 Tuesday, December 20th, the items on the agenda tonight have been warned. There's several items that posted online. They include 162 Cumberland Road, 47 Harrison Avenue, 89 Chestnut Terrace, 20 Pine Street, and Sketch Plan 284 Rove Street. I want to talk first about the agenda with the board. As the chair, I have the ability to adjust the agenda. And I'd like to do that and I'd like to talk to you about how to do that. Pine Street is an extremely complicated project with pretty high legal issues at play. We have a very full agenda tonight and a very full set of participants. And I want to make sure they're given the full amount of time and an adequate opportunity to present their cases and arguments on this. I know people feel very passionately about it. And it's a development at the center of the city that I think a lot of people care about. So what I had looked at, I looked at our rules of procedure and I know Jeff has recused on this. So, but I see that he joined us. So this is good. I looked at our rules of procedure and I can refer something to a special meeting. And I think we should do that for 20 Pine Street and here's what I would propose to do and I'd like to get the DRB's feedback on it and the applicant is here and so I'm going to ask them for their feedback as well want to get through this. I think we should open the agenda item tonight. Ask the applicant if they are available on January 11 or January 18 for a special meeting only on 20 Pine Street so that we can dedicate a meeting to this, and that the parties can present to us, you know, where it is tonight. Given the other items on our agenda and given the time of year it is I think it's challenging for us to give it its full attention it deserves. And I'd like to set it for a special meeting. Which we can do on more than 24 hours notice but I think we deserve to have it set for enough times that people can accord accommodate that we have a lot of communications in the record from the public. We can call those into the record. If people can't if public can't make the next meeting they can write to us and we'll take those into the record. I also would like to use this time to speak to our council and get some feedback on I think some pressing legal questions about the application of 24 vs a 4413 a to this project. So I'd like to know what the DRB thinks. I think it makes a lot of sense. It's a big issue. And I, I think, well, all of the agenda items on any given night are really, really important. This is going to take a while. There's going to be a lot of thoughtfulness that needs to go into it a lot of thought. I think we want to allow everyone who wants to discuss the issue with us to have the time to do it. And I think we're human. And by the time we address that item tonight we're going to be tired. So I think it is one of those kinds of cases that makes sense to give it its own special hearing. Basically, I think that makes a lot of sense. I think how you organize what happens tonight. And what gets how it gets organized so that sort of meetings is sort of a question as there are probably people here tonight that wanted to participate but I agree that separating it out because we have issues that I agree that we want some feedback on the legal side of it. We want to hear from the applicant. We also want to hear from the public and I think it is more than we can get done responsibly tonight. AJ what parts did you want to open and address tonight versus move to a special meeting. My initial thought was to ask the applicant to address 24 vsa for far. But in thinking about it today and sort of chewing on it. As I approached this I'm wondering whether it doesn't make sense just call the whole thing to a special meeting. That would be my. My vote my recommendation I hate to kind of bifurcate out issues to different, different meetings. I think if we're going to address it let's address it all at a meeting. I do question whether we ought to give the applicant. Yeah, yeah, so that's what they want to say. Have some conversation and then but move the bulk of it to that special meetings and it may be more than one meeting. Yeah, and there may be. I mean there's a lot of feedback that I've read through and yeah, there are issues that I think we need to discuss as a board and we need to get some counsel on. And one of the questions is, if we open it enough so that we can have do we have a mini deliberative so we can raise those questions and ask for feedback from the city attorney or own council on this thing. You know because we don't have any way to officially ask for that without opening the hearing I believe. Right. Probably true that's what I was thinking. Scott who's here for the applicant. John Callow and a number of other folks are here on the applicant team. I'll ask because I can't see let me also add that one of the major considerations behind this is and as of January, we are going to be moving to primarily in person. And I think this agenda item in particular would be much better heard in person as all of them will be. But in particular it is very challenging for an item with a lot of participation to do it without video technology without the seeing everybody and seeing the entire applicant team. So, I think there's real value as well. I guess john was signed as the applicant. I'll let anybody from the applicant team speak. And share their comments having heard the board. And I would also appreciate knowing whether or not January 11 or January 18 would be better for them. And I pipe in with a critical detail. January 18. The room is already booked the 11th. It's available. I've tried to check for con toys and I can't check it. But Pine Street is available on the 11th, not the 18th. The board members have any problems with that deal with the 11th. I'm sorry. I have no problem with the 11th is this pine street going to be large enough to windows that are going to want to come down and talk. I'll figure it out. Yeah. There's probably going to be enough participation that the auditorium would be better. I agree with that and can't tell you why I can't see that room's availability on outlook, but I can't. I know a lot of Torian's empty we could use that. I think the doors are locked. They are. John has his hand up. So let's let's hear from john and Jim. Good evening. Can you hear me? Yes, John, where I'm in AJ. I'm not going to swim in because he's not offering testimony at this time. Thank you for, for, for being here tonight. We are prepared to move forward with our application. Tonight. Yes, there is a lot of discussion and passion around this particular application. But it's really a pretty straightforward application. And we've been at this a while, and we're ready to move forward. Now. Mr. Langen. Yeah, I would just. I would agree. I would agree with John that this is a straightforward application. We don't view the legal issues as being overly complicated and have agreement for the most part with the city attorney on this who's who's reviewed this with with staff. Do not, I know that there are a number of people who will want to speak to this. And we will certainly listen to them, but do not see this as something that would require more than one meeting for you to, to hear what people have to say. I'm going to disagree with that. So, I appreciate that, but that I can't. I can't hear AJ. Right. I can tell you that we are. Disagree with that. So, um. I appreciate that. What does the board think I my inclination. They is as follows. We will open it. We'll ask the applicant to give us a 30 minute presentation. We will decide what we want to do at that point, whether or not to continue to a special meeting on January 11th. Or not. We didn't get feedback from either John Colorado at Jim Lincoln about their availability on the 11th. I understand that they did not offer that. Well, it'd be hard to have the meeting continue without their participation. I would agree with that. AJ, did you want to keep it where it is on the agenda with that 30 minutes or do you want to move it. I did want to move it. I do want to move it. I do want to, I want, if they are, you know, Very prepared to go forward and think it is as simple, then I'll give them 30 minutes to present on it. Um, knowing full well that I. I think it's in the best interest of this DRB that we take some time to think about it. And continue it to a special meeting on the 11th. Um, but I do respect their desire to at least open it and present it to us. Okay. So what I would do is move that up to the first agenda item on the public hearing. You want to do it before consent. No, I want to do consent. That's easy. Um, so the first agenda item we have is our consent agenda, ZP 22 590. It is 162 Cumberland road. Christie McBride, John McBride convert existing 14 by 14 tool shed into home office hobby space to teach and repair saxophones. We have the applicant with us. Let me take a look, AJ. There's a lot of folks to scroll through. Let me do it this way. If you're the applicant on this item, can you raise your hand? Oh, there we go. Perfect. John McBride here. John, how are you? I'm good. Thanks. I'm glad to hear all these learned here to debate my saxophone shed. So this has been marked as our consent agenda item, which means staff has reviewed it and think it can be approved without a public hearing. Do you have a copy of the staff report for this item? I do. Do you have any issues with it? I do not. Any members of the DRB that would propose to treat this as a consent agenda item. Okay, then I'll entertain a motion to approve ZP 22 590. I'll move. I'll second that. Brad, all those in favor. Hi. I just wanted to comment that it's wonderful to have a little shed that's maintained and reused. And I, and with all the things that we've torn down everything else. It's wonderful. Thank you. Okay. So let's then go to our public hearing tonight. We've moved ZP 22 576 20 pine street up to agenda item number one. I know the applicant is here. And I can't see this, but can I get all those in the audience who'd like to speak on this item for the applicant to raise their right hand. So, AJ, it's going to take some time to enable everyone to speak. Join to do that before we do swearing in. Just the applicant team of the public. Just the applicant team at this point. Okay, AJ, I'm recused from this matter. So I'm going to turn off. And I want to say that, that we will give the members of the public time to speak on this. That is part of the reason we are. We have discussed moving this special item. We know there's a lot of public interest in this. And based on the comments we've received and we want to hear them. But the applicant has said that they would like to go forward at least present their project tonight. And we're going to give them the opportunity to do that. Okay, so applicant team, I know it was some of you but if you're on it, please raise your hand so I can enable you to speak. I'm going to make McGovern, Jim Lang and John Callow. Steve Donahue. Anybody else? Not for the applicant team now. Okay, so raise your right hand and say I hereby swear or affirm that the evidence I give in this cause under consideration shall be the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury. I do. I do. John, do you have the plans for this that you can pull up while they open and present? I guess, John, you're going to present. Yes. Yes. Take it away. And it's 519 I'll give you till 550. Okay. Good evening. My name is John Callow. I'm representing the applicant. The, let me just get back to where I was. The cathedral immaculate conception charitable trust. And could you please reduce that image please. What do you mean reduce it take it down. Yeah. Just for a second. There. So just I'm representing the owner of the property at 20 pine street in the procurement of a demolition permit from the city. Jim Lang and a local attorney will speak to the legal issues associated with the demolition permit application. And in addition, I'm on senior Peter Routhier, spiritual leader of the parish. He's available to speak to the context and the motivations behind the application. Just a quick background, the demolition permit was filed on October 27. Which consisted of a cover letter from the Monsignor describing the scope of work, which includes the removal of the building and foundation. Bell towers, sidewalks and landscaping. It also accompanied was accompanied by a legal memo from Mr. Langen, as well as a schematic site plan and photographs. On November 4th at the recommendation of the zoning administrator, the scope of work outlined in the application was amended. To remove the landscaping from the demolition scope of work. And to add the parking lot to the demolition scope of work. On December 13th, the applicant appeared before the design advisory board at the referral of the zoning administrator. And on 1214, the applicant received a copy of the staff report to the DRB. The applicant has since added two documents to the application file, including an updated legal memo from Jim Langen dated 1216 that he'll discuss with you. As well as a copy of the letter of a letter from the Monsignor to preservation Burlington. I was dated. 1028. 2022. And so here we are. While the path to this, this hearing has been somewhat fraught and complicated and, and in our opinion, distracted by several issues, including historic significance. Current use, whether the fact that the. Mass is no longer. The facility has some relevance to the current use zoning use of the property. This application is actually quite straightforward. And I think maybe at this point, the best thing to do is let me, let me turn it over to Jim line. Can address sort of the, the, the legal theories associated with the application. Jim. John, before you turn it over to Jim, I have a couple of questions for you. Okay. Let me be clear about the scope. This is just for the demolition of the prop of the existing building, correct. This includes and maybe Scott if you want to now put that that photograph back up there. What you're looking at is just a Google map photograph. Yep. And if you scroll down a little bit, the 20 pine street scope of work. This includes the demolition and removal of the church structure and the adjacent pedestrian sidewalks. That's, you know, number one. Right. Coalition and removal of the existing parking lot. That's to the west of the church and identified as number two. And then number three in the lower right hand corner is the existing bell tower. Now, and not to steal Jim's thunder, but the originally we had the landscaping, the grove of honey locus trees that were that was included in the scope of the demolition scope of work. The zoning administrator reminded us that under section 4413 in that that landscaping is a, a component that can be regulated by local zoning ordinance. So that if we were being consistent with using 4413 and the limitations that it involves that we needed to remove the landscaping from the demolition scope of work, which is what we've done. Does that answer your question AJ. It does. That this application would only approve the demolition. And that that's all that's been applied for this time. Everything that's shown on an enumerated in one, two and three. It sort of begs a follow up question. Yeah, is once you demolished everything what is left. What are you, are you just going to have it a pilot degree or it's removed and that the parking lot will be loamed and seated. Same thing with the foundation hall for the, the, the structure itself will be filled and seated, as well as the the removal of the sidewalks. Is there a plan for redevelopment. At this time, no, I guess the other question just to get answered is, why not wait until redevelopment to do the demolition. That's, that's at our prerogative. Okay. That's, that's not to be this not not it's outside the scope of this application. Okay. You're turning it over to Jim. Any other board members have questions for john. Okay, Mr. Langan. Thank you. Yeah, thank you, john. Let me mute here. Hi, can you hear me. Yes, clearly. Can I be heard. I put mine. You can hear you and then you started to echo Jim. Yeah, I think you got to raise your hand and be recognized. Yeah, Jim, we can hear you clearly. We can hear us Scott. Are you getting to recognizing Jim. We can hear Jim, Jim and john are you in the same room. We're getting feedback from when both of you mics are on example for in person meetings. Yeah, Jim, you're recognized if you can unmute yourself. Maybe we want to go to a different part of the presentation while we get this worked out. I can Steve we're both here. Right. Am I audible. Yeah. Great. Thank you. Sorry about that. So thank you, john. Thank. Thank you to the chair and the board and staff for your review of the parish's application. As john mentioned, we have submitted to legal memos along with this application. The first submitted with the application in the second in response to to the staff report. We're planning to sort of read through every point of those memos right now. But do want to just highlight a couple points from them. First, that there, there is no genuine question as to whether section 4413, the state statute limiting a municipality zoning authority over religious organizations applies to the parish's application. And it is in the context of a demolition permit application for a vacant church building. And the court in this case ruled that a city is unable to assess the historic attributes. And as cited in my initial October memo, there is one case in Vermont that interprets section 4413 as applied to a religious institution. In this case, ruled that a city is unable to assess the historic attributes of the vacant building, or any other attributes not reserved to the city by section 4413. This case also makes clear that section 4413 is the vehicle by which Vermont ensures compliance with the religious land use and institutionalized persons act. A federal statute protecting religious institutions from zoning laws undo interference with religious exercise. And federal our loop a case law makes clear that the act of demolishing a church to complete its deconsecration is a religious exercise under our loop. I also just wanted to know second memo I do highlight our differing views. Regarding the path upon which the staff has put the review of this application. However, since section 4413 applies regardless of the review path. I believe that the result of this hearing should be the same and that consistent with the recommendation of the staff memo that the parish's application should be granted. I could respond to questions now I do also want to introduce Monsignor Ruthier from the parish, who is with with Meg McGovern, Scott, if you're if you're looking for for that name but before he speaks if if there are questions for me. Jim the case you spoke about in your first legal memo. Yes. Is that. Vermont Baptist Convention versus Burlington zoning board 159 BT 28. No. Okay. That's the one you're referring to. Val San Jean coma. Val San Jean coma. Yeah, yeah. Okay. So, just to help me understand. Obviously, you know this property has significance with the city and with many people in the city, not just with the Catholic church. So it's, it's a big deal. And I think you must understand that. Given that there's alternate ways to consecrate this property. Why are you choosing this particular approach. Well, I think that's best best answered by the Monsignor. But I think the, the general answer is that that's, that's to the religious organizations discretion of what they think is best. You know what this parish thinks is best for its parishioners. And one senior can speak to that, but, but that's, that's a religious organizations decision. That's a hard one only because obviously a lot of parishioners are citizens of Burlington and the sentiment of Burlington may be quite different than that and it's not. Yes, how the church chooses to do it is obviously after the church, I like I said I like this way and not another way is maybe we can understand that. Thank you. So, Jim, I want to understand correctly that when it even though it shall cease to be a church 24 vs a 4413 a subsection, what is it. Whatever that a to whatever that says churches, even though it shall cease to be a church. It is still under 24 vs a 4413 a church once demolished, it does not have to be rebuilt as a church to stay within the protection of 4413. It does not it's it's permitted as a church. And also this action is religious action so they're there. There are two reasons for two reasons for that application of that statute. Religious action is what RL UI PA covers essentially right it says exercise right it uses the term exercise. That that that was the Genesis for 4413. Even though the statute doesn't say religious exercise, it should be read to include any religious exercise. I don't know if it's the the origin but it is as as as the case sites it's the it's the way 4413 is the way that Vermont enforces our loop. And so I'm correct that your position is the historic review, then can't apply as a matter of law. That's correct. That's one of the, you know, one of the arguments we also think that the the zoning ordinance is is clear as to what a historic building means in Burlington. And that in Burlington, it would need to be a building would need to be at least 50 years old to be subject to the section of the statute dealing with the demolition of historic buildings that the the plain language of the statute is is clear on that. But that's and that's before you would even apply 4413. I think about so that we have a record, unless the DRB has other questions on this on this issue. Why don't you endeavor to just explain to us your historical arguments your arguments as the historical review, if it were to apply just because it's been raised, you know it's been raised. There's obviously questions about it. We can take some time and walk us through that. Walk us through the what 5.4.8 of the ordinance says, while your second legal memo which sort of addresses more issues on historic review and why historic reviews not relevant. Those issues. Why it's not a for historic building on for purposes of section 5.4.8. That's in the first memo. And your first memo is the 27th. So that that memo is is clear that memo as that memo lays out. Section 5.4.8 says that it applies to to historic buildings and historic buildings are those that are listed on a registry or eligible for listing. And then goes on to say that a that a building may be deemed eligible for listing if the following if all of the following are true. And among the list is that the building is at least 50 years old. And the church is not 50 years old. What was the bill. The zoning permit of Scott reference. In his staff report AJ, I believe it's October of 77. So even though it's obviously architecturally significant. It is not listed. And it is not. In your view, eligible for listing. Because of its age. It's not eligible for listing for purposes of Burlington zoning regulations. For purposes of interpreting section 5.4.8. Which is clear as to what for a building to be considered historic for for purposes of it for this section. And then it's clear as to what what it would need, you know, what threshold it would need to pass. And one of those thresholds is its age. I do have a question about vows on geocomo. If you have a moment. Okay. wasn't there parish related redevelopment also occurring as part of the demolition. I don't think they were discussing the plan for redevelopment. Yeah, I think there was. I think there was that differentiate the case. Well, the church was being demolished. And to replace it was a different religious use building. Would that distinguish the issues here. Not for purpose. The discussion in the case is about whether historic. Historic ordinance could be applied. To to this convent, whether they could consider that and prevent its demolition. It wasn't a discussion. It didn't. The discussion wasn't about what it was being replaced with. It was about whether it could be demolished. And so, you know, the redevelopment, you know, what, what it's being replaced with, you know, wasn't, you know, in the. Decision making, or at least in the, you know, the, the decision that, you know, that I read. Okay. Are there any board members that have questions for Mr. Langen. Besides myself. Brooks. Brad. I guess I would like to get. And I know the staff has had that already, but this is where we talked before. I'd like to have the city attorney give us feedback on some of these issues and be able to talk to her about. These to get that point of view and just have our questions to her. I think it's more appropriate to ask those questions to city attorney than to Mr. Langen. Yeah, I don't disagree with that. Jim and john, is there anything else you want to add now tonight. Yeah, I believe the Monsignor would like to speak. He's more than welcome. Thank you. Can you hear me. Yes, thank you for taking the moment to hear me speak. I'm Senator Ruth here I presently the rector of the cathedral of St. Joseph. But I had also been a rector of the medical conception at the time we had to the cathedrals at that point. So I have been part of this process, but not all of it, but now at this near end. But I have been involved in diocesan level work or parish work for over 44 years. I don't take this very lightly neither does the parish here. I was rector here in medical conception, and then I was away for five years and other services, and returned a year and a half ago. But this has been part of the discussion. The parishes are always very important and when we have to close them. The way that we do the best healing is by removing the building the structure, so that the memories are memories of a building that was used with great joy and Thanksgiving for all the events that needed to take place. The first building in Burlington that building was the former medical conception building that burnt in 1972. And those are their memories. This new one there are memories for other people that were involved in there, but at the same time to see a building, especially a cathedral to not be used any longer since it just does not meet the needs of the parish in Burlington at this time. It's not required to be removed that was stated very clearly. This has to be consecrated. The structure has to go in order for that healing and wholeness to take place. This has been discussed by parish councils by the parishioners that are so actively involved in the church. And we need to always keep that in mind. This is an appropriate avenue for us to be doing, and it's not taken at all lightly. I'm very much aware of the memories people have the emotions that are tied to this, but as a church that is alive and meeting the needs of the community. We need to cathedrals, and we needed our larger building to function for the events in our service and that this served its purpose and now it needs to be demolished in order to progress for the good of all the people not only of our faith community, but I presume for the good of the city of Burlington. I don't know if that answers I there's much more than what if one looks at the history it's very complex in regards to this, but this is where we are. And I don't want to take all that time I could. I have a lot of the history involved with these buildings, but you don't want to be here all night. Thank you very much. Thank you I appreciate that. And with that, what I would like to do is continue this to open the floor for us to receive public comment on what the applicant said and for us to meet with our council. Obviously, there's been discussions that we haven't been part of and I think we may have questions that we want to hear directly. The applicant wants us to get this right and I'm sure that the neighbors and the other interested parties want us to get it right and we want to get it right. So, I would move that we continue this to a special meeting on January 11th at 5pm. 645 pine street, 645 pine street. All those in favor. Hi. All right, thank you. Question for you, AJ. To do anything for formally to solicit feedback from city attorney or is that just inviting her to that meeting that will. I think we can call an executive session to do that under our rules of procedure. Okay. Ask what time the meeting is. 535. Yes, 5pm. And if there's any members of the public that can attend, please provide your comments and writing identifying where you live. And whether and your concerns or interests about this project. Before that, we will take those into the record then. All right, moving on the next agenda item is 47 Harrison Avenue. That would be AP dash 22 dash 6. Heal of zoning denial to replace existing windows with vinyl units. Do we have the applicant here. That would be Tim Ely, Tim Ely. Mr. Ely, can you raise your right hand please. Do you swear or affirm that the evidence you give in this proceeding was caused under consideration shall be the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury. Tim, I've been able to do to speak if you can unmute. Okay. Does that work. Yes, that works. So, this is an appeal of a. A denial. This is a Mary I believe this is your project. Yes, it is typically when there's an appeal of denial, we asked the city to go first and outline the basis for the denial. And so, Mary, if you would please do so, I'd appreciate that. Certainly 47 Harrison Avenue is half of a two unit structure, a little unusual in the lakeside district but some of these units are individually owned although the units are attached. There was work going on at 47 Harrison Avenue which the building official issued a stop work order as no permits had been requested or issued. Two permits were applied for one to replace the vinyl siding with fiber cement board clapboard, and one permit was to replace the existing vinyl windows with new vinyl windows. One permit for fiber cement board was approved by staff. There had been an existing building permit for vinyl siding issued in the 1980s, although there was no zoning permit, it's our practice to recognize the issuance of a building permit that far back because there was not communication between the divisions and the building official frequently issued trades permits without assurance of a zoning permit. So we did have a record that the vinyl siding had been approved. The windows however, never received zoning or building permits. The applicant can give testimony when the work was done. So there appears to be evidence that these have been in place more than 15 years so they would be allowed to be retained. However, there's no gravity on additional review for the acceptability of vinyl windows if they couldn't be approved under today's standards. Our standards and guidelines for replacement windows on historic buildings was updated in April 2000. 2022. We don't recognize the vinyl windows there as being appropriate. The windows that were installed in the 80s never received a zoning or a building permit. This is a national register district that was listed in 1982 and vinyl windows are not an acceptable replacement on historic buildings. So the permit was administratively denied. The appeal was timely and that's why it's before you today. This is an after the fact permit the work was interrupted by the stop work order. And so Mary, if I'm correct in understanding you. There's a 15 year sort of statute of limitations that you baked in here. That if the windows. Vinyl as they were. We're in effect, we're in place for more than 15 years. The city's position is that they can remain vinyl as was replaced this year. I have that right. The city's position is you don't get to keep that approval it there was no approval. So those units that were installed in the 80s, they could remain as they were. However, that doesn't translate into an approval for the material. And today's standards would not find these acceptable. So you couldn't replace them. You could not replace them with vinyl. Go ahead, Brett. So, so isn't part of the owner so that you can replace materials with the same kind of material when you're doing rent. It was never approved in the first place. Yeah, but if you had potholes in that area, you could repair them. Right. Different situation. So he, if one of those windows fell out, whatever. He would have to go buy a vinyl window from Lowe's and pop it in. They'd have to go buy a historic matching window. You would have to go by the regulations in effect at the time you do the work. Which in this case would be the, you, you say are the April 25th. And that window had been there for 25 years ago or a year ago. And that window had been there for 25 years as a vinyl window. And so the rest of those windows had been used for the next 6 months or so long. Which in this case would be the, you, you say, are the April 22. Guidelines. Correct. As there are no previous permits for window replacement here. We board members have any more questions for staff. I guess the other question is that this is half of. The building. also doesn't have permits. So we're sort of accepting that they'll be not matching what's existing in the building. I'm only looking at the property that's under consideration with the application. Okay. I guess the one question that I have, Mary, is like these were replaced somewhere around 1989. Was there a requirement at that time that there be a zoning permit to replace windows? Under the ordinance in effect, that was a 1987 amendment. This was a design control district. So yes, there was a requirement for window permits. So the city couldn't enforce a violation against the windows, but could say, hey, if you're gonna replace them, they've gotta come up to historic standards, correct? I make no determination on the length of time and they've been there. The evidence from the reval photos suggests they were replaced in the 80s, but with no permit record here, permit or window replacement would require using the regulations and guidelines we have today. And I guess just to clarify that, bad wood windows acceptable if they have to wood windows. Under the guidelines from last April, there are a variety of options, but vinyl is not one of them. You included that in the staff reports of image. Is it the bottom of that image? Oops. I don't know. Those are the guidelines that were issued last April. If you scroll down, Scott, at the bottom it says the materials. Yeah, wood, clad wood and fiberglass. Yeah, but what about that last sentence? What does that mean? Typically, vinyl windows do not meet the standard. It doesn't seem like a very clear, they'd never meet it. What are the standards that are applied to that typically? You may be muted, Mary. Our experience is that vinyl windows have not been acceptable. The design advisory board was the author of this document. So vinyl windows ever been approved under the historic guidelines? For additions on historic buildings, we have sometimes seen them for new construction, excuse me, but not in historic structures. There are examples, and I've mentioned this in the staff report. There are some of the residences in the lakeside neighborhood that have vinyl windows because earlier permits have been issued. And I mentioned one on Central Avenue. There was an earlier permit that approved vinyl windows so when they chose to replace them, they could do so with vinyl. Thank you. Thank you. And I can just clarify what provision, sorry, the replacement window guidelines for historic buildings. Are they specifically referenced in the zoning ordinance? This particular document is not referenced. This is a policy that was adopted by the design advisory board. After much discussion. Which one is Secretary of the Interior's standard? There are within our standards, a window for using modern materials within our standards. And there was no articulation to that. So we frequently had property owners and retailers coming to us and saying, well, what does this mean, more modern materials? So, excuse me. This seeks to articulate what those modern materials are that are acceptable. Anybody else? Any questions for Mary? I think that one of the reasons that vinyl windows have that designation is because of the way they're manufactured to be installed and they look like a flatter plane on the plane of the wall. Whereas they just are amenable to casings and sills and aprons and so on that are typical to historic buildings. I think that's one of the reasons why it's difficult to get them to emulate historic look of that type of window in that kind of building. A hard button, Sean, because there are buildings or windows that have just held in by the exterior trim without any setback at all. So it's not always the case that we have a recess. Well, I should couch my answer in that some clad windows, the cladding material is vinyl. So it's not completely excluded. And we for many years would only allow a wood core window and allow cladding. And that was a decision that was agreed to by the Development Review Board. I remember Glen Jarrett was the one that articulated it. So that was the caveat at that time for window replacement. I would note again that this subject property, 47 Harrison Avenue is that the window casings have all been cut off. And that was something that I asked the gentleman that was working on the house about the window casings, were they gonna be replaced and they're gone. Seth, thanks for the question, Mary. Is there a requirement to replace other materials besides the windows as they're redoing the exterior of this house? The permit for the siding replacement to convert vinyl to fiber cement board that's been deemed by superior court to be an acceptable replacement on historic structures. Although, as I mentioned, there was a building permit to put the vinyl siding on in the first place. So there was much greater latitude. In the application was no mention of replacing the trim around the windows. Again, most of the work was already done. As you can see that picture was just taken on December 9th. There's a note numbered by distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques for examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property. You say the original has four two fenestration and now it's being replaced by one one vinyl. If the applicant were theoretically to replace the one one vinyl with one one wood, it sounds like it still would not meet the standard because ideally it would be in a four two pattern. Do I understand that correctly? Well, the four two pattern was the original pattern of the windows in this neighborhood. Admittedly by the reval photos, I don't see a four two pattern in this property. The narrative in the National Register District makes alludes to a description of another building that it duplicates, where the windows did have the four two pattern and that was characteristic of this worker housing neighborhood. So are you saying any approvable replacement window would have to have four two or you don't have enough evidence to hold them to that standard? I would say that I don't have enough evidence at this point. Well, I'd like to hear from the applicant. I understand Mr. Ealy. Is that right? Is on? Yes, he's on. Sir, I know you filed your appeal and you've heard our discussion with Mary. What would you like to say about that? And he's muted. I've asked him to unmute. Just waiting. There we go. Okay. Yeah, so my son, he does construction for a living. That's what he does. And he just had the wrong information that he could fix all the rot around the windows, which there was, I mean, all the windows were badly rotted. And he thought that it was okay to change the windows wealth department. That was the advice that he got. When I said that those windows were and they were a change in 89 because in 89 they had the wooden, they did have the wooden ones. We had the vinyl siding put on, the contractor did. And he's one towards the all, even then the windows were all rotted. And the, we bought the house in 89. And like all the top windows were screwed in just to hold them up because they were in bad shape. So we, after the windows were, after the side was put on, then we had a contractor come in and then change all the windows, which was changed the vinyl. Now, just recently that we have some rot that was around the windows were still a little raw. I think it was, I think the siding was put on wrong, but the windows were rotted and he just got into fixing the windows and then he replaced the windows. And he did replace it the same size, everything. He just took out the old window and then he put in the new vinyl windows. Yeah, so he didn't know until, he didn't know until it was Mary seeing him and then that's when she had stopped him. And then he had stopped all the work until we got the permit for the siding. Did you look into once Mary identified the issue, did you look into what it would cost to find conforming windows or how hard it would be? My son did and it would be very hard and very expensive more than I can afford. I don't have that kind of money. When you say hard, what do you mean by hard? To find them, to find the size and I guess they would have to all be special made. Any DRB members have any questions for Mr. Ealy? Do you know specifically, like even ballpark the cost difference? Um, for... Well, my son just, he didn't really do a lot of research. He just did some research to see what it would just to get an idea what it would be. And it would be like close to a thousand dollars for each window and plus all the labor to go ahead and put it all back in. Yeah, thank you. I mean, he excited, he was doing all this work because I mean, it was all right. It had to be done. I do plan on retiring in a couple of years. And I just want to have all this work done before that time because you don't want to, I don't want to be used by social security check to be doing house repairs. Okay. Quick question for Mr. Ealy. Yeah, by all means. Is there, are these windows, do they have months into them or are they just clear glass or are there any months in pattern with them? No, they're just clear glass. Were the old ones also that way? The vinyl ones that we took out, yes. The vinyl ones that we took out, these are the exact same thing. And do these match with the neighbor has the other half of the house? My neighbor has the same exact windows that we do. Well, I don't have any further questions for the applicant and I would propose that we close this hearing item. Any objection to that? To doing what you said. So Mr. Ealy, we're going to close the public hearing item. We're going to close testimony on this agenda item. The board may deliberate on this tonight. Depends on how long the next item takes and what the board wants to do. During our deliberations, we've reached a decision, hopefully maybe sometimes, and then we'll get a decision out to the parties shortly thereafter. So AJ, do you want a solicit public comment? Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see. Are there any members of the public here to speak on this item? I didn't see anybody with their hands up, but... Yeah, we didn't ask either. I just figured we should. If you'd like to speak on this item, raise your hand. Usually people raise their hands. Yeah, okay, I don't see anyone. Yeah, okay. Oh, no. All right, nobody. Okay, then it is closed, bye. Okay. All right, so the next agenda item is 89 Chestnut Terrace, ZAP-22-8. Appeal is opening... Before we do that, maybe we should remind folks who seems like there's still a lot of attendees that we've moved on from the 20 Pine Street project. Yes, that's true. We did move on from the Penn 20 Pine Street and continued it to a meeting on January 11th at 5 p.m. So if you're here for that, it will be continued to January 11th at 5 p.m. So we were calling ZAP-22-8, 89 Chestnut Terrace, appeal of zoning determination, recognizing 89 Chestnut Terrace as a separate lot from 41 South Street. And we have the appellant here Yes, we do. We have Arlene Duffy as the appellant. We also have representative for the owner. And that is, and so if anybody wants to speak on this application, could they raise their right hand and state that I swear or affirm the evidence I give and this cause under consideration shall be the whole truth and nothing about the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury. I do. So, this is an appeal of a zoning determination and in appeals we ask the city to go first and explain their reasoning. I have sort of an initial question for staff. Sure. The scope of the request and the factors under consideration seem to me to strain our legal authority. They seem to be asking us to review deeds and survey lines and make determinations based on things that are not the CDO. So recognizing a lot or not a lot seems to me like a question of deed interpretation, not zoning. And I'm wary of our jurisdictional limits here. Hey, sorry to interrupt AJ before anybody answers. It looks like Gravel and Shea is on there. So I'm going to recuse myself from this matter. Okay, bye Brooks. So Scott, with that question, perhaps being something you discussed first, what happened here? So you're right, it gets into looking at land records and surveys and deed language. We get requests for determinations periodically. Most of the time they're about seeking recognition as a preexisting non-conformity. But it's, I'll say fairly common to get these existing law determinations as well. And a lot is a thing in the ordinance and it carries with it certain rights, two lots versus one lot. And in this case, the owner sought recognition as two lots versus one. And you're right, in making that determination, we look at stuff in the land records, the surveys, the deed language, what the assessor's records show. So you're right, we look at stuff outside of zoning to inform a decision that is founded in the zoning ordinance. In this case, is it a lot or two lots? Okay. AJ, the city attorney is here now too. I understand that. And I may ask for Kim's guidance on this as well. But Scott, why don't you walk us through your reasoning and then raise this question with Kim? Sure. Just do a quick screen share so we know what we're talking about. So this is the property. This is 41 South Street. This is 89 Chestnut Terrace. And to be clear, this is the current fax map, what it looks like online. Yep. So the owner of the property sought a determination recognizing this property as two lots as opposed to one. And there were a couple twists and turns, as you've seen. My initial determination was based largely on reveal of the zoning permit record, which included two boundary adjustments with surveys that showed these two lots as one. So issued an adverse determination initially because we tend to rely on survey as being the definitive reference for lots and boundary lines. That was appealed by the owner and it was scheduled for board review, digging further into the record and outside of zoning into the assessor's records, the sandborn maps, the deed language. The picture began to shift towards, this was subdivided as two lots originally. It showed up as two lots through the sandborn maps and the deed language consistently refers to two lots. So land surveyors are not infallible and it seems like the surveys for those two boundary adjustments incorrectly showed it as one lot. I think significantly the requested lot line adjustments in those two permits had nothing to do with merging two lots. It was about changing the boundaries between neighboring properties a little bit here and there. So I followed up with the owner and said, gee, I think, or the owner's representative, I said, I think this actually shows this as two lots and understood that there's some ambiguity in the record. But again, zoning 101, ambiguities decided in favor of the property owner. Everything else points to this being two separate lots. So a revised determination was issued, that initial appeal was dropped. But we have an appeal filed for that revised determination by Arlene Duffy, which is before you tonight. So that's the quick overview. There is basis to say this is one lot and that's pointing to those two surveys but everything else points to it as two lots. Okay. Do you have some commentary about the limits of our jurisdiction given what our authority to look at deeds and things and interpret them? You know, for these purposes, I mean, you're making a determination regarding whether this is two lots for zoning purposes. And so I think as far as looking back at like the subdivision, the prior subdivision and even deeds in that context, not necessarily for the purpose of the precise lots or the advances and such, but looking back at it for those purposes, I think it's within your scope. Okay. Hey Jake, can I ask Kim another question? Of course. Kim, I think the appellant raised a question about jurisdiction and whether the zoning administrator had the authority to revise their opinion while it was on appeal. Do you have any thoughts on that particular argument? I think that when new evidence is brought to light that the administrative officer can consider that and reconsider his opinion. Yes. And does anything need to happen to, it feels like something I've seen more come up from an appeal from, you know, DRB to the E-Corp. It's not like we have a remand process for the zoning administrator to say, hey, I'd like that decision back. So I can think about it further. Just I'm trying to understand that component of the argument. Yeah, I mean, I think it's typically the same that happens with the board as far as basically requesting, you know, reconsideration. Even the board can do it. Usually there's a request put into the board to reconsider. In this instance, new evidence was brought to light and therefore it was made a determination to reconsider. Ultimately, it's before the board now. So process-wise, you know, you can make that determination of what's the ultimate outcome. Okay, thanks. We have a number of folks here. Hey, Chase, should we hear from the personal file of the appeal? Yeah, yeah, I'm getting to that. I just, there's a couple of people with their hands up. So I lost my participant screens. Scott, who was it? Was it Gravel and Shea? But I'm trying to, was it, Jeff, is that you? No? Gravel and Shea, it's Zach. Yeah. Okay. So who do we have on behalf of the appellant that wants to speak? Thanks. We have Arlene Duffy and we have Mary Tvichel with their hands up. Okay, Arlene, do you want to go first? Yes, I don't know who Mary Tvichel is, but she's not representing me. Yes, I first like to just follow up on the discussion about jurisdiction on appeal. And I would point the board to the case that I cited in my original statement, which talks in detail about the zoning board, a decision by the zoning board, and it's appealed to a DRB, and that there is no jurisdiction once the appeal has been filed, regardless of whether there's new evidence, that the decision has to be heard by the DRB. And there's constitutional due process reasons why. If I hadn't looked on the website within 15 days, I would have lost my right to speak on the original question, the September 6th, because I didn't receive any notice that a new decision was being made, had been issued. Even though Mr. Gustin and Ms. O'Neill both spoke with me about this case after the September 6th matter, and they knew that I wished to participate in the original appeal by the landowner. So there's a real reason why the rule applies that once an appeal has been filed, the zoning administrator should not be making a new decision that is not communicated to anyone, because rights are lost of the adjoining landowners. So I just want to just follow up on that point. I really think that the, you know, I've submitted plenty and I don't wanna belabor the issue, but I think that the most relevant issue here is the zoning permit that was issued to my predecessor and title, Linda Gibson, and Mr. Boa-Vives in 2002. That zoning permit permitted the boundary line adjustment. It said between 41 South Street and 32 Chestnut Terrace. And the map that was associated with that showed one lot. There is no adjoining boundary between 32 Chestnut Terrace and 41 South Street. Unless 41 South Street is one lot that encompasses lot 89, which was the original lot designation when the neighborhood was laid out. There's no address that is 89 Chestnut Terrace in Burlington. In fact, I checked the E911 database today for the state of Vermont. There's no such address. So, you know, the ambiguity is, it appears in my own title. So when Mr. Gustin says that ambiguity is to be resolved in favor of the landowner, there's two landowners here. And my title and my zoning permit says that I did a boundary line adjustment with 41 South Street. That could only be possible if the lots had merged. Otherwise, the zoning office in 2002 should have rejected the application and said that it should have been for 89 Chestnut Terrace. But since that lot didn't exist anymore and had merged with 41 South Street, the application moved forward. I think those are probably the two points that are most salient and I just most wanted to highlight. I think that there's in both the zoning administration report and in Mr. Berger's submissions, there's a lot of reference to minor errors or this is an internal boundary line or they're dismissed, but they are facts. And I don't think you can overlook those facts in making the determination that these lots merged. In fact, Mr. Bois-Bies in 1975, and I know you don't have the original deed in the record, but there were four parcels of land. And those four parcels have now somehow merged into two on the tax maps and one in the zoning office. So there's just been a lot of mistakes, I think, and not paying attention over time. But at this point, I think it's clear in the land records and in the zoning records that there's one lot and it's known as 41 South Street. And I thank the board for listening. Arlene, can I ask you a couple of factual questions? Sure. The two maps that were supporting the lot line adjustments, looks like one of those benefited your property and the other one was for a separate boundary line adjustment. Right. Do you know who prepared those or they prepared by and for the owner of 41? 41. As they're labeled, that appears that way, Jeff. They say that they're for Laurent Bobbeves and they're prepared by Trudell. Okay. Okay, so thanks. Sorry, I have to step out and go lock my office front door. There's something going on up, I'll be right back. Caitlin, if you want to take this, or if you guys just want to give me 60 seconds to pause. Sorry. Are there any other questions for Arlene, the board? Okay. Thank you, Arlene. And then Mary Twitchell, you were looking to speak as well, if you unmute yourself. Actually, sorry, I'm realizing I should go to Gravel and Shea next, right? Helen, then the property owner, then public comment. Is that right, Scott? Sure. Sure, I mean, Zach is unmuted. Zach, do you want to share your position on that of the property owner? Yes, can you hear me? Yes. Fantastic. Well, thank you for having me. My name is Zach Berger and I'm here representing the applicant, the landowner here, Janine Bobbeves. And first to respond to AJ's initial comment that there is some strained legal authority and that this is diving into the land records, surveys and whatnot, we had reached out. I mean, the whole process and the whole reason for applying for this determination was our client is attempting to sell 89chest.carus. And so we had first reached out to title insurance to lay out everything, the deeds, the surveys that are out there and see what their opinion was. And we did receive a confirmation from Andy Michael that they would insure 89chest.carus as it appears in the materials that we have submitted as its own individual property. And we wanted to file this determination just to ensure from the city's perspective, there has been no municipal action to merge the lots. And to address the procedural issues that have been raised here as well, from our perspective, it's essentially moot. We are here in front of the DRB and that would have been the case any way you cut it. We had initially appealed the initial adverse termination and that would have brought all of us to the DRB to have this precise conversation. And Scott had reissued or redetermination in our favor and we are once again still at the DRB. So any of those procedural issues we view as mute. And we would like to express our support for the department's determination that 89chest.carus and 41 South Street are two separate lots. As the permitting department correctly noted in their affirmative determination, the deed history, the original subdivision plots and the grand list all depict two separate lots. As noted by the Appellant and as noted in the initial adverse determination, there are these two boundary line adjustments that have occurred. And as we pointed out, both of those boundary line adjustments modify external lot lines as opposed to the internal boundary between 89chest.carus and 41 South Street. Both of those surveys are clear in that regard and demonstrate no intent to merge the lots. They don't even mention it at any point nor do the initial permit applications. We do believe that initial lot line was mistakenly omitted. And that is certainly on the surveyor and that is something that they should have caught. But that failure to note the internal lot line should not itself be the basis of any sort of lot merger. There's been no municipal action to merge the lots. And as the Appellant pointed out, somehow the lots may have merged. Somehow the lots merged. And there is nothing in the record to state that. There has been no explicit action to merge these lots. And as noted here, any sort of ambiguity that may be caused by these inaccurate surveys must be resolved in favor of the landowner. And this is a direct impact on Ms. Bois-Vives right to use her property. The boundary line adjustments and any sort of determination here would not impact the Appellant. Their lot line is set. This is essentially determining what steps Ms. Bois-Vives would have to take to convey or to otherwise develop her lot. And for those reasons, we support the affirmative determination and we respectfully ask the board to uphold the affirmative determination. I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. Zach, I have a few questions on the boundary line adjustment map actually that's up on the screen right now. Can you see that? Yes. So I take your point that it, you know, well, I take you to be saying that the adjustments didn't affect any of the internal boundary lines, but I think I disagree with that. If you look at this map, the adjustment, if there was a boundary line between those two closest points, between your position of where the boundary line was for 41 and 89, this adjustment that we're looking at actually would have changed that back line also. So your original line would have run from, I don't have the cursor, but the narrowest point on the left-hand side to the narrowest point on the upper right-hand side of those two former lots. Jeff, are you talking about that corner pin between? Yeah, the two internal corner pins. Yeah, yeah. So you actually would have needed, this adjustment would have required two boundary line adjustments. Because you would have rotated that internal line. So you either were giving away portion of a lot that wasn't identified or your owner who developed this survey believed they were actually the same lot. And I guess I'm not sure I agree that we would interpret an ambiguity in a map in favor of the person who developed the maps. I think that's different than an ambiguity in the zoning ordinance. So I'm concerned by the record that these maps when prepared for the benefit of your clients or former owner of the property didn't show the line but now you're arguing that there is a line there. And so I certainly understand the point here and you are indeed correct that I wouldn't necessarily say that that internal lot line was moved. It was extended slightly by this boundary line adjustment but it didn't necessarily move one way or the other. There was just another, it appears to be about 15 feet added to it via the boundary line adjustment. And our position isn't that the survey itself and the ambiguity there requires a determination in favor of the landowner. It's the whole picture. It's the application of the subdivision requirements given the deed history and the zoning record, including these surveys. And taken as a whole, any sort of ambiguity as to whether or not a subdivision would be required to convey 89 Chestnut Terrace should indeed be resolved in favor of the landowner here, Ms. Boa-Vives. Okay, on the deeds, there's mention of four parcels. Is there any evidence of the merger of two of those parcels into one? It seems like that would have had to have occurred twice. So. Yes, and so those parcels, they were merged as a matter of law. In that initial conveyance, there were four parcels, two of which are the primary main parcels here, 89 Chestnut Terrace and 41 South Street. Both of those lots are large lots that have always been conforming with the minimum lot size requirements in the city of Burlington. If I'm not mistaken, the lots are about roughly 17,000 square feet for Chestnut Terrace and 13,000 square feet for 41 South Street. So well above the minimum requirements. Those other parcels were all very small adjustments to the boundary line, essentially before there was a process for doing so. And so the automatic, the doctrine of automatic lot merger, those would have merged into the larger conforming and contiguous pieces of land, leaving the two lots that we have now, 89 Chestnut Terrace and 41 South Street. And that was our initial primary concern when looking at these lots. And we were able to confirm with Andy Michael with the title insurance that, they agree with our assessment of this and would be willing to insure it. Okay, thank you. We have any members in the audience who'd like to speak on this application who haven't spoken already? Arlene, you still have your hand up. Do you want to say anything further? You're on mute. AJ, Mary, Twitch will still need to be called on. I don't see her still with her hand up, but I guess maybe she'll put it up later. Arlene, your hand is still up. Do you have anything to add? Yes, AJ, if I could, I'm sorry, my dog is barking in the background. It's okay, we're okay with that. I guess what I'd like to point out to Jeff's point about the adjustment that five, which was between his property and as it was applied for, his immediate next door neighbor on South Street, it also touched on and affected the lot that is lot 89. And again, the zoning office didn't call that into question as not a simple one or two property boundary line adjustment, but something more complicated. And I think it just again, repeatedly supports that it was one lot. And as for the non-conforming lot that's on the screen right now, the purple one, it touches on both lot 89 and the 41 South Street lot. And I'm not quite sure. I know all the intricacies of the doctrine of automatic merger of non-conforming lots, but I'm not sure how you would know which lot this non-conforming lot merged with when it's touching two conforming lots, except that if it was one lot, the whole structure. And so I just, Mr. Bwavid's repeatedly, in fact, starting in 1998, he recorded a survey that for reasons I can't figure out that showed everything as one lot. And he repeatedly treated the property as one lot in the land records in permitting with the state subdivision permit, which has a condition in it that says there's only one building allowed on this entire lot, one lot. He took all those actions. And to now change position for Mrs. Bwavid's to change position, it doesn't seem like it's equitable to neighbors. And it doesn't seem like you can change the position just because you want to. You treated it as one lot for a significant period of time. You took a number of actions. My title relies on those actions of it being one lot. And now because she wishes to sell that lot, she wants to undo that. And that doesn't seem to be consistent with good zoning or land use practices to just be able to switch that. Okay. Hey, Jay, can I ask you a question? By all means. You just said that your property depends on this being one lot. What did you mean by that? What I mean is that the boundary line adjustment that was done for my property was done with 41 chestnut terrace, not 89 chestnut terrace, because there is no 89 chestnut terrace. Right, but how does that affect your property? It just, I'm just saying it's in my title. Okay, okay. Thank you. Okay. Is there anybody else who wants to speak on this application? Scott, I don't see any hands up to you. No. I see Gravel and Shea raised their hand again. Best word. Thank you. I think to follow up on the appellant's comments here, one final point we'd like to make is that there has been no action to merge these lots. And it would be improper to base a lot merger based off of a survey that clearly caused a cascade of events that the permits were issued and referenced lots improperly. There needs to be some sort of municipal action to explicitly merge the lots or there needs to be a deed that demonstrates a clear and explicit intent to merge the lots. And none of that is present here. Thank you. Can I ask one last question on the tax status of the parcels? Yes. Does the owner receive two separate tax bills for two separate parcels? Yes, yes. In our application materials, we have pointed that out. Our client here does indeed receive two tax bills and has for quite some time. Looking at the grand list as far as it goes back or as far as I was able to see, they've been taxed separately. And that would be something that would help determine which lot that small purple parcel merged into. And the tax map shows that that has been taxed as part of 89 Chestnut Terrace. And has the owner ever saw any changes in the taxes paid, making an argument that one of the lots couldn't be developed or that there were any restrictions or size limitations that would mean it should be taxed at a lower value to your knowledge? No, not to my knowledge. To my knowledge, our client has simply paid the taxes as they've been assessed on the two separate lots. Okay, thanks. Ms. Twitchel, you had raised your hand earlier. You're on mute. Do you want to speak on this item or? Maybe you have her raise her hand again if she does, she may. Yeah, Ms. Twitchel, do you want to speak? I mean, Scott promoted her. Yeah, finger to unmute. So I assume she's decided against it. All right, well, then we will close the public hearing item on this agenda. Item. Okay, our last agenda item is ZSP 22-12, 284 Grove Street. It is a sketch plan to demolish 12 single-family modular homes and one three-unit apartment and construct 13 new duplex buildings, long existing loop driveway at 284 Grove Street. Scott, I'm going to, I mean, AJ, I'm going to be recused on this one. Okay, this is sketch plan. And I understand we have the applicant here. We don't swear them in for sketch plan, right, Scott? That is correct. And I'll find out there's one more item after this, AJ. Oh yeah, I forgot it's on page two. My institutional parking management plan. I'm extension request. So it's not our last. Well, Mr. O'Brien, I think you're here for this project. This is sketch plan. We've had a relatively long meeting tonight. We want to give you all the time you need. But the board does have some things to deliberate on. I would ask you to be relatively direct in your presentation. And if there's specific items you have questions about, I would ask that you direct those to the board so we can get right into it. So go ahead. Sure. Actually it's Nick Smith presenting on behalf of Ireland Grocery Properties. And Patrick's here for support as needed. Again, really quickly, this is that loop private drive that's located at 284 Grove Street. This is just to the southeast of Baybury, the recent developed project by FD Ireland. This is a separate parcel that consists of 12 single family modular homes and one three unit apartment building that's located within the interior of the loop. The modular homes are scattered throughout the loop here. What we're proposing at this time is due to the existing infrastructure, the existing building conditions, the deterioration is actually of these modular homes. Hi, Nance. Hi, how are you doing? Not really, no. The demolition of the existing structures and the replacement with 13 new duplex units. So the total 26 units here from the existing 15. And I believe as we've shown in our narrative, the density allows us with taking into account that with a steep slope area between 15 and 30%, we receive conditional buildable area from that. The layout is generally more conforming to Baybury development with these duplex units facing along Grove Street rather than away from Grove Street towards the interior loop. And then the remaining units all facing the interior loop once you get into this development area. You can see from the plan there that we have detached garages that service the buildings along Grove Street and then all the other units have attached garages. We have an internal drive that we're using to access the Grove Street units so that there's no additional driveways coming off of Grove Street. And I think we are showing adequate parking for these types of units which are likely to be all two bedroom units here. I guess a few other things here. We're trying to make use of the existing infrastructure including the sewer, stormwater, water systems, served by South Burlington actually in this location from CWD. And as far as stormwater is concerned, everything currently just runs into catch basins and goes off into the ditch up to the north, well to page up left and outlets down there. We're gonna revamp a storm system with the new developments that we're actually detaining a portion of the water to pull trading as much as possible and then controlled release for the remainder. So I wanna, I don't think that's necessarily a big issue for sketch plan. Sure, sure. I think there's something else that we should focus on. I read the staff report and this is sketch plan so this is feedback. I think you need to seriously consider the brick building. Yeah, can we, I guess I'd like to discuss that and I appreciate jumping straight into the point there. The existing brick building we, I'd like to point out two things here and I sent an email to Scott earlier today but one of the issues was there was actually an incorrect statement on our end as far as the project narrative is concerned. This brick building when originally researched was eligible for state register but it's actually not, it listed currently. So it's not historically listed on the straight register at this point. This was reviewed with Act 250 back in 1998, I believe. And at that time it was deemed that it would be eligible. It was never added. And since then we've had 106 associates review the building. There's been major deterioration, additions, removal of features with architectural significance. There's a full outline within the report provided by 106 associates which draws a conclusion that this building actually is no longer eligible. We're currently requesting a determination of eligibility for the structure and we're slated for the January meeting to review that with the Vermont architectural board. So I understand that there are a lot of comments that are not necessarily answered within the staff report concerning this building and its historical nature. But I think as we continue through this process it'll become evident that this building is no longer eligible. And since it's no longer eligible we would request the demolition of this building through obviously comments by the DAB on this. And at that time we were still, we had just received the report on this. So there was a lot of discussion around trying to retain either the total of the building or portion of the building. But the report was not really thoroughly reviewed by the DAB since it was just supplied to them that day. So again, I would just request that we understand that there are still a lot of outstanding items that we need to review as far as this building is concerned but we would push to put table some of those comments because we think that this will no longer be eligible for state register. Yeah, my point was you gotta be, I think you gotta be really prepared to address it. We're getting a lot of requests for demolition of historic buildings in the last year. And it's something that I think we've all been pushed on a lot of different ways. And the staff report notes it now. So be aware that it's something we're gonna be looking at. Yep, I think we understand that. And again, I think if we get into the report a little bit more here, we would see the, I won't repeat myself here necessarily but there are also a number of other issues other than kind of the ones I glossed over as far as removal of architecturally significant features and things like that. There's a lot of deterioration on the building including the brick and so forth. And there's been a lot of replacement as well. I guess I would take comment on that. Just to echo AJ, I think we're gonna look closely at this, it still looks like a very interesting building to me, how long have you all owned the property? Yeah, the parcel was acquired by SDI Ireland in I believe 2000, I don't have the exact year but I believe early 2000s during the construction process from Scott Mansfield. Well, I think if part of your argument is gonna be about the condition of that building we're gonna look very carefully at whatever steps you have taken over the last 20 years to maintain that structure. Yeah, and I think if you, again, sorry to jump in so quickly here, but if you do look into that report you'll see kind of the last pages. There has been quite a significant number of improvements done by Ireland to shore up the building including a full board basement walls to try and shore up structurally among some other items, but again, yes, I can understand where you're getting at. Yeah, okay. I don't have a ton of feedback on the project, it seems, we need housing and it's nice to see improvement. Mine was on historic, I don't know what else the DRB wants to raise in the sketch plan. Members, anybody? Brad, Nick, Caitlin, Chase, anybody? Leo, okay, well. I mean, just to that comment there, sir, AJ before you let me off here, but. No, no, no, it's fine, if you have specific questions for us on other items, take a minute and ask them by all means. I guess, really, I'll just kind of echo that the location of this, there was discussion on trying to retain this building and the location of this building and how it affects the grades and the areas around and the utilization of that interior loop really would become a challenge, obviously. And I think the retainage of this building could end up being a project killer, essentially of this nature. And, you know, this is providing significant increase in housing, including inclusionary units. And I would point out that a lot of the existing modular units are at end of life and they are vacant right now and actually would require significant improvement to become livable again. So, you know, we're not only are we losing, you know, are we down 15? Well, I would say we're down a few of these units currently. We're also not by kind of limiting ourselves here. We're gonna lose out on 26 units. But, you know, I just would point that out as well. Okay, can't say anything about it, but I hear you. I understand the argument. Yep, I appreciate that. As far as, you know, I guess the only other thing I would ask for the board is, you know, the utilization of the existing infrastructure, I think it makes sense. I don't know if there's any feedback on that. You know, the sighting, obviously the building is within the setbacks of Long Grove Street. I assume that approaches what the board is interested in and meets the regulations. And, you know, other than that, I don't, I don't know if we, if we were expecting too many comments because we think that this is, you know, unless there's something that catches the board's eye, we think this would be, you know, a vast improvement. Yeah, yeah, I hear you. I mean, it's nice to see housing. I like general design, you know, it's nice to see duplexes. I think we're gonna look closely at the historic demolition that was part of this. So with that, I'll close the sketch plan. Public comment, AJ. I didn't see anybody with their hand. Do we take public comment on sketch plan, Scott? Yep. We do. Did anybody in the public who wants to speak on this one? It's so raise your hand. You know, it prompted me to ask AJ because I saw Sharon Bush who spoke to this item before, but she's gone. She's gone. All right. Okay, thank you. Thank you. So we have one more item on our agenda, other business, a joint institutional parking management plan, extension of time. I suppose this couldn't be part of our consent agenda, but it seems relatively straightforward. I had one question on it, AJ. Okay, then let's, Scott, do we call a hearing for other business or what do we do? It's not listed as public hearing. So here's what I'm gonna do. Do we have the applicant here? Yes. Okay. Ms. Tebow, can you just briefly explain what you're asking for? This is another business. I don't think we need to warn it as a public hearing at this time. We're not taking testimony. Sure, can you hear me? Yeah. Okay, hi. Sandy Tebow, executive director at Katmah. And we had submitted a request for a six month extension for our 20, our two year joint institution parking plan that was submitted back in December or spring 2020. Well, actually it was, I'm sorry, approved December 1st, 2020, sorry. And it was approved for two years. It typically is a five year plan and it was approved for two years. We wanted to collect some more data to really understand what travel behavior was like during COVID and post COVID, the impact of telework and commuting. And obviously, the data that will impact the parking demand estimates. So we filed the report, DRP approved it for two years and we are asking for a six month extension, partly in light of the current ordinance update and progress. Kayla, what was your question? I guess the question that I had, Scott, and in your memo on this, you said that the ordinance that goes into effect next year includes the provision for a six month extension. Does that mean there's not a provision currently for the six month extension? Ha, that's like a trick question. What's in the adopted CDO for these plans? There isn't an express provision for six month extension. What's been warned for hearing the city council for adoption and therefore in effect does include that. And so they've applied, they've requested the extension while that amendment is effective and the adoption by the council. Okay. I think just a comment that I would make, at the time of the two year approval, I understand historically it has been approved on five years but the ordinance doesn't guarantee a five year. It says up to five years. So I just wanted to make that point of clarification. That was my only question, AJ. Okay. All right, all right. So, but no issue with the, that doesn't, I don't think effect the six month extension at this time. Is it six months that we're specifically seeking? Six months, yes. Yes, Scott answered my question and I do not have an issue with the six month extension. So I would move that under our other business item we grant the extension requested to the extent we need to do that. Second. Second. All those in favor? All right, we have your extension. Thank you. You're welcome. So with that, I will close the development review board meeting for Tuesday, December 20th and raise to the board what it wants to do.