 and the August 19th meeting of the Development Review Board for the City of Gnusky has been called to order. The Development Review Board is a quasi-judicial volunteer resident board that upholds standards and procedures as defined in the Gnusky zoning ordinance. We review and make decisions on subdivision site plans, conditional uses, variants, and appeals of the zoning administrator's determinations. The DRB has authority through Vermont State Statute and ensures due process, protects the rights of applicants and the rights of public to participate in proposals for land development within the city. Appeals of decisions made by the DRB are heard by the Vermont Superior Court, Environmental Division, and the Vermont Superior Court. Kevin Lumpkin is our board chair. He cannot be here tonight. My name is Matt Basowitz and I am the vice chair and I believe because this is the first meeting that I am chairing. It's the first time my last name has been pronounced correctly. Harlan Miller is our board secretary. He's not able to join us tonight either. Gnusky's DRB also consists of Erin Goyette and David Weisberger. Our alternates are Elsie Goodrich and Caitlin Hayes. I know David and Caitlin are here. Erin Goyette is here as well. First agenda item is changes to the agenda. Do we hear any requests for changes to the agenda as proposed? Hearing none, we will move on to agenda item number three, which is public comment. Vermont's open meeting law grants an opportunity for public comment at every public meeting. If anybody would like to comment about anything that is not on our current agenda, this is your opportunity. No, so you'll get it at the unrelated issues if you want to just stout off about something. So we have no public comment. Is that what I'm hearing? That is correct. Not hearing. Hearing no public comments, we will move on to agenda item number four. Which is the approval of last month's meeting minutes. I've had the opportunity to go through them and I see no reason for change, but if anybody else on the board has anything that should be changed, could be changed, we can do that now. And I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes. Erin Grant. Yeah, Erin's first. Second. Caitlin's second. All in favor. Aye. Aye. I believe that is everybody. Any opposed? No opposed. Okay. The motion passes. Agenda item number five, which is the reason most of us are probably here tonight, is a sketch plan review for a proposed subdivision at 165 East Spring Street. I know Eric, you wanted to give a little background on this. Yep. Sure. Thank you very much. And as I bring the applicant and his representative into the meeting as well, this is on the agenda tonight as a sketch plan. So any proposals for subdivision in the city come forward to the Development Review Board first as a sketch plan. The purpose of the sketch plan meeting is to allow the applicant and their representative to have a discussion with the Development Review Board to identify any questions or concerns that they may have before a formal submission is provided. A sketch plan review comments will be provided to the applicant after the meeting within 15 days. Those comments are non-binding and are advisory in nature. So this is not a formally-worn public hearing. This is simply a conversation basically between the applicant and the Development Review Board to discuss the project and any concerns or questions they may have. If the applicant does decide that they want to move forward with the subdivision, a formal public hearing will be held following their actual application. That will also include notification to the adjacent property owners, via certified mail to indicate the time, date, and place of that public hearing. So with that in mind, we have the applicant and representative here with us tonight to talk about the sketch plan. Before we do that, I just wanted to remind the Board that with the application was some additional information that was provided by the applicant related to potential development on the property. That is not under consideration tonight. There has been no formal application submitted for that development. And in fact, we wouldn't even be able to accept it because the property doesn't currently exist. That subdivided property doesn't currently exist. So there's no way to develop on it in its current form. So that information is provided just as information. So we are not taking action on that or reviewing the development of the property tonight. We're just simply looking at the subdivision tonight. And that includes concerns about things like driveway access, water runoff, things like that. That's not talking about tonight. That would come in if there are any concerns or any issues that would be related to that for the subdivision itself. Those would be addressed during the when the preliminary and final subdivision plans come forward for the subdivision only. Okay. One more quick question. There was talk of potentially modifying a garage on the parent property to become a cottage. Is that for discussion tonight? Is that part of it? That is not on for discussion tonight also. That is not part of this application. Again, that would come forward as a separate application for development review. This is simply just the application for the subdivision itself. And I have the plans here to share my screen as well. So I can do that when needed. Okay. Let's hear from the applicant then. Hi. I'm Martin Corsale with Champlain Consulting Engineers here representing the applicant, Alan Brunette. I believe he's here as well. Yeah, just there he is waving. Thanks for your time this evening. As Eric said, we did provide a little bit more information than would be typical at a sketch plan hearing. And part of that reason was we knew that driveway access would be an important piece to get onto this parcel. So we did just want to be able to show through one of the plans that we submitted, there was a cross section through a potential proposed building, potential proposed driveway, just to be able to show that we could meet the site distances that are required and also the driveway slopes. We had had some initial communication with the city staff. And I believe Eric had forwarded a very early conceptual plan on two public works. They had raised questions about site distances. So that's what precipitated us providing that information about the site distances and a possible driveway at sketch. So just wanted to explain why that is there. If everybody, I'm not sure if Eric wants to put up maybe the site plan on the screen and I can just go over quickly. Thank you very much. So that is just the subdivision plan showing what the two lots would ultimately look like. This plan does show that the lots do meet the minimum requirement in this zoning district of 7,500 square feet. And we also do have adequate minimum lot frontage on both of the lots. I believe there should be another plan sheet C2. Yes, let me, hang on, let me switch. Great, thank you. I share for that one. Oh, actually it'll be. So that is sheet C1 and that shows the existing garage, existing duplex and associated parking and driveway. I'm not sure. Can you all see my mouse as I move it across here or no, that doesn't show up. Okay, that's fine. Sorry, I can just walk through quick. So here's the existing house. Here's the existing driveway, which is accessed off of this Norman court, which is a, in essence, a gravel and dirt path that serves the the properties at 165 159 and what's the 157 East Spring Street. So none of these properties along East Spring Street are actually currently accessed off of East Spring Street. And here's the garage as well that's on the existing property. Yes, thank you. The next sheet will show the proposed subdivision and the the potential building and retaining walls that we're showing. So you can kind of see on there that that property line that we shot that you saw on the first sheet that Eric had done now would subdivide the property. The existing lot that currently has a driveway that comes down the hill to a parking area to serve the duplex that would be removed and restored. And all of the parking for the existing lot, which would be known as lot one would be up between the existing garage that would be converted to a cottage and Norman court. Yeah, and then the proposed lot lot two, we're showing access off of East Spring Street directly across from an existing driveway. We're showing that this would be a if anyone's familiar with this lot, these say the existing duplex does sit up probably 12 to 14 feet above East Spring Street. So what we would be proposing here would be to still access or for the new one we would be accessing off of East Spring Street at the road elevation. There would be underground parking at the lower level and then the actual living space would be up above the garage at an elevation similar to where that existing duplex is. And again, all of the parking and driveway access would be off of East Spring Street. It would be municipal utilities. And again, this is just sketch. So there's no proposed stormwater design at this point, but that certainly would be part of any development proposal going forward. So that's kind of the quick overview. I'm not sure if there's questions or if you'd like me to step through one of the documents Eric forwarded was a nine page document that kind of went through the section 6.2h subdivision general standards. I could kind of go through those step by step. If we have any additional information on those, I'm sure what the best way to proceed is. Well, from what I've read the background information that Eric sent along, it appears as though this would essentially create two conforming lots as far as the city is concerned. Is that correct, Eric? That is correct. Yes. Do any members of the board have any questions, concerns? I do have a few questions. And some of them might be for Eric, actually. So the lots are conforming in terms of minimum lot size and frontage, but I know we don't have set plans for any proposed buildings, but in terms of like a lot coverage, if there was to be construction on the site, would the new lot still or would both lots, I guess, once if subdivided still meet those requirements, if there were to be construction on the site? So I believe the existing lot does or would meet the lot coverage based on what is currently on the lot without having a formal application for future development of the new lot that I have, I can't say. That would be evaluated at that time. Okay. I guess a lot of this would be evaluated at that time. I do have questions about the curb cut. And I realize that that will be an assessment done by the Public Works Department. But is there an opportunity for the proposed new duplex to just connect and continue to use the existing driveway that has been serving the current residents? Because now, if I understand this as a sketch plan, but with the folks as written or as described in this diagram, the folks living in that duplex would then have to park at the front of the property off of Norman Court and walk down. That's correct. And Mr. Prunette may be able to have a little more insight on that. I think I saw him raise his hand. Yeah, if I can weigh in on this, we're trying to present a project that will have a minimum impact on the neighborhood. I know that the Norman Court drive has been an issue in the past. My neighbor has been trying to develop a cottage onto his land. He has a duplex there. And to my understanding, he was meeting pretty much all the requirements, but there was objection in regards to that. So the Norman Court, I do have a right of way there. I didn't really engage with the queries on this, but I just want to present a project that is as acceptable as possible for the neighbors and that will have a minimum impact on the Norman Court. And yeah, that's the answer to that. And if I can jump back really quickly, Caitlin, again, this is not being reviewed, but the proposed buildings, parking area, as shown, does meet the lot coverage for the new lot, lot two. We did want to make sure anything we presented was actually would meet something in the future if we proceed with that. Cool. You'll get a chance in a little bit. So, Eric, at what point would the design of the access and the driveway be evaluated? So that would come in once the preliminary plan is submitted through the subdivision process. So it would be part of the subdivision process. That would be reviewed to ensure that there is access to the lot because all building lots in the city need to have access to a public street. So our public works folks would review the driveway access, the curb cut width, the site distances, all of that information when the plan is submitted. For subdivision. For subdivision. That's correct. That is correct. And just to be clear here, if the lot is subdivided, the driveway that currently services the existing duplex will be scaled back all the way to the existing garage, or will there be access somehow either through an easement or a redirection for vehicles to get to that house? I'm sorry. I think you were saying that the the existing driveway serving the existing duplex. Yes. No, the vehicles would be up by Norman Corp. And then there would be a stairway or a pathway to access the duplex. Okay. I know this is probably not a question for now, but would consideration be in play as far as emergency vehicle access should an emergency happen at the existing duplex? I think we actually wouldn't really be impacting the emergency vehicle access. I don't believe any emergency vehicle would go down to that current driveway that's there. The existing driveway is extremely steep. So I think the emergency access would probably be off of East Spring Street. That would, we would confirm that with the emergency authorities going forward. But that's, it's a fairly steep driveway now. I'm certain that a fire truck can't get down there. And I'm not sure that any other emergency vehicles would either. Okay. Okay. Thanks. Sorry. Any other questions or comments from the board? Yeah, I want to follow up on what I asked. So public works would evaluate that and then that's something we would have for the decision we'll make at the final plan. That's correct. Okay. Yep. Yep. Hearing no other questions. I invite anybody from the public to join in. Any interested parties, neighbors? Yeah. So Matt, we have Meredith Bushy here. She actually signed up through our online submittal form to speak. So we'll give her the opportunity to speak first. And then I also have Mr. Savard and Mr. Corey, who are Jason property owners in the room as well, who I at least I know Mr. Corey would like to provide some comments also. So let me, that would work too. Yeah. Hello, my name is Meredith Bushy. I live at 14 Hood Street, the property just behind the existing duplex. First, I just want to remind the Development Review Board that the subdivided proposed subdivided property is adjacent to predominantly single family, individual homes and residences that have already been crowded by three huge new apartment buildings, excuse me, within three years, causing traffic, congestion, and noise, and still no plan for signalizing East spring and East Island corridor where we observe traffic accidents and speeding daily. So second, and I know that this is a proposal, but I think it is important to mention the stakes, the state of the existing duplex. In regard to stormwater management and erosion control, the sketch plan refers to both of those general standards. And I'm not confident in Allen and Veronica's ability to meet these standards, given their existing residents, which falls short in both of these areas with a crumbling foundation and tenant report of water and mold in the basement. I do have a picture of the current, what we have, what we are view in our backyard of the current existing duplex that I will just go get. Eric, would we be collecting evidence at this point? Well, I did send it, so you have it for your records. I also included an artifact, so you'll have that for your records. So, and just to paint the picture further, the existing duplex is missing most of its cinder blocks in the foundation, facing our property with children sleeping in the room just above it. So, if approved, I want to know how Allen and Veronica will ensure the privacy and safety of the existing tax-paying neighbors. I have a two-year-old and I'm very concerned with this proposal, given the selection of tenants over the past seven years that we've lived there. And this is a big deal for our property value, safety, privacy, quality of life in the city that we love. So, you know, if you observe, so the potential subdivision is just behind our property and it is very, very loud back there already. And the state of the current house is in disrepair. And so, before even considering subdivision, the existing home needs, it's an eyesore. It needs work. So, in seven years, I think I've seen the house be pressure washed one time and the lawn is mowed. A drive-in was made recently, but really very little upkeep of the home in general. And so, my concern is that if the property is subdivided and if two units or cottages is renovated and then a duplex is built, it'll go un-maintained again and just have a high turnover of tenants and just be very noisy. And the concern is my house, in particular, the property value as well as our safety with frequently turning over turnover of tenants when we have already been inundated with all of these new huge apartment buildings that are just across the street that will open in October. So, the proposal for the subdivision with the intention of building on the subdivision is very, very concerning. That's all. Okay, thank you. My property is the one with step. Yep, that's it. Yep, yep, yep. Yes, it does. Yes, it does. So, the current state of the house is in just as prepared. Does have an opportunity to respond if they wish to. I don't have any additional comments on that. I did want to discuss items 10 and 11, but maybe if you want to do that after the public comment, we can jump back to that. I did just want to make sure we discuss those while we have the board's attention. That sounds great. Thank you. My name is Vanir Kauri. I'm, our family owns the Norman Court and the house that actually at the end of the, at the end of Norman Court, we own the duplex. And then if you, it's not on the vision here, but the house that's directly above your renderings here. We own this land since 1962. And we gave easement to the Lavalays who originally lived in that house back in the early sixties. And it only extended to that house. So I don't know where you're getting your information about the easement for any other property to be using Norman Court. And I don't even know how it became Norman Court. It's always been a private driveway, which we maintain. And as it is right now, with his new tenants there, there's four more cars there. There's four cars at the second home, and then there's four cars at the duplex. So those cars are running in and out of a private driveway constantly. And the second house, people are driving in and out of there every 20 minutes all day long. So I mean, I don't understand how he wants to, I mean, the driveway just cannot maintain any more traffic. And what he's proposing is to double the amount of cars coming in and out of that driveway with the four cars that I see him have parked in front of his, what's now the existing garage, and then the tenants that are living down below as well. And previously, they tried to put a driveway in from East Spring Street, and the fire department refused to allow that to happen because of the amount of traffic that goes on East Spring Street on a constant basis. They'd be pulling directly out into traffic and pulling in directly into traffic all day long or whenever they come and go. And from the renderings, it looks like there's going to be parking for four additional cars on that property. So I don't understand how all this is going to happen without you having easement from the, from Norman Court for anything other than what you already have right now. That's the only thing that you have an easement for. Yes, Alan, go ahead and unmute yourself. Okay, so can you hear me well? Yes. All right, so the proposal that we have today that I did with my, you know, with Martin Coursel, the engineer that was speaking earlier, is significantly more costly than if we were going to use Norman Court. And I hear Mr. Coursy's concerns. The drive is narrow. The drive is made of gravel. And Mr. Coursy is doing a fine job at maintaining it. And I want to thank you for that. And, you know, if any time you want me to help in regards to that, that's another discussion we can have. But what I want to say about the proposal that we have, and again, my engineer, Martin Coursel, was really hearing my concerns when I presented the project to him. And he worked really hard to present, to work on a project where the access would be off eSpring. So what I can say is that Nulat would have no access, zero access from Norman Court. So this would have no impact, zero on Norman Court. As a matter of fact, we're cutting, you know, the drive down is not even going to be used. So the four cars that you're seeing up there are going to be to park for the duplex. And I want to say that, yes, I do have vision for the future to convert the garage into a cottage. And at that time, I think that your concerns will need to be heard. And, you know, we can try to work something out. I only see, and again, we're a little bit off topic here when we talk about the garage. I want to have there only like a one bedroom or even a studio. I don't want to do it like on two levels. I just, although the footprint would allow that, but I really want to minimize the impact on Norman Court. And this, what we're discussing today, is a Nulat that would be, that I would sell off and the access would only be through eSpring. So what you're saying is that your existing home that is now there, they're going to have, they're not going to be using Norman Court or everything, or you're going to be completely coming from Spring Street. So the right of the way that I have serving the duplex, I intend to continue to use it. And the four cars that you're seeing up there are there are the parking lot for the duplex. So there's basically what I'm saying is this project has zero impact. It doesn't improve. If that's what your question is, are we still going to use a drive? The answer to that is yes. We're still going to use a drive. It doesn't improve that, but it doesn't make it worse. I believe we have, what he's saying is it shifts the parking from the existing duplex down by the house to up closer to the drive by the garage so that it can accommodate this subdivision. So the existing traffic on Norman Court will not change because everything with the new lot will be serviced from East Spring Street. So I do see where you're coming from there that Alan, thank you. Yeah, so zero impact, zero impact, but it doesn't mean that we're not improving it either. We're not making it worse. We're not making it better, but zero impact is what this project has on Norman Court. So right now you're not going to be building anything where the garage is. You're only going to be, what you're wanting to do right now is the duplex off of East Spring Street. Yeah, so good question. So I wanted to put into one permit the cottage and the garage converts into a cottage and I wanted to put the selling that lot basically like splitting my lot and allowing it for the construction of a duplex. I wanted to put that into one permit. I guess I couldn't do it, but I'm very straightforward with my intentions. You know it's coming. I mean, I would like to turn that cottage, that garage into a cottage, but this is not on the agenda today. The only thing that we're putting on the agenda and again, we're talking about the duplex there, but we're not even supposed to talk about that. We're just talking about subdividing a lot, but I can tell you this is what we're trying to do there. There would be a duplex, 100% access from East Spring and the engineer Martin Corsale. If you pay attention to the way that he did this, it's quite an engineering challenge to come from East Spring, be able to safely get out of East Spring in that busy, high traffic road and park and there's a design to pull out into a separate spot so this way you can turn around and safely get and engage. I know I heard a little earlier about the neighbor that was concerned about the traffic there. It's a mess. That corner there is actually, if you live there, it's not too bad because you understand how it works, but the problem is anytime you go there, there's drivers that don't know how to handle that special corner, but this will make it safe for them. But again, zero impact on number one. I'm sorry, I forgot to unmute myself. All right, so yes, that for sure is definitely a conversation that can occur when and if plans to modify traffic on Norman Court do come along, which would come along possibly because of that garage conversion. So sticking to the topic of simply subdividing this lot, thank you so much for your comments. I was wondering if we had anybody else that would like to chat as well. I might just have one more question if I could. Go for it. The renderings that you're, who is the surveyor of this because there was two different, there was a Rubenstein and there was a Murrow and the Rubenstein apparently was not the correct rendition of it and the Murrow one was. So I'm wondering which sketches are you using because the property lines on the two existing buildings were completely flawed when the houses were built because our property that they duplex at the end of the road, half of that was on Corey's property and half of it was on Morris's who owned the house at the time and then half of Morris's property was the was the next house. Part of that was on Morris's plot. So none of the the way and the house was already built is basically nothing anybody could do going forward. So you just basically gave up some of your property. Both houses gave up some of their property. So what my point is is that some of the other some of the other lines may not be accurate if you're going by the Rubenstein and not the Murrow one. The property surveyor that I was dealing with his name is Nate Yeager and I don't know if Martin is still on and maybe can speak for the firm. I know that I ended up with Martin because they have a relation the property surveyor and this engineering firm. But yeah, my go to guy was Nate Yeager and he's the one that got the survey happened. Martin are you still on? I am yes. Nate Yeager is with Latitude's land surveying and he had done the survey work prior to our involvement. But that's that's a great piece of information to know. I will certainly discuss that with Nate that there is a Rubenstein plot and a Murrow plot. Just make sure that he's confident in the boundary work that he has done it. The work he provided us he did find monumentation in the field. I believe that's what it was based on. But I do know he also did deep research based on that monumentation as well. But that's been made aware. Certainly make sure to have that conversation with Nate before we move forward. And I do remember this coming up from a neighboring project recently. Could have been a year ago. Could have been three years ago at this point. COVID changes everything. But I do remember that conversation. I think it's worth certainly worth looking into. Okay. Thank you. Kate, when I see your hand is raised. Yeah, I just I have two questions. So one of which was I just wanted to clarify. I apologize. The member of the public that just that maintains the road. You were saying that there were two houses that had people in them. And were you referring to the current residents and then the proposed new duplex? Or is there a second house that's owned by the applicant on the road that's related to this? I guess I was confused by that. So I just wanted to make sure that I was clear. What are you not sure? It's the house. The great house is a different landlord. But it's intense. There are two houses. Oh, yeah. Well, the next one in from the proposed project is not ours. Our family owns the duplex at the end of the driveway. Okay. So, okay. So you were referring to those. Our family owns that one. And then all of the land that surrounds above all of that. Okay. And the existing garage is not used as a residential unit right now. That's used as a garage. Well, that's correct. Okay. Okay. Just wanted to clarify that. And so then my other question, Eric, this may be for you is that if there was a previous survey done on installing a driveway onto East Spring Street, is that something that we would be able to have access to? Or would just do a brand new one after the sketch plan? So I don't believe there's any existing recorded surveys that show a driveway onto East Spring Street. What there is, what there are surveys of, which Mr. Corey is referring to is older surveys of this area in general. And I'm not exactly sure who commissioned them, but they show these properties in relation to Norman Court. And there's some discrepancies in the boundary lines between those two, between the two surveys. And actually the more recent survey references this discrepancy between the previous survey. So that I believe that's what Mr. Corey is referring to here in this case, is that there is some inconsistency in past surveys of the properties in this area, not with a specific curb cut onto East Spring Street. Okay. Did someone say that there had been an assessment about a driveway being put in from the existing residents down to East Spring? That I had. Yes, about a year ago, they were there, that discussion was made. There used to be between the two houses on the end of Norman Court. There was a driveway that went between them down to Spring Street years ago. And it just became a felon to this repair. And this is how people on those two houses got the ease we allowed the Morris's who were friends of ours, all of our kids, we grew up with their kids and stuff to use Norman Court. It was not never named Norman Court. I don't know where that came from or who Norman was, because we don't have anybody in our family named Norman. And I don't know anybody named Norman that would have had anything to do with our area. I mean, we've been there since 62. So, but anyway, that we allowed Morris's to utilize it and we allowed the Lavley's to utilize it, who are the original owners of the existing home. And once they were gone, that was it. There was no more, no one else is allowed. We signed it with the Lavley, Mr. Lavley, back then. So once he was gone, but we're allowing, I don't know how this came to be, that he has an easement from Norman Court. Okay. And but there was something about them doing a driveway from East Spring Street when the other guy was proposing to put in a duplex there. And it was deemed by your fire department that it would be too risky to put a driveway in because of the amount of traffic coming in and out of East Spring Street. It's only one lane in each way and the people are driving 40, 45 miles an hour. They're constantly, I don't know if you're sure you've all been down there. So that's what they're concerned with. Okay. Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to comment? I see some people online. I haven't seen anybody raise their hand yet, but I've got a question, Matt. And maybe this is more for Eric. I'm wondering about, you know, from a subdivision perspective, the subdivision will essentially take away, we covered, we touched on this earlier, but I didn't, I didn't hear kind of like a definitive, excuse me, a definitive answer. The subdivision is going to take away the access from Norman Court to the existing duplex residents. And as part of the subdivision, do we need to require definition of how that access is going to occur? It looks like a pretty steep slope there. And so to be able to get from, you know, where the cars are parking to the building, you kind of need to navigate around that property line, right? Yeah, that's, that's a really good question. The regulations, as far as I understand them, don't require that a driveway go from the road all the way to the dwelling. It just basically the regulations speak more to parking and that parking be on site and off street, basically. So I think the access, the specific access to the dwelling would be covered, would probably be covered under, under a building permit side. And because it's a public building, it would probably need to meet some level of ADA accessibility. But that would be dealt with by our building code officials. Okay. But that is a good question. And Aaron, did you get your, your question answered? So the access to the, to the current duplex would still be from Norman Court. I understand that the parking access would be from Norman Court. Yeah. You're taking away the access, which is the existing driveway, which goes across basically your new lot, right? So how are the people going to get from the cars to the duplex? Okay. So that's, that's another good question. And, and me and Martin have been talking about this and it would likely be stairs and, you know, path and a mix of path and stairs. It's not steep enough to be stairs all the way down. And it's a little steep for just being a path. Although this is basically what it is now. It's a path because, you know, cars can go up there. So pedestrian also can. But, but yes, it's a, it's a good point. I think it's going to be like a mix of you go down a little bit and then you walk straight and you go down a little bit, something's in that nature, but it's not part of what we're talking about today. But we will, this is definitely something that we're going to. The only reason I brought it up is because your existing access to the duplex would be across the lot that you're carving out, right? So if you carve that lot out and you sell it off, yeah, now you've got to reroute people, which, you know, you're not going to be able to walk down the existing driveway, which you call it called the path, right? You would need to access from directly behind the garage. True that. And my understanding is that today we're not coming up with a fully developed ready to go project. Yeah, it's just a sketch plan, but it is something to consider. Absolutely. And thank you for bringing that up. And it's something that we've, that we have on our radar, but thank you for bringing it up. It's a good point that you have there. I agree fully that, yeah, it is actually something that probably this is, this will probably end up in our review of all of this, but once the subdivision is granted, theoretically, you could sell that lot off. Somebody else could do something with it and you would have to have a plan in place. So that's something just back of your mind. So yeah, it's there. Yeah, good. You raise your hand. Hang on one second. If I can just speak to that potential access, there is a possibility that the pedestrian access from the parking area up on Norman Court could actually partially come across the new lot. We would obviously develop the best stairs and path down and then grant an easement from lot one, excuse me from lot two to lot one to account for that. So that's certainly something that's in our best interest to have identified and planned prior to subdividing and selling that lot off in case we do want to grant an easement from the new lot to the existing law. So yeah, thank you for bringing that up. That's certainly an important piece of this whole project. Thank you. Did I say we had one more question from either David? Somebody at City Hall right now. One other thing about what he was just referencing, the steep of the how steep the driveway is in the wintertime, that driveway is nearly impossible to go up and down. Even though he did pave it, I mean, the slope is still really steep and we've had people walking up and down that driveway because they could not drive down or drive back up when they were down there. I mean, the wintertime in Vermont, I mean, all of you guys know how cold and how much snow and ice that's there all the time. I'd like to corroborate that by saying we have, this is Meredith Bushy, that is the view from our backyard and almost daily last year, someone would get stuck and we observe them to have to get pushed or we're not able to get up until it got drier or use dirt. And then also the upkeep of the current home and if you were to plan more to clear those areas of proposed pathway, it just does not seem habitable for future tenants living in the existing duplex. It does not have a very well thought out plan. I know that it's just a plan. Everything is super preliminary at this point. All right. Thank you for your comments, David. I believe your hand was raised. Yeah. I'm looking for some clarity on the status of Norman Court and the existing easement that the property has. Maybe somebody can talk about that. Is Norman Court private? It's owned by your family and this property has an easement. Would that be affected by changing the lot lines? I don't believe so but I think that's a question for me in the future as this moves forward. And do you know how that easement is worded? Is it poor cars? Is it a simple house on the property or are there any specifics to how it's allowed to be accessed? I would defer to the land on that. Well, I do have, this is just my understanding of it, a right of a way. I'm happy to share the legal document that I have. I know that it's a question that I brought up at the time that I purchased the property. And I know that it's in writing. I have a right of a way for the property but I'm not a lawyer and just a nurse. But my understanding is that I'm covered with the right of a way. But before I, we can dig a little bit deeper into this but let's not get the focus out of the fact that the project that we have will not use Norman Court. Right now I'm using Norman Court and nobody's questioning that. I have right of a way to my duplex and I just continue, I just intend to continue to use this right of a way. I will not increase traffic. I will not decrease traffic either. But the subdivision of the lot will not add any stress to Norman Court. But it will increase foot traffic throughout your yard if you have people parking up on the top of the hill. No, negative that. People that will be walking will be walking on my land. These are the people that will be living in the duplex. It is no change instead of parking down the hill on that steep slope. And Mr. Court, thank you for bringing it up. The fact that it's a very steep hill, that it's very challenging for cars because that's why I paid. I know that earlier there was a neighbor that said I didn't invest anything. It was over $20,000 to put pavement down there. And I did other investments as well, but that's besides the point. But this drive is just too steep. You can put stairs there and with a proper railing, you can make it safe. And that's my intention. But the people that are living in the duplex right now are using Norman Court and they will continue to use it. So this is what we're talking about today. Zero impact on Norman Court. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Just one other note on the plan that I was looking at. There's some notes on there that identify the survey that Nate Yeager had done. It looked like it was only a topo survey. And is there a plan to do a boundary survey as well? You're muted, Martin. I still never get used to that. I don't even know the difference. I know that that survey was like $4,000. Yeah, so Nate has done the boundary work. We're not presenting that as a formal survey plan to be filed. That would be something that Nate would be preparing and providing as we go forward. But it's sketched. We did not want to represent this as a full boundary survey for any type of recording. Okay, it might be helpful to know we are heard to display any rights of way in reference to book and page to those, you know, on the formal boundary work. Sure. Yeah, and there may be some discrepancies on the wording. I'm not sure if it's an actual right-of-way out. It's more than likely based on the information from Mr. Corey. I think it may be an easement that's granted not a right-of-way, Mr. Brunner. But we will clarify that on any future submission. Okay, thank you, Eric. Is there anything else? I have a question about... Sorry, give me the state your name. Hi, my name is Christopher Bard. I live at 16 Hood Street. I've gone to property directly bordering, supposedly, Norman Court, which has always been known as Morris's driveway since my father was chief of police here for 20 years. I don't even know where this name came from. He never mentioned it. Mr. Corey never mentioned it. Somehow it just appeared. Okay, I want that on the record. Next thing, your engineer... Do you know that there are three natural springs that run across Norman Court? And one of them runs right down on the side of that driveway and it's washing out that hill very badly. So when you're trying to put stairs there, I don't know how you're going to make them safe because eventually you're going to crumble. If you look right now, Mr. Brunner put gutters on his garage. If you look right behind there, he's got a foot trench already dug just from that gutter washing the rain down. There's a tree directly behind the garage that is all dug out underneath between the rain, the stream, and a woodchuck. And that tree is going to fall over and take his house out. This whole bank between there and Meredith's property is all eroding. That should be addressed first before anything else. I don't understand why you want to try to build something when your existing structure is getting ready to fall down. Not only that, but that traffic on Norman Court because of those springs needs to be reduced, not stay the same. It needs to go down, which basically says that cottage, everybody's going to vote it down or we're going to. We can't increase the traffic. The springs will not allow it. That road takes a beating. And frankly, they've done a good job fixing it. I've always helped. It's getting kind of old. Something needs to be done about that. And basically, I don't know why you can't put a driveway from the spring up to your existing duplex and say you're at Eastman. Okay. Thank you. Martin Allen, do you have an opportunity to respond if they desire? Thank you. Yeah. So it's part of any of the development will certainly be addressing stormwater and drainage issues, whether that has anything to do with adding parking for the cottage or the stairs and obviously the new duplex and driveway as well. So stormwater and drainage would certainly be in our purview and that is something that we will be looking at closely going forward. I'm really talking about stormwater though. I'm talking about the existing springs that are underground springs. You said those are on Norman Court, not on our property. I'm not sure. They run from the Corey's property across Norman Court right down to the corner of his existing duplex, which is why the banks are watching. We will certainly look at intercepting that water and dealing with it through our stormwater system. But thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? So Matt, we also do have two members of the public attending remotely. So if either of them have comments or questions, if you want to use the raise hand feature or the chat to be recognized, otherwise we can continue on. Matt and Amber, I see. Martin, you just raised your hand. Okay. Matt and Amber, if you have anything to see, go ahead and hit the raised hand. If not, then we will move on to Martin and not seeing any action here. Martin, go for it. Sure. I did just want to make sure that I addressed some certain specific issues that were brought up in the nine-page memorandum. Specifically, there was mention in item number 10 and 11 on page five of nine that did talk about wanting to know what the slopes were. And I did look at that. The slopes do vary from 20 to 50 percent. So that is certainly going to be one of the challenges of this lot. But that is the main reason that we're proposing the access off of, one of the many reasons we're proposing access off of East Spring and kind of benching the site as we had discussed before, that the driveway and parking would be down at the street level. And then the living space and first floor would be up at the same general elevation as the duplex. But just because that was one of the comments, I just wanted to specify what those slopes were in case anyone on the board wanted to discuss that further. Okay. Thank you. And I do see on the other, actually, it's a pretty good breakdown of how the parking, a good visualization of how the parking would work on the secondary property with the slope and the parking lot virtually coming or the garage rather coming in almost at curb height because it's down so far. So I think, yeah, that's all well done. Thank you. Thank you, Martin. Any other questions or concerns about this project? David, I think. Yeah. So David was just asking to see the, that drawing. Oh, okay. So I'll just share. Five nine of the referring to this one, Matt. Yes. And I did have a question for, are we live? I had a question for Martin on that. You didn't draw the car there at the street. But in your opinion, is that space before, I forget what it's called, but the space before you enter the road, is that sufficient? Yes. That means to be trans standard. That's what that was designed to, the Vermont agency of transportation distance from the curb back. And so would the car be all on that, the slope heading to the road, or would some of it still be on the counter slope coming back down? Some would be on the counter slope coming back down. Thank you. Yes. Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm just trying to find that slide that you're good. We're referencing. Any other questions, comments before we move on? Hearing none, seeing none. Thank you so much guys for your time and your sketch plan. We will have a response for you within 15 days. We will go into a deliberative session after we adjourn this meeting. More than likely tonight to further discuss and pass along any recommendations that we have. Great. Thank you for your time and your comments. Thank you. Is that just a question? We wouldn't have any deliberative session, right? It's just a sketch plan. So we'll, sorry, I'll jump in here. We'll deliberate to talk about what comments we want to forward on the applicant. So yeah, it's not a formal deliberative session in the sense of making a decision. It's more just determining what comments you want to forward on. Oh, sure. Okay. Thanks. Yep. All right. Thank you again. Moving on to agenda item number six, which is an amendment to the rules of procedure. And I think Eric can probably explain the minor modifications better than I can. Yep. Let me, so thank you very much. We, as a body, we have rules of procedure that kind of guide and dictate our operational, our operational procedures for, for running meetings, etc. We've, from time to time, we'll, we'll review these and update them as necessary. Generally, I'd like to look at them every year to just see if there's any changes and kind of do an annual update if we need to. So at this point, I've, in my review, I did note a couple of, a couple of changes that I'm proposing to go forward to you all. So included with your agenda packet was a memo and a red line version of the rules of procedure, basically just adding a statement into article four for consistency with, with the, with the, the requirement that somebody be, if you're, if we're having a remote meeting that somebody be in a place where, where the public can gather like we are tonight. This language is already included under article six part C, but it was, I just wanted to, for consistency sake, add it into article four part G. So it's the same language, just an additional citation of it. And then the other change that I'm proposing is under article 12, adding language to subpart D that allows for other, other members of staff to participate in the deliberative session, but not provide any, any specific vote, more just provide clarification that's already afforded to the zoning administrator under article 12 subpart B. So I just wanted to add that notation so that it was, it was clear that if, if city staff wanted, for example, the city engineer to attend a deliberative session to talk about current cut standards, for example, they would be able to do that in their capacity. So entertain a motion unless somebody has a question or concern. Sorry, I was just going to also say this is on tonight. If you would like to, to adopt these changes, we can do that tonight. Or if you want to spend more time and review them or discuss them, we can do that as well. There's no, there's no timeline on this. It's more just a, like I said, an annual review that I like to, to do in case there's any changes. It seems reasonable, but we could wait till our lawyer is back. I can just, yeah, I just wonder if we table it until we have more representation. Yep, that's fine. Yeah, we can, we can go that way. We certainly can. I didn't see any, there's really no change to anything other than we're doing just clarity. It doesn't actually change rules and procedures. It just gives a more verbal description of what we do. So, but I'm happy to have tabling this to, to next month. Thank you, Eric. So I think that that will do it for agenda item number six. Number seven is other business, which would be Eric as well. Yeah. So the only item I have for other business tonight is our next meeting is scheduled for September 16th. Tomorrow is the deadline for any agenda submissions for to make it on that agenda. That would include any, any, for any public hearings that would need to go forward on that agenda. Obviously things like sketch plans would need to make that, that deadline because they don't go to a public hearing. But right now I'm anticipating, I'm anticipating at least one item for a site plan review. So that would be something that comes forward to you all. So just right now that's the only item that I'm kind of tracking and or had any conversations with, with any folks about. So if you wouldn't, wouldn't mind putting that date on your calendars for September 16th. That'll be our next meeting date. Perfect. Thank you. Any city updates? The only thing I would just note is that the city manager process is still ongoing. You know, take a little bit more time than anticipated, but I believe the, the council is, is looking to schedule interviews and executive session with, I think at least two finalists, maybe three finalists at their meeting in September. So that process is, is progressing nicely. And I think there's some good candidates. I don't know who they are. I haven't met them or know anything about them, but that's my suspicion. So, but yeah, that's the primary update that I wanted to provide for you all tonight. Okay. I had just one plan question. Because it was behind a paywall on social media and I couldn't read the article. What's happening with Maine and Mansion? Yeah, so so the, there's, as I understand it, the, there is a, there's a developer that's looking to buy the project and, and build it, keeping it as it is, but buy the project and develop it with some affordable housing as part of the project. The reason there was an article about it is the, some of the funding for the affordable housing would be coming through one of the state agencies and they're needed, I believe the application needs support from the municipality. So there's a presentation at, I believe the August, the second August city council meeting, there was a presentation on that project. So if you want to see more information, you can, you can go to that, that tape and find out more about the specifics. But yeah, that's, that's the reason why, why that's come up again is that there's a potential for someone to purchase that and, and develop it as it, it's fully permitted right now through the zoning process. So they would be looking, as I understand it, looking to build the project as it's permitted currently. Okay. And any other traction on any of the other projects, the hotels that were mentioned or anything like that? Not at this time, not anything new anyway, still moving forward in some semblance or another. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. So the last agenda item is to adjourn. I will entertain a motion to adjourn. So motion. Is that David? Aaron seconds. All in favor. Aye. Aye. All opposed. None. Thank you. This meeting is adjourned. We will deliberate in, I don't know, five minutes. That sounds all right.