan accepted and then you know if you can fit another tree in somewhere do it or if you want to put some condition on us go ahead but the fact is we came up with what we thought was reasonable it's much better and I that's our plan and I think it's a pretty good one for what we're trying to accomplish the patio will be really beautiful we'll put some shrubs around the patio as well for screen on the right side there's already a fence that you described that really is screening the entire back yard of the property and the sides of the back yard and the rest of it you know we're trying to also take care of our tenants so it's not we're going to put some planning I'll probably have a DD brush and actually do a real landscape plan for this once we actually are going to purchase shrubs but we wanted you to know that that's our best effort right now to say this is where we are and you can put that down and maybe no DD she works with you know she put the landscape plan together for our house so we'll contact her as well but we'll find plants that I think would have been required but I don't see a purpose in this plot exactly to do that we'll treat the front of the building with a lot of grace and respect and we'll put the proper shrubs in front and they're on the plan not being much of a landscaper or a gardener that's the only thing I see is really obvious myself is the opportunity to bring up your shrub count in the front and so I see there are places where this plan rather than being accepted as submitted could be updated with I think there are opportunities to boost those shrubs yeah we will a little bit so yeah just want to be clear that we just need to be clear about whether we are approving this plan or some modifications and preferably whether or not the condition is that they must meet the numbers in here or some reduced amount so that when it comes to me I know what to do with it please that's what Kevin's point is about is that we have a little difficulty I mean in figuring out exactly what we're what we're deciding upon as far as numbers I mean you've proposed 17 shrubs or 14 shrubs and and if we count the lilacs as trees you know four trees but you know well below the threshold and I'm trying to understand part partially for the board's sake is how far you know and the reasons why these numbers are are below the count as well then but what you're saying also is that well if we need to add a couple trees or some more shrubs in the front you're not opposed to that I mean I think we said four in my mind we were going to do four either four lilacs or four larger shrubs in the front but at the same time Kevin's point is that I mean and it's it's a point we've made before with applicants is that we can't really redesign and it's you know unlike going to court where the court may just simply decide and you live with the judgment the idea here is to review the actual application so I've also heard the applicant say that he's proposed the two four six eight ten twelve fourteen bushes three lilacs in the existing maple to me given the size of the building and the size of the lot and the size of space for plantings and the existing screening from the existing fence and the fact that this is minor site plan approval for some exterior changes a reduction in the impervious surfaces and the addition of a one unit of dwelling in currently unused space that this would satisfy the purposes of the landscaping requirements of the zoning regulations okay so what's the pleasure of the board at this point I think that's the sole issue that remains do we want to make a motion or do we want to take this under advisement into deliberative session I would I would propose that we take it under that we take the application under advisement we're dealing with a number of new factors here tonight a new board a new ordinance and it might just make sense to be able to examine that in a little bit more detail I would only add to that that I propose that we would take it under advisement and go into deliver session following the second application so yes okay so I'll entertain a motion to that effect unless somebody wants now I'll make a motion to go into deliberative session to talk about the application after hearing the next application that's before us okay so a motion to take under advisement to deliver session by by Deb second second by Rob all those in favor please raise your right hand take this under deliberative advisement thank you very much thank you thank you Mr. Connor this item is one home farm way if you would state your names for the record Fred Carter what was I the owner and my name is Jeff Olesky with Wilson Consulting Engineers the civil engineer for the project okay raise your right hands you solemnly swear affirm that the evidence and testimony you're about to give for the matter under consideration shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under pains and penalties of perjury Meredith so this is a request to amend a site plan that was approved in 2016 and the request first came in to me for administrative approval however to do that it couldn't be a material change and it also had to be a change of less than 100 square feet of the footprint and in the regulation it just says change doesn't say addition it doesn't say decrease and so in addition to dealing with the a change of much more than 100 square feet I had also determined that it was a material change because there's a lot of cumulative changes going on here and so I can't do this amendment to this previously approved site plan it needs to go to the board now because it is a previously approved site plan even though the procedures we just evaluate this under are the current 2018 rules when it comes to the actual substantive standards you will be applying it's the old rules so they have been laid out within the staff report when it comes to your review of the dimensional requirements all of the site plan criteria it's all of the old rules so that means certain things for those of you who are familiar with the new rules under the new rules you're dealing with coverage of the entire parcel for you consider building roofs but you also consider sidewalks you consider driveways you consider parking lots under the old rules all you're concerned with is the building coverage itself not the entire lots impermeable surface so that's just an example of some things that might change up for you here and then the other procedural thing to remember is that when you're doing this requested amendment you are not looking at the entire site plan all you are looking at are the specific changes that have been requested so in the application you're going to want to look very carefully the site plan 1.1 versus the sheet number C2.0 on C2.0 you're going to see sort of little squiggly bubbles clouds around the areas that have been changed on the site plan and there are triangular number codes in the top right hand part of the site plan that pinpoint you as to what those different items are they've also been summarized within the staff report as well as the cover letter that came from Fred that's at the beginning of the whole application package so Fred or Jeff do you want to just walk us through these changes that you're proposing I'd be happy to and I certainly appreciate the fact that there's a few board members here that were not part of this original review so I thought maybe the easiest thing to do is just give a very quick overview of what the project itself involved and what the original approval was and then as Meredith handily pointed out we've created a plan here is to try to amend the originally approved site plan with a smaller proposed building footprint that was the intent of it a lot of these other changes have just come about because we had this opportunity to get a revised site plan here there were some existing conditions in the field with product construction that we've since come across that we thought could be better handled from utility connection standpoint but here is this revised proposed site plan that shows the highlighted changes but it does give a good overview of what the overall project originally was for those of you familiar with one home farmway it's the old cabin creamery building here off of route 2 just over the bridge east of the rotary and there's an existing commercial building here kind of a road that goes to another property to the south and there's an existing parking lot kind of on the backside of this building and what the original approval consisted of was a new commercial building two phased that was going to be attached to an existing garage out back here with some new parking so the dark shaded areas are new building the later shaded area would be included in this was this little darker squares of loading dock and so we'd have a little loading dock access here for truck deliveries there was obviously new utility connections associated with this new building some stormwater improvements landscaping things of that nature and I'm happy to go over any of those specific detail if there's a question about it but really what I'll do right now I'll just go over the specific changes in this division this more or less there was a strip on both the south and east sides here so this whole building has held this corner it was larger in this direction kind of squared off with this edge of pavement and this edge of pavement the loading dock just kicked out a little further and so we've just really just shrunk in that whole building footprint and everything else kind of phases and whatnot item number two was due to the mechanical requirements associated with the building we're now requesting a small generator pad to be located just kind of east on the other side of the loading dock area here that was not part of the original design plan item number three was some minor relocations of the water sewer and storm connections previously we had a new water line in along the east side here and tied the building on the kind of southeast side now we're just requesting it comes in on the northeast side sewer we had previously designed to connect to a sewer manhole here but unearthing and opening up some of those sewer structures there was some inaccurate information on the existing information associated with those plans it was too shallow to tie into so we're now same thing with the drainage we're just now looking to tie the roof drain into an existing structure different than what was previously proposed I don't think any of those substantially change a character there's no changes in the employee base the design flows associated with the building the water sewer and storm water that you just mentioned well those all be buried underground okay so it's essentially going instead of going one direction underground it's going a different direction underground sewer still gravity no real change in the design and they have been kind of coordinated reviewed with the Department of Public Works for what that's worth number four was just some minor adjustments to some line striping just probably do the building renovations and how we were kind of manipulating some of this from a parking space standpoint this kind of four and six kind of tying together previously there's a parking summary down here at the bottom that shows the required previously permitted and then currently request and there's a small change in that as far as the number of parking spaces in their location but I think what's currently proposed now certainly does still comply with the parking requirements for the city and then the last one five here was this darker shaded area is one of the there's two fenced in trash enclosures this one here is always proposed here we just relocated this one we thought we found a better place for it essentially based on some changes to the layout parking so we just shifted that on the other side of that parking area so that's kind of the summary of the changes obviously the building shrinking is the main one and fortunately again that the reduction in that was more than the percentage allowed for administrative review which is I think the big reason why we're here tonight other than that the overall project concept the use grading stormwater treatment all that more or less remains the same as previously it's all handed over to board for questions quick question on the the change to the trash and recycling is that going to be shielded in some way with a fence or is okay yes there's a trash enclosure detail within the project detail stays the same just the location has been altered okay and is there any proposal to put landscaping on the far side of the generator between the generator and the boundary we know that was a comment the mayor supplied currently right now there is none I think what she's referring to is landscaping on this east side of the generator path right now currently not proposed does the board have any questions on any of the issues yes Rob sorry just would say is landscaping around like generator prohibitive to the project I'm sorry what's the question would landscaping be prohibitive would that adversely affect your project no I don't think it would be adverse there just may be a little bit of a setback we want obviously there's some heat generated with that we probably want a little offset specifically on the east side to screen it I don't think there would be a problem with that is it east or west side I think is it yeah it is east sorry got my compass backwards very ashamed I did get the orienteering marathon your defense the north's kind of at an angle so it's a little awkward there is no defending that but I appreciate the effort so you wouldn't have an opposing to some type of screening I mean I think we're the staff suggestion is just something to screen it because there is that right of way right next to right next to that site at the boundary that goes back to the the old that farm the two rivers farm site so I'm hearing no objection to that I would be amenable to having a condition to screen I'd like to be with either landscaping or fencing just because I'm not sure whether we could do a better job with fencing this site sits above that other site a little bit okay good all right let's just go through quickly I think the the site plan criteria and I'll just go this is our the old way we used to do these is just go one by one and I'll just note where there's no changes proposed the site plan criteria include streets pedestrian access and circulation vehicular access and circulation no changes are being proposed the parking it's your your testimony Jeff that that you're reducing the handicap spaces by two but so there'll be a total of five handicap spaces for the entire site and the total of a 99 other spaces or sorry four handicap spaces for a total of 109 actually added three more spaces just based on the building's strong a little bit we got a little more flexibility there I think a good chunk of that was the relocation of the dumpster we were able to get a few more spaces no increase in a pervious area either for what that's worth was there a reason that you went from four handicap spaces down to two and that kind of adjacent to the floor of a employee breakdown within the building is what's actually required obviously you don't necessarily want to put more handicap spaces than you need because often they don't get used anyway especially for a facility like this potentially we were still clear to make sure that we had the handicap spaces kind of equally separated at all the time so I found three there are two there and I see one by the new structure oh okay that one some of the clouding and then there's another one here okay it's like where's Waldo I was doing that earlier I found him though I lost the game thank you for doing that I appreciate it okay so the loading and sighting issue about the loading and sighting of parking and loading spaces just to be clear I think for the record because the building shrunk so has the loading dock has moved a little bit as well shifted to the northwest a little bit but there's no change to the loading dock itself same 18 by 18 foot loading dock because the building shrunk it's just moved exactly and so it's actually moved further away from the property line you're not proposing any landscape and screening although you did say that you would be amenable to some type of screening for the generator whether it be fencing or shrubbery type and just for the members that were involved Jeff maybe you could just point out we've got some substantial green areas and landscape areas yeah to be clear all the originally approved landscaping would still go in so here we have some trees here shrubs along the river corridor here some additional shrubbery on the front not to mention right but that was all previously permitted so none of the changes that you're saying other than this generator staff has raised a potential issue for screening are necessarily changing or affecting the prior landscape in that we'd found Mr. Sheriff I could just ask at this point what color do you expect the generator to be that would normally be a tenant would it be a caterpillar yellow a caterpillar white. I'm just raising this so the board can consider that when we start talking about screening. Right well I think we are some of the other mothers this relates to our project at Stonecutters Way the Vermont State Colleges when they move from Waterbury here brought their generator and happened to be Caterpillar Yellow. The shrubbery was quite small. And the shrubbery is growing every year. Okay so I think we've talked about the landscaping screening. Outdoor lighting no changes proposed. Actually before we go there there was one staff comment and whether the board wishes to consider for the landscaping screening any other changes additional screening it's just for the it's just for the pad right? Okay so the outdoor lighting none proposed signs none of those proposed performance standards no changes proposed site protection and design no changes proposed flood development floodplain development it's not located within the special flood hazard area excavation filling no changes proposed public sites and open spaces no changes proposed water supply and sewage disposal as Jeff as you very explained these are essentially the same just in different locations and this is if I understood your testimony it was because the actual pipes underground are a little different than what were initially your understanding which has never happened on project storm drainage as we discussed and it's really just for that one building that we're talking about those changes utilities no utilities no new utilities are proposed you are adding the generator as a backup to utility electrical services protection provisions protect the realization of renewable energy resources none proposed no this is the comment I was I was thinking of which is the board the staff has suggested the board need we need to decide a further landscaping other screening is required for the requested improvements but we're only limited to the generator pad we're not talking there was a question though about whether the whole site needs because what we're doing at this point this is something that had come up so if if I hadn't reviewed this application to the design to the development review board the only other option was for me to take this as a new application for a minor site plan amendment in which case all the new landscaping requirements would have applied to and under the current regulations for me to do it I would have had to apply it to the entire site based on the way it's currently drafted and that seemed completely unreasonable at this point because it also there's no out in here for me as zoning administrator to just consider the changes proposed I would have had to do the entire building perimeter analysis for the entire site that's all the buildings so I think that's where they might be a little confusion here so right now all you need to look at for landscaping is just make sure you're checking as well to make sure that there's no other landscaping that you think needs to be applied based on these changes proposed my review was the only thing that might require new landscaping is the generator pad but I wanted to make sure that you reviewed it as well yourselves right there was one question and that this came up I noticed it in the staff report about the extension and completion dates and there was a proposed condition in here that this approval of the amendment would not change the expiration date of the original zoning permit you've read that and that's all fine okay great I just want to check with that to make sure it doesn't come up in a few months and you realize you're not gonna be able to meet those deadlines I just clarify though but no change of the extension correct no change yep so what's pleasure of the board any further questions first of all this is a pretty straightforward application and I'll say I don't favor any additional landscaping changes I simply wanted to make sure that we raised it in the board considered it you know one of the one of the issues here is that this is a sort of mid-century building and landscape design which isn't intended to have multiple shrubbery that and shrubs and trees that we have you know in other types of design so you know I know that that was something we considered when we initially reviewed this application so at least my sense is one member is that this is you know screening the generator is one thing because I think that is has the potential for both a visual impact as well as you know a noise and anything that can lessen that impact is helpful on its impact to the neighbors but beyond that this is a well landscaped and thought outside I would agree with that I would add just a little a slight difference in my motivation during the initial approval is it had as much to do with its location as function as the historic nature or when the building was designed so yeah you know it has that the mid-century stuff doesn't get a path but I'm really saying okay it'll be historic soon it will all right what's the pleasure of the board do you want to take this under advisement or is this straightforward enough that we would want to make a motion to approve with conditions as we've discussed I'm only commotion to approve the amended site plan at one home farm way as presented in the application dated June 7th 2018 and the supporting materials has discussed during this hearing subject to the following conditions of approval that is clear this approval does not result in the issuance of a new permit but merely an amendment to the site plan approved under zoning permit Z 2016-0040 and no change in the extended expiration date shall be implied from this permit or from this approval that all the conditions of the previous development review board approvals for that zoning permit remain a full force in effect and with the additional condition that the newly proposed generator plan be screened from the property line using either shrubs or fences okay motion by Ryan I'll second second by Kevin I would like to make a friendly amendment to your motion which is that the screening for the generator be of adequate height and density as to provide real screening effective screening effective screening friendly amendment accepted all right we have a motion a second we have any discussion hearing none all those in favor please raise your right hand have your approval thank you all very much thank you very much you want to add our appreciation to Meredith and Mike Miller Jeff and I had a number of meetings with the correspondence I don't of course want us to know into the new new regs and just wanted to say thanks again thanks job Meredith and Mike thank you all thanks a lot so let's move there's just a slight piece of other business this is the presentation and adoption of the updated rules of procedure that was in your packet is and I'll let Meredith correct me we were just changing they were interim rules that we adopted last year and they were during the awkward phase where we had seven members but only five could vote because of the charter at the time that's now been fixed so we're getting rid of the interim rules interim to the rules and getting rid of the provisions that talk about having only five voting members because now by charter we have a full seven complement of members so if there are any questions about this I just want to be sure that we're that we're knowing what we're approving I have in my packet both what looks like the proposed rules and then this is a pre that's a red line to show you the changes that were made the same yes the clear if you if you take make all these changes that are shown here that is what you get okay and so if we make these current changes it will work whether or not we then wanted to make some additional changes to make the flow better is something to consider and maybe it's something to push to the next meeting after everybody has a chance to fully review these particularly the which was it sorry which section it was the the process so I if you look at the red line in section Roman numeral seven on page five currently the zoning administrator supposed to do a statement of the case for every application and originally and this is in that was to include a reading of the full public notice and all reports concerning the application or the appeal I made a change here so that it's just me doing a brief statement of the case because I mean no but we're not going to read everything into the into the record the option is also to just take that statement of the case out because honestly I think this is the closest I've done this hearing to a statement of the case at any of these and I don't believe that Sarah or Mike Miller when they have stood in remembered ever really doing one I'm happy to do one it might make things flow better but it would really be sort of just going over the very beginning part of the staff report and saying these are the sections that according to the staff report are the most important for concentrated discussion I consider that a statement of the case yeah and that's like so if you would like to keep that I'm very happy to do it I think it's yeah I think it's worthwhile especially because in that it's kind of I mean I don't know if we call it as a statement the case or if that it matters a lot of times it's doing the summarizing of not only the issues procedural questions directing the the board in which way to go I think that's that's helpful and I agree with the rest of board so and just to note these red line changes do track to the new yes and they are largely I mean I think the most substantive ones are getting rid of the five voting member provisions it ups our quorum back up to the regular for for meeting requirements as well as for voting requirements so it's it's a bit of housekeeping I think my suggestion would be that if we want to do anything beyond that that may make sense to revisit in a couple months once we get used to doing this and once we get a flow I have a non substantive change but one that I think matters nonetheless page five section seven a three the applicant presents his case along with the witness I would love to see that as his hers there which which or just there because or his hers there okay yeah I think that might be more inclusive section kate page five yep section seven conduct of hearing a three and I can I can take a quick look through and see if there's anything else like that in here just any gender yep no I think that would be great I went through and took care of a couple of typos but I didn't do a full we've got chairperson that that's good but we can we can do even better with that small change and others like it so thank you for taking a peek what's the pleasure of the board I've moved to adopt the the the rules with the understanding that there'll be a review and a correction of gender pronouns motion by Deb to have a second second second by Tom any further discussion all those in favor of adopting the new updated rules of procedure as moved please raise your right hand great that is so the only other business is our next regularly scheduled meeting is Monday August 20th 2018 7 o'clock same place and I think we have two applications yes okay two applications for that so we can we can notify the alternates and that shouldn't be a problem great I'll take a motion to adjourn into deliberative session so moved motion by Kevin second by Tom bring no further discussion all those in favor please raise your right hand we are adjourned thank you very much