 So, I'll get started. This is the Development Review Board of Burlington, November 8th. We're live and on Zoom. We take up items at the hour on the agenda, and when we call each item, we ask the applicant to come up to the table. Right on. Oh. Yeah. I'm going to chair out the head. So, we do have Nate Lavery here today acting on behalf of Lee Perry for Department of Public Works. So Brett 7-0-2 Lake Street, if we're taking these in order. So we're starting on our agenda. We're starting on our agenda. So we do have Nate Lavery here today acting on behalf of Lee Perry for Department of Public Works. So Brett 7-0-2 Lake Street, if we're taking these in order. Yep. So this is 23464 7-0-2 Lake Street, City of Burlington conditional use of existing site. City of Burlington Intert Street marketplace snow storage. It's the applicant here. We haven't done that yet. Yes. Do you want to take it there? It's the applicant here. We haven't done that yet. Yes. Do you want to take it there? Okay. I'm just going to take it to the store. I'm going to run the occasion rather than just to be in certain environmental matters. We've never worked with the city on this particular matter or permit. I'm going to have to thank my application. It creates any concerns and I can do a little bit better. So, I raise your right hand. So anyone else here to speak on this application, raise your right hand. Do you swear that testimony about the give is true? All right. So let's know what the product is. So this is our seasonal snow dump where we clear snow from many of the streets, a lot of the night in the streets, the street, round parking meters, speed, demolition, and people on the food. There's no snow. In terms of community aspect, the whole street, there's a lot of snow on the street. Just going to go through some of the streets. Clearly. Most of our work with it is It's burned. So the melt, as you can see around the outside, it's all burned. All the melt will run off down through the dirt, vegetation and everything else. It also catches up on all the paper and everything else that ends up with the snow that would be removed. And we go down, we send the crew down in the spring to clean that all up. So it looks like that's back in the picture again. It was reviewed by the conservation board Monday night. They have approved it every two years when it comes up. They did make a comment that this, the site has been very clean and it's in, is a much better use of the area than the old use of the petroleum storage area. It was unanimously approved. With the conditions that were recommended by staff. You've done this for several years. Um, members of the board have any questions about the application? No, are there any members of the public here to speak on this? Zoom or otherwise? No one from the public. You know, this is a public hearing agenda item, not a consent agenda item. It's a public hearing. Important entertain. It was just now. I would approve. So moved. So moved. We have a second. I'm sorry. Second in discussion. All those in favor. I hope. We've had in all the years. That's him here. Yep. Is it going to snows? Not for a while. But. Yeah, we should try to instruct all the guys. Make sure they must. I matured to remember. Yes. Yeah. I mean, just see if I can. Every day. Every day. Six months. One. Yeah. If you have any problems with your connection on your iPad, please let us know. We'll help you. So. Next item on our agenda is 1127 North Avenue. Okay. You raise your right hand. And anyone else wants to be heard on this raise your right hand. You swear the testimony you're about to get. All right. Okay. This is a reapplication from a permit that expired. Also reapplication. Okay. Any changes to what we previously saw. Change of. Hopefully that area. By space. Okay. Do you have any questions? Did you get a chance to look at the staff's findings on this? This is not. That's a critical. But I'm curious. He has a little bit outside green space. Right. No, he definitely wants that. Maybe a little bit of a bag. I was trying to put. Building it. So. There is some. I'm aware the theory used to be correct. Some of the biggest piece of grass you got. Yes. What's in the front now. Yeah. There's not a lot, but there will have a back door. Our property. Is that on that on your property or. That public property. The space. It would be the setback area. I'm not. I've dealt with some. Before you need to do anything. To address it. I know some. Depending on the services provided at the office. Sure. Right. I don't believe he's planning on doing any service. We'll have to look at that. And Mary, that would be something afterwards. I don't know. If they needed. If they need a state wastewater permit. That would be correct. We do have. Like in state waste water permit for the whole property. But we'll have to update that. And the letter of water and sewer capacity. You're correct on that. Water. There's a standard condition. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Sometimes it's over. So. That's not. See. Any questions. Any members of the public. If anyone online wishes to speak, would you raise your hand please. And I have none. Right. Yes, I'll. See for more of an entertaining motion on this one. It seems to be straightforward. Like motion. Yeah. That's fine. Second. Def second. Those in favor. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Well, I don't. I was in cancer. I use all the time. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's far enough away. This can be. Last one. Certificate of appropriate lists. ZP 23474. 7276. Elmwood Avenue. This is. You see in Michael Alvarez. Yeah. This is a resubmission of an expired project. Is that right? That's correct. There are a few site changes, but they're quite minor. Okay. Mr. Balance. Would you walk us through the. Site changes will change from the last time we saw it. Sure. Michael Alvarez. Re-application of expired. ZP 21509. You can start three unit. Residential townhouse. So. Again, this is a resubmission of an expired project. Is that right? That's correct. That's correct. That's correct. I bought them from the site. No, which would you prefer? Oh yeah. Thank you. Please raise your right hand. And is there anyone else on the. Line who wants to be heard. And. Okay. After me. That you swear that the testimony you're about to give is true and correct. So this is like Mary mentioned. Re-application of a previously approved project. Let's say. About a year and a half ago. We sort of came in to do. Get our building permit. We realized. So any permanent expired. So. We're excited to get this product moving in. There are some minor changes that we have from the previous. Application to this one. I think from the site plan, the only change. That we had was the handicap accessible. Parking. That we had. I don't believe on the previous application. We had had a question. We didn't have that particular parking spot designated when they. They. An alley provided for. Handicap parking. We decided to move it because it's proximity to. The two houses. And, you know, that way. There is a need for anybody. Use that handicap spot. The. Across across the parking lot. We're to get there. We also. We did designate before. I think some gravel. Between the bike shed. And the actual shed. That is currently located on the property. I think what we needed to do is just make sure we. Quantified that amount. Staff. And make sure. Within this lock. That we have. I'm not mistaken. I don't believe we had. The mechanical. Listed on the property. You did, but you hadn't identified the equipment on it, but the location was included. As it is here. Okay. Other than that, I believe all landscaping details are, are exactly the same as previous application. Besides the building is the same. The unit counts the same. That from a site plan. From the site plan. From the elevation. Get married. I don't know if you want. We made minor changes to the north elevation. Previous application had. What I romantically call Juliet style. We decided. We made minor changes to the north elevation. Previous application had. What I romantically called Juliet style balconies. Where they have sort of sliding door. On the upper level and. You know, has a balcony that's. Right. We decided. Based on a couple of other products we've done recently. We've done a lot of work on the right side of the building. And you can hear the little windows. Or something. I guess maybe the owner didn't want. Look out at graveyard. Without people, you know, I'm saying people in the graveyard. So. That's the south elevation here is the north elevation. So we originally had, those are bedrooms. On. I think they were on either end. The building. And we had originally like, like I said, we had Juliet. right there to protect, you know, for a fallen hazard. The other change, I, sorry, are those still included on some of the windows? I'm just looking at the elevations. It looks like there's still some balconies around. Maybe I'm looking at an old planset. I thought there's, that's an error that that was should have been included. So that, that, that no balconies, no balconies, no balconies on the project. I will say on the elevations set, there is a call out for party board. We would like to ask staff what we can do with additional approval to change that to what we call it. But what we, we've been using on our other projects, LV SmartSide. It's a wood product that we're using. I think it matches the design intent of what the city is looking for, the quality of products. It's a wood product, essentially it's a sort of a, I think it's essentially like a sawdust, they emulsify, they put together and they sort of shoot out at the moment. It's a great product that we've been using and seems to work out very well. You've been using it before? We have together. And it certainly seems to have been pulled up? It's relatively new. So I would say within the last decade, it's come out. But just for conversation purposes, the party board is heavy. And when the contractors are cutting it, there's a lot of dust at the word mask. Most of the time, sometimes they, it doesn't come prime, so they have to prime and paint it where the product that we're looking at is already reprimed. It holds paper well too, or comes painted. So it's, it's a good product. We like it. So I certainly think the same orientation, all of the rest of the design stays exactly the same. We will be using, I don't think we'll be using party board. With that staff report, everything looks good. Again, I don't have any comments, you know, that I think you need to go over. Have they answered any questions that they have? I think my only other comment is I think we're just excited to get this product going. And you guys know this site. It's this is certainly going to be it's certainly needed to be existing site has been this particular area has been developed for a number of years. I think as soon as we got approval, we're going home and ready to go and start talking. Are you explaining the basement that access it? It's not a finished basement. There is some use of storage there for the owner. It's primarily only accessed. It's only accessed through a bill cup. You have to open the doors on the east side of the building and there's stairs out down towards the basement. I think you're utilizing some of the stone foundation that's still there. That's exactly right. I'm merely, we had structural look at that existing redstone foundation. And we are utilizing a majority of it on the north side of the building. It's deemed structurally, you know, like the gold baron capacity of the building. We won't be using it on some other answers because I think we're expanding a little bit of the, I think we're not sure exactly yet on the south side of the building how much we're going to be utilizing. But on the north side, you can see that we're using some of the structure. But yeah, there's, there's a little bit of like a shelf in the basement that we're going to encapsulate and put a new footy in to hold on somebody just to show them to, etc. It says do you have 100 storage, 101 storage, 102 storage, but we'll just be, I think the owner wants to keep in place while there's a case people do want to use it for the personal storage. Yeah, Stafford, one of the first two, I put 5T or something like that. I didn't see it on the plants. So I'll just set note or show them to them where the plantings are. I see the plantings on the plant, I just don't see them labeled. Well, it's definitely, I think we're putting one on the civil plant or on the Elwood outside. Yeah, we're putting two in there. They show up in the rendering too. Yeah, and it also shows one foundation planting on the rendering. Is that any plant to put any planting out on the three sides of the building? There's space there. It's on the civil. It doesn't show it. It shows it on the rendering, it doesn't show it in the plants. Then, you know, if it doesn't show it on my civil drawing, then I, forgive me, I don't know if I test it today. It may have been. The rendering I produce Trudel, Trudel did their work on it. And so we're definitely planting right there where Mary's pointing. Right here. Yeah, but only the civil plan on the, up front of the building. Yeah, I don't have any plantings there. It's, right now it's long there. It's a mowing stuff. Yeah, it does slow. There's a, a great, yes, there's a great change between there. Yeah, and so sure. Can we say all windows are single or double? Are there any casements? No, for me, we've designated casements. Right. Do you find your casements necessary for the imagination to be open? You guys are open. I think we'll go along. Matt or Mary, any comments on the siding choice? I didn't see anything, Mary, in your report on that. We've had a lot of conversation about the siding materials historically. Now, to the experience of this product. Yeah, we use the start time. People seem to like it. They'll be seemed to like it. They'll be seemed to like it. Any further questions from the board? Is there anyone online for this project? If you have any questions about this project, would you please raise your hand? And I'm not having any interest here. All right. What was the public hearing on this? And I add the LP as a condition towards that something I have to come back. I'll reopen the public hearing. Sorry. What, what we like to add is the condition that her staff approval, we can modify the, the elevation to amend the party board and replace it with, you know, the smart side. Of course, the public hearing. All right. Thanks. You guys want to discuss this one, Jeff? Yeah, go ahead. So on ZP 23-474, which is 72 76 on one avenue. I move that we approve the application adopts staff's findings recommendations. I guess with the expectation that a revised elevation set would be submitted showing the different siding and also removal of those balconies that are still on the current. So that Jeff Brad seconds for the discussion questions that I know, that's right, right. All in favor. All right, there you go. So that concludes your public hearing agenda. We have some other business. We have two items of other business, a DRB bylaw amendments. Well, just one item, a DRB bylaw amendment. Mary, do you want to explain that to us briefly? Seems pretty self-explanatory, but. Yeah, it is. I hope it is. The bylaw amendment is to allow staff to view administratively those review items that previously would have required DRB review, but no longer. They're either related to changes in the comprehensive development ordinance or the home act, specifically the approval of duplexes, triplexes, and quads, as now allowed by the legislature and state statute. If there's new construction where there's a trigger that you would see it anyways, like construction of a new four unit building, it would still come to you. But we're talking about changes of use, which now by the home act can be permitted administratively. So that is the purpose for the bylaw addition only to say there are some situations now because of changes to statute or changes to the comprehensive development ordinance. There will be administrative authority. No, is that the ordinance has not been devised yet, right, to show this change? It has not been revised. And this is what's suggested here at the end. We've got to get to the meat here. That's for our, that's a change for us. That's a change, those are changing your rules. Right, but what about the ordinance, people looking at the ordinance to see that they can do these things? Well, admittedly, we're, you know, the ordinance has changed periodically with zoning amendments to reflect technical changes, statutory changes. Just like we did with accessory dwelling units, the statute changed and it preempted what we were doing. So this will give the bylaw will give us the authority to act administrative or administrative, we think they're already is. Yeah, I think you're wrong about that. That's what we're going for. That stuff is all I think is the favorite code work that the planning department is doing. A lot of the activities have a change screen that here it does not. I don't get it. No, but technically, I think, yeah, technically at 47, I think supersedes the city, right? So even though it's technically not allowed to build a block flex, anybody could right now on its 6,000 first or a flex on the 6,000 square foot. The box controls. I'm just thinking that the average person. Oh, 100%. It was going to go blind. Yeah. And the most they could look at the ordinance today. The neighborhood code is supposed to go into. We will be getting the next year. So expect for that repeat. I mean, that's toward their clients, whether that actually happens or not. It has to do my neighborhood code. Mary, the way the red line is written is just to amend the zoning permit that was previously approved to reflect those changes. Is there a situation where a new permit under act 47 could be approved administratively? I just want to make sure that language is broad enough to cover the circumstances that are contemplated in the statute. If you feel this language is not concise or there's room in there for it to be misconstrued, I would welcome this language. I haven't looked at the language in act 47 to know. This reads to me like we're all we're giving you is authority to amend a prior zoning permit. I don't think that's really what it says. Any zoning application that does not otherwise require DRB review to amend a zoning permit previously approved is to amend a zoning permit previously reviewed approved by the DRB to reflect changes in the federal state statute or in compliance development. The way I read that is this gives you authority. If there was a zoning permit previously approved by the DRB for an existing project this gives you the authority to amend that consistent with the requirements in state statute or when the ordinance is updated and or but it wouldn't give you authority to issue a new permit administratively and I just don't I honestly don't. Yeah, I don't even know what that sounds like. If it is only for existing permitted projects or if it would. My understanding is the bylaw suggestion which was drafted by by the zoning manager Scott Gustin was to allow us to exercise with the statute as given us authority to do which right now would not be consistent with those agreements. In many zoning districts right now triplexes are not permitted use but by the home act they now are. Would you like to see greater examination of this language? If Scott feels like he gives him the gives you all the authority you are now allowed under state statute I'm not going to raise the question about it just this is probably this feels more narrowly draft than I would expect based on my understanding of act. So if I'm reading act 47 in any district that allows year-round residential development due plexus are an allowed use right so that allowed use as I understand is permanent use which means no DRB review. In any district that is served by municipal sewer and water that allows residential development multi-unit dwellings up to four units shall be of permitted use which again why they use permanent and allowed in the same paragraph it's just gonna light me on fire. Unless that district specifically requires multi-unit structures to have more than four units so RL district year-round residential allowed multi connected to water and sewer four unit building married sky came with you. For use if it's new construction that tips over that 27,000 it would come in anyways for for a major impact or wouldn't be major impact but it would come in because it comes in over the 27,000 threshold for a COA level one. Okay. But if somebody had a single family and was converting it to a four unit we're with that phone. We would check the density calculations for the lot size and if the density is consistent then it would be could be permitted administratively. Would that be within the bylaw change that last example or not? Yeah what what if that single family use doesn't have this previously approved DRV permit? Right. Would you be able to review that under that bylaw change or that? We're only talking about changes of use that the statute now allow which either previously were not permitted or were conditionally permitted with your review and now the statute says single family to four units can be permitted as long as the density works under the neighborhood code the density is going to go out the window if it's adopted as it's proposed. It sounds like you all are comfortable with that zoning that bylaw change gives you the authority you think you need. It may be DJ and I are imagining a situation that just didn't get out of the way. You guys are the worst because there's some there's some there's some might be here for a while there are some units that doesn't have a permit right now but could under the statute have up to 14. Are you talking a house that was built in the 60s or something? Right yeah yeah by the statute right now if the density works for them they can have up to four units administratively. Do you want to think on it for a meeting or two? I think if you're comfortable with it we'll let the problem appear before. Well the problem is it won't come before you. But it will because some people say you don't have authority to prove that. You don't come before because it wasn't a previously issued permit. I think to me in the spirit of Act 47 it's making it easier to provide housing that makes sense to allow the stuff to skip our process. So yes it's only going to come before us if the labor appeals the permit after it's issued. Yes. Yeah and says for some reason this doesn't deal with it at the bottom. How much effort to go out right now. And any factors or variables that are involved in the development ordinance you would list them down most things and decide on those. Wherever we have regulatory review we will go through those steps just like we do for writing staff reports. I mean I think we're all learning what this means. And we're just by suggesting a method to our bylaws it's an understanding that the rules change now maybe you will not have authority over some of its applications. So it's an understanding that there will be administrative authority. It's great if you go back to some neighborhoods. It could be I think it's just being interpreted. I think it's going to be climbed very often. It'll see the California original does not have a lot of uptake initially. So it has a lot of uptake here. I know I've seen some municipalities do so. So do we have to approve that Mary? I'll move and we approve the bylaw. I'll move it as proposed by staff. All those in favor? Okay. That's our public mandate. What does the next one look like? We're rolling through these Mary. Joseph what do we have for the first meeting in December? First meeting in December nothing so far. We're already in two so the one for Thanksgiving is definitely there. I think there's three items on next on the next meeting. But I thought that I saw that that was happening. That's an eight plus.