 Just don't forget, those of us who have microphones have the microphone pointed at you when you're talking and for applicants, any applicants, when it's your turn to come up, you're going to sit at the round in the middle and whoever is speaking needs to speak into the microphone there. Any members of the public that are attending in person and want to make comments, you're going to want to go to the microphone right here on this end that's on this last table and use that microphone, just stand there and talk and make sure that you say your full name and address when you first talk it there so that we have that for the record. Okay? Okay. Thank you. And we can review some of that too in the little section. Yeah. I just wanted to... Everyone has a place to go. All right. I will call this meeting of the City of Montpelier Development Review Board to order. It is July 6th. My name is Kate McCarthy. I'm the Chair of the DRB. The first item on our agenda is the approval of the agenda. Before we do that, I want to check on something to make sure we have the order in a way that works well. I know there are people here for the Elm Street application as well as the Liberty Street application and is anyone here besides the applicant for the Northfield Street application? Okay. We just had a couple of people log in Page Gertin from the Montpelier Conservation Commission and... Oh! We have Mr. Walker again. So that was for Liberty Street. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. All right. So if there's anyone... All right. What we'd like to do is move it to the end of the agenda so we can accommodate some of the public who are here. Okay. Thank you. Thanks for the... Thanks, Zach. All right. So with that proposed modification to move the Northfield Street application to the end, is there a motion for the approval of the agenda? So moved. Motion by Kevin? Second. Second by Rob. I'm going to call the roll because we have someone on the phone. Okay. Kevin? Yes. Gene? Yes. Rob? Yes. Abby? Yes. And I vote yes as well. We've approved the agenda. Thank you. All right. So we're going to be now a staff review of the remote meeting procedures and process. As you can see, we are hybrid today, so we'll get some explanation of that. Okay. So I'm going to be sharing my screen, and this is mostly for people who are viewing from home, but over Orca to look at the screen, I've got a little information here, I'm going to read out for everybody. Hold on. I'm going to redo it. All right. So, anybody in this meeting, via Orca Media, you can participate in the board meeting, via the Zoom platform, here, or you can call in to the meeting at 929-205-609 with this meeting ID. If you're trying to log in and it's not working, you can email me, and I'll do my best to help you. For those attending Zoom, your video on is optional, for everyone attending, has a microphone that can be muted, please make sure you mute it when you're not speaking, this is background feedback. If you're calling in on the phone, use star six to mute and unmute. For those on the Zoom, use the chat function, only shooting, or logistics questions, any questions or comments you have on the agenda, you'll need to raise your hand physically. Physically, you'll need to raise your hand on your toolbar. If you're on the phone, you can press star nine, and this will do a little raise hand for us here on the Zoom. None of that is working, state your name, and let us know that you would like to speak in the chair or recognize you at the appropriate time. For anyone here who is commenting on an application, please make sure to provide your full name and address for the record when you first speak, and we ask that any set of comments be kept to an initial two minutes, the chair may grant additional time for speakers to make sure they follow up with questions or comments. In the event the public is unable to access this meeting because we have offered access via Zoom, we will have to continue it to a time if I'm finding that they're emailing and not being able to get in. I will now hand this meeting back over to the chair. Great. Thank you, Meredith. Comments from the chair, welcome back. This is our first in-person meeting since before the pandemic began, so thank you for being here, for taking time this evening to be here, and thanks in advance for any bearing with us that becomes necessary as we try to accommodate the Zoom platform as well as the folks here in person. We decided as a group that being able to maintain some sort of Zoom or phone in access was actually a silver lining of the pandemic in terms of people's ability to participate. So this is something we are trying, and we will continue as long as we can, as long as it works. So I also want to say that during the pandemic, during the Zoom hearings, we did all of our deliberations in a closed deliberative session for consideration. And as we resume in-person meetings, we're going to go back to what we did before. So I'll remind the board and members of the public what that is, which is that we can still vote to deliberate in executive session on those applications that seem like they would benefit from that type of deliberation. That would be in a closed session, and after that, the vote would be taken and the decision would be issued as soon as possible. So that is the practice we're returning to. I mentioned that we're doing roll call of board members, and I also want to mention that just so that people know, people are welcome to wear masks or not wear masks here. Whatever is comfortable, we won't assume anything one way or another about your choice. So please make yourself comfortable in this room. Okay? I don't know where to look, because I've been staring at a screen for 16 months. How do I make eye contact? That is the truth. So bear with us. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Okay. That's a good question. Thanks for piping up. Let's turn off the AC for a bit and see how it goes. Or at least is it on low already? Okay, so turn the fan on low. No, this is, we turned off, we turned off speaker in this room because it was causing an echo with these speakers, which is how we hear the people on Zoom. So let's see if this helps. Okay. And we'll also speak up. Yeah, we'll try to project. Give us a little ear sign if you need to. Thank you for letting us know. Great. All right. We're going to move on to item six on the agenda, which is approval of the minutes of May 17th and June 21st, 2021. We do not have in attendance. Oh, we do have an attendance. Okay. The people who were in attendance on May 17th who are eligible to vote are Kevin, Rob, Abby, and Jean. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? First, I would ask for modification. Chair, that if we would do the individual number. Thank you. Out of practice. Yes, that's exactly so. Jean, Rob, Abby, who are all these people? I'd like to introduce the other members of the Development Review Board. And I'll start with Kevin, to my right. Kevin O'Connell. Thank you, Kevin. Jean Leon. Rob Goodwin. Meredith Crandall, staff. And I've introduced myself as the chair. And then on the phone, we have Abby. Hey, wait. Great. Thank you, Kevin. All right. So let's go ahead. And are there any modifications to the minutes of May 17th? OK, is there a motion to approve? Motion to approve. Motion by Jean? Second. Second by Kevin. I'll call the roll. Kevin? Yes. Rob? Yes. Abby? Yes. Jean? Yes. Great. Thanks. We've approved the minutes of May 17th. And next, we have the minutes of June 21st. These were paper handouts upon your arrival, because the wrong minutes were included in the packet, which is all right. We've got the right ones now. Are there any corrections, modifications, to June 21st? Motion to approve. I have one, a fix. OK. At the bottom of page two, it says Rob mentioned that he doesn't feel like, feel there is not enough information available to decide tonight. I think the notch should be crossed out, because you were expressing that there was not enough in. Got it. Yeah, double negative. Yep. OK. Cool. No problem. Is there a motion to approve June 21st? So moved. Second. Great. I'll call the roll. Rob? Yes. Abby? In attendance June 21st. Oh, thank you. I had you down as in attendance. I was incorrect. All right. We do still have enough. We do still have enough, so I'll start over with the vote. Sorry. Kevin? Yes. Rob? Yes. Jean? Yes. And I vote yes as well. We've approved the minutes of June 21st. Thank you. All right, so with that, we are going to move on to the, I feel like I'm yelling, but I'm just going to keep doing it. All right? OK. They can turn the volume down at home. The first item of business on our list is 14 Liberty Street. This is a continuation from last week or two weeks ago when we talked about this application, which is for the demolition of part of a historic structure. So the first thing I'm going to do is swear in anyone who may wish to speak on this who hasn't spoken already. I'm going to swear everybody in and then go through it. Yeah. So is anyone here to be heard who wasn't before? Will, do you think you might speak on this one? OK, that's a lad. Yeah. If you're going to provide evidence, we'll swear you in. OK. I'm just looking to see if there's anybody new. Oh, and I see Amanda Sawyer has her hand up. That's OK. Are you Judy? Hi, Judy. Thank you. I think we swore you in last time. OK. So what I will do is I'll swear in Amanda and Will. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury? Yes. Very good. Thank you. Amanda and Will. All right, so what I'm going to do is let you know the order that we're going to follow in order to cover this. We're going to receive an overview from Meredith and then an overview from the applicant. At that point, board members will be able to ask questions of the applicant. Then we'll hear from other parties or participants who want to speak, about two minutes each. And then the board will have a chance to ask those folks of any questions. After that, the board is going to turn to the staff report, specifically the outstanding issues, and go through those. At that point, I will not be taking questions from other parties, but the board may inquire of the applicant or other parties if board members choose. And then at the end, each person who's spoken will have two minutes to share concluding thoughts. So yes, Allison, if you want to come up and sit in the, that chair has a microphone near it. Ah, you have your own computer. Do you need that to share stuff? OK. So it's hot mic, but not the hot seat. Yes. Great. So yes, I'll have Meredith provide an overview of the status. And I'm going to try and keep looking. You're watching the Zoom, so if someone raises their hand. No, I've got that up as well. I'm trying not to be awkward. Yep, it's a new juggle, looking for hands everywhere. So Meredith, thank you. Please provide us an overview of where we've been and what is new today. OK. So I'm going to keep this fairly brief. In general, this is a continuation of an application requesting board approval to demolish a shed that's part of a structure that's listed on the National Register of Historic Places. And the application is also for approval of moving the larger historic barn to a different location on the same parcel. That second aspect of this would normally have just been an administrative permit. But because we have that historic demo involved, this came up to the board. At the last hearing on June 21st, at the conclusion of that, the board asked for additional information regarding a clearer site plan, including details on setbacks, some stormwater information, and a quote for what it would cost to reconstruct the shed that's being proposed to be demolished, reconstruct or rehabilitate. We have comments from several neighbors at that point. And at this point, I think that we got some more information from the applicant, which is in the packet that everybody had access to. And those are really the outstanding things, as far as I could tell. Clear site plan, stormwater info, and what it would take to rehabilitate or reconstruct the shed. OK, so those were the outstanding issues that we came off the call last time, having to do with stormwater, how the building was going to be reconstructed, and the information for the test about whether it's OK to demolish something. So we've received that information. Great, so I'll turn to you and give you a chance to tell us about the additional information and anything else you want to present to help us answer those outstanding questions. We also have an estimate on the cost of rehabilitating the shed, which wasn't, as far as we know, part of the original historic structure. It was something built after the fact. And it's in very poor condition. And it would be expensive to pretty much, you would have to rebuild it. The estimate from Will came in around $50,000. And that is in addition to moving the barn and putting it on a foundation. OK, great. Thank you. And did you, another outstanding question, had to do with the stormwater. Do you want to talk about any additional plans? Yes. Excuse me. I'm having trouble hearing the applicant. I did not understand what she said in her prior presentation. OK, thanks. Maybe what we'll have you do is get that a little closer to your mouth, even though it's a little awkward. We don't speak into microphones every day. But thanks for chiming in to make sure that everybody can be heard. Great, so if you just want to reiterate the cost of the rehab estimate and then speak to the stormwater issue. The estimate to restore the shed would be about $50,000. It's in tough shape, and it wasn't part of the original historic building. OK, great. And for the stormwater, and he also spoke with Kurt at the Montpelier DPW and put together a plan that would involve gravel around the site to absorb the water and prevent migration to any of the adjacent yards. OK. And is Amanda here to speak on the engineering piece? She's here as a consultant on architecture. Historic preservation. OK, thank you. I couldn't remember who Amanda was with. Yeah, thank you. Thank you for reminding me. OK, so is there anyone else with the applicant, such as Will, who would like to add, if that's all right, with you? OK, just go ahead and introduce yourself for the record, and you're welcome to sit down if you're too. I like the old stuff. Well, we may have that eventually. What we're working with right now? Will Sheabaum, threshold building and design, formerly Steeple Chase Design and Build, and I live 217 North Street. Quick history, I have fairly intimate knowledge of the structure in its current state, having done a project for Allison in the past. Both the current carriage barn and the shed have no foundation. I mean, just like grade beams totally rot in the way. It's, yeah. So in terms of, I guess, the first point being is the renovation of the shed. It's one of those chicken or the egg things first. To do it properly, you sort of need to do the barn properly. But to do the barn properly, you'd have to have the shed done properly. And so my professional perspective of that shed is that it was something that was very poorly cobbled on after the fact and is not an original part of the carriage barn. And just, as I said, it would be very complicated to sort of restore it without having to restore the first barn first, which is in a poor location. Anyways, and then I guess the second point being the storm water is that I think obviously with new construction, where we would be minimizing the impervious surface by removing the shed and then being able to sort of control any of the roof water that comes off in terms of site plan orientation stuff, with as Allison was mentioning the gravel, all the foundation would be backfilled with crushed gravel and sand sloped appropriately. And then there's obviously opportunities for whether it's a rain garden, obviously gutters. The current building doesn't have gutters on it, does it? So yeah, it's just landing. So there'd be a lot more sort of intentional and smart planning infrastructure put into place with the new location and the proper once it's all leveled and on a new foundation. So I think those are my points that I want to bring up is that I don't see any historical value in the shed. The carriage barn, of course, it has a lot of potential to be a great another 100 years ahead of it or more. And then I think the water is a very easily manageable issue. So did I hear correctly that gutters will be put on the carriage barn, whereas they are not on there today? Yeah, I mean, I think that would be, I mean, it's good design no matter what, because that way you can control where it would go for instance, like the North Slope, the proposed site, there's obviously the access is primarily east-west a little bit off of that. So any of the water that's shed into the exact parcel on Loomis Street could be directed to the front of the building, whether there's a rain garden that's integrated with the crushed gravel backfill and whatnot. So I think there's a lot of opportunities to make it so that it's not going to impact anybody's property, and it's essentially flat. So when you say front of the building, is that the part of the building that faces the driveway, not the part of the building that faces 18 Liberty? Yeah, I mean, I guess when I look at it, the ridge is pointing to 18 Liberty, and I don't have a site plan in front of me, but. Yeah. All right, so next what we'll do is we'll give board members a chance to ask questions based on what new information we have heard. I'm sorry. Just to be clear, that one parcel that we're talking about when we say 26 Liberty, that parcel, there's a combination of 24 and 26, and 24 is the house that's right nearby, but yes, that property boundary is really for both 24 and 26, just as a point on the record. OK, thanks. Questions from board members? We just had to get it removed more accurately. Oh, make sure you're right near the microphone because they were having problems. Seems like we're talking about two stages, separate things here. One of the things we are, I think the information provided on a financial budget was definitely helpful, organized. So we're talking about the removal of the shed, and then the moving of the carriage barn, which are, how are those two connected? Could you summarize how those are related to each other? Sure. In order to restore the barn, well, I guess my application here is because the shed was mentioned on the historic register, I have to come to the DRB to get approval to remove it. I mean, that's really the first step. And the next step will be to move the barn onto a permanent foundation. Does that answer your question? Yeah. Yeah, I just don't know what we're making a decision on. OK, procedurally, if that's the issue? Yes. This is all one application. It's all one project, right? So that's why the whole thing is here. If all I sent to you was the thing that the DRB had to make their decision on, all that would be here was can the shed be demolished? But we spurred the whole application when it comes to the board because sometimes there's context, which there is here in that the part of the process of moving the barn includes you have to do something with the shed, whether it's move it with the barn because they're attached or take it off, right? So the stormwater stuff that we've been discussing is all related to the administrative approval part under chapter 300 about does moving the barn comply with the stormwater regs? I guess maybe to clarify the question, does moving the barn itself, the shed didn't exist, trigger any historical issues? No. No, if the shed did not exist, if nothing were being demolished, if the shed were in great shape and they were going to move the barn and the shed together, this would never have been here because we wouldn't have triggered the demolition provision at all. It would have just been moving it, and it would have just been an administrative permit. And so in theory, if the shed was approved and the plan was then to move both of them together, it would cease being an issue for us. Potential. Yeah, but that's just, I mean, it's hypothetical. That's hypothetical, looking for context. If the shed didn't exist in the first place and this barn was being moved, it would not be before us for its initial review. Correct. Though now that it is before us, it's our responsibility to look at the whole of it because there is a context here in order for the full permit to be corrected. One vote, correct, for the two sections? Yeah, it's one vote on the project unless there's some preliminary votes that happen on preliminary matters. Brooke, your hand on Zoom is still up. I don't know if you have a question still or not. So, I'm just, I'm sorry. Maybe in the message. Okay, she just took it down. I did that already before in the next poll up. Thank you, Brooke. So, good clarifications. What I'll do is take additional questions from board members on what we've just heard and then two minutes each from other parties and participants, and then we'll go through the criteria, okay? So, anything else from the board? I'll give you a sec to think. No further questions. Any questions were answered. Thank you, yep. I'm all set, thank you. Okay, you're welcome. All right, so we'll do two minutes each from other parties and participants. I'm gonna use the bell and I'm going to go in the following order, Steven and Judy, Brooke, Amanda, or Steven and Judy, Brooke, Courtney, Amanda, Kevin. We have two Amanda's. It's Kevin, right? All right, great. We have two Amanda's. Right, so we have Amanda on Zoom and we have Amanda and Kevin here. Oh, Amanda Sawyer, okay. So, what we'll do is next we'll do because the order of our procedure is people who are in support of a project and people have concerns of a project, roughly speaking, so that's what I'm gonna do. So, okay, scratch that. We will go next with Amanda, Steven, and Judy and then after that we'll, okay. It's Amanda Sawyer. Amanda Sawyer. So, Amanda Sawyer, if you'd like to unmute and speak, we'll give you two minutes to do so. Please go ahead. Great, thank you so much. So, I am Allison's consulting architect for the project, I'm a registered architect. I am lead certified. I serve on my local historic district for several years and on a professional level, I have extensive experience with historic structures. So, I just wanted to touch on the existing shed and its condition and in my professional opinion that appendage that was tacked on to the existing barn is not historical, it should be removed. It was haphazardly and poorly constructed. It really holds no historic value. I'm sure you've seen the photos of it. Even if it was to be restored per se, nothing of the original structure, cladding, windows, nothing original would even exist. It would really be just rebuilt. So, my goal here is just to help the board understand just architecturally how it relates to the barn and how it's really not, in my opinion, worth restoring or saving in any way. Thank you. Thank you, Amanda. All right. Next, I'll turn to Judy, since she's right in front of me. And if you'd please come up to this microphone here. At this point, we've heard from folks in our, everything from our previous meeting is still on the record. So, comments that respond to the new information are the most helpful. And I'll start the two minutes. So, please identify yourself and then go ahead. I'm Judy Walk. I live at 12 Liberty Street across the driveway from Allison's house and barn. We've lived there since 1973, so nearly 50 years. And I just wanna speak to how good a neighbor Allison has been in terms of communications about anything having to do with changes that any of us were making. We had the driveway fixed a while ago and we always, and she has been exemplary in how she has reached out to neighbors and asked for their input and made sure that nothing was done by surprise. And so, that's my only testimony. The rest of it, we can leave it to the engineers and the architects. Thank you. Thank you, Judy. All right. And I know that Steven is also here on the phone. Would you like to speak as well? I'm on Zoom. Thank you. Oh, yep. I'd like to speak to the runoff issue. As Judy mentioned four or five years ago, we had the back part of the driveway dug up and replaced with gravel and all that. Before that happened, we would have monster tools of water on the downside of the shed over the entire back part of the driveway. And since then, we have had no water problems whatsoever. There's no level of water under the shed roof. There is no pooling of water anywhere else. It all goes down into the ground. And I think that's what will happen when the bar goes moved. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you for joining us. Very good. All right. What I'd like to do now is turn to some other folks who are here to be heard. And I want to know who's interested in going first. I don't want to assume that just because someone has representation that they want their representative to speak first versus otherwise. So maybe I could look around the room and the Zoom and see if Brooke should go first or yeah, okay. So Brooke, please go ahead. I will start the timer and go right ahead. Hello, a timer. What I want to do is focus on the fact that there still has been no evidence presented upon which this board could make a determination that either of the criteria that are required to be proved by the applicant. Neither of those have been satisfied. Oh, tonight we've heard from an architect and I'm not sure the other fellows credentials that in their opinion, they don't think it's of any consequence of the historic that leaves not a historical guess what, it's on the registry. So if they want to make that argument, then I suggest that the applicant apply to have her building removed from a historic registry or wait for a change in the zoning ordinance because the very clear main language of the ordinance required that there be that section 3001, 3004 regarding demolition be satisfied. These are mandatory requirements. If you dare be, just not have liberty to impose any discretion. There's one of two things that has to be proven that the non-lawing the demolition would cause undue financial hardship to the owner or that the demolition is part of a site handout that would prove clear and substantial benefits to the municipality. Those factors have not been proven. There are pages of information evidence that they can be provided and considered by the board. None of that information has been provided. And the information on those lists that has been provided are based in favor of the fact that this is not an undue financial burden at all. In fact, the page 22 of the appraisal report or of that page 22, we see appraisal report that the applicant provided saying I can't get a conventional loan but I can get a different kind of loan. That very document indicates that there is no problem this shed does not create any difficulty for the property. It says quote. Okay, I'm sorry Brooke, I'm gonna interrupt you but I noticed I think you're reading from page 22 of the appraisal which you're citing as evidence about loans that are available and then. I think you're part of the appraisal report. Appraisal report, that's what I meant to say. So that's okay. So I do need to, if you wanna just conclude your thought then we can move on. I have a couple other things to say. Okay. I'll try to read very quickly. That page one of six which is page 22 of the piece of it, but yeah. Asks if there are any physical deficiencies or adverse conditions that affect the livability, soundness or structural integrity of the property and the answer was no. And then it says no repairs are needed to the home which has been extensively remodeled. So I think that that's very important because that shed in no way diminishes or causes any structural problem in terms of an appraisal of the property and she is able to get finance. The other issue that I wanna point out to the board is that in the testimony last time the applicant was asked about, did you know that this was historic, what you purchased it? And she said no, she didn't know about that, but she was also asked whether the shed, what the shed's condition was when she purchased the property and she said it was not in bad shape. So the biggest concern that I have is that the very large section of this section on demolition discusses the conditions to be excluded from review. It says demonstration of undue financial hardship by the owner shall not be based on conditions caused by a resultant from the following and then there's A through G that's listed and C says failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs. The testimony of the applicant was it was not in bad shape when she took title to it, she has done nothing and allowed it to deteriorate. It has not been repaired or maintained hence it is now as you have heard from her own architect going down no longer a sand. This is not what the city should be doing. The plain language of the ordinance prohibits you to consider that somebody allowed their property to be distorted over time to be not tended to. They have an obligation to do that. I cannot use it as an actual excuse. Okay, thank you. Brooke, I'm gonna stop there because it's now been about four minutes. I thank you for your comments and I'd like to move on to some of the other interested parties in the interest of getting everybody to have a chance to speak. So Amanda or Kevin or both? Sure, yeah, you can have a seat there, and identify yourself with your... My name is Kevin Kauffman, I live at 18 Liberty Street. How's it going? I don't think we've met yet. I have no background in architectural work or anything all I can speak for as a husband and father and owner of our house is how I personally feel. And I have to say I love that your effort to restore and to maintain a historical structure I think is noble and a good idea and I'm all about it. Speaking as your neighbor personally, I think that I am very concerned as having a house that's actually older than the structure that we're considering. And contextually, although we're debating over a shed, we're really talking about the structure being moved at the end of the day, it's now become one issue. And my concern personally is that the biggest thing for me, stormwater, our house was built in 1870, it was a dry stone laid foundation, we have two sun pumps going, and I don't think that a gutter system is necessarily with the type of rain we get here, sufficient enough for me to feel like I would be okay with that. Also the idea that there's gonna be a barn that blocks more than half our windows that's higher than our house, that's not as old as our house, that I don't know whether or not it's on a registry, but historically it's more historic based on time. I am concerned about the degradation that could occur if that was to be moved, especially because it was listed as being in a flood zone where you wanna move it to. Beyond that, I would be almost willing to help you with getting the shed removed, but I can't stand behind it no matter whether it's a historical structure or not, watching tens of thousands of dollars of my own property investment wash away into my dry stone laid foundation because you wanna save a barn that you're not even using. I mean I'm raising a family in my house. And I'm sorry, there's a certain part of me that's like I can't stand up for that, I'm sorry. And I respect you thoroughly for what you're trying to do and I don't wanna be a jerk about it, but at the end of the day I don't think it's the right thing to do. And anything that we could do to help to get the shed removed, if that's the problem area, we would love to help. I would personally work to do it. So that's all I can have to offer. Thank you, Kevin. Thank you for taking the time to be here. No problem. Amanda, do you want to step up as well or? Is it scary? Occupied? Yeah. How's that? Okay. Sleeping baby. Sleeping baby. Oh my gosh. Thank you. What we're gonna do next is give, at this point we will give board members a chance to ask questions of the folks who just spoke. But, Meredith? I didn't know if you were gonna let Courtney talk. There she is, Courtney, I apologize. Thank you. My eyes in the back of my head are not working very well, so yes. My eyes in the back of my head are not working very well. No worries, we're all suggesting to like post-COVID or at the time it stays that way. And I apologize for any technical problems You're good. You're good. I agree. You're good. You're good. Okay, great. And I will basically say, as you already know, I have broader concerns about very serious concerns about what this would do for the school of nature. The core of the property is involved in a cleaning type with an 18-liber date. And those concerns arise on the remediation of the state and federal legislations about historic properties. And you know I have concerns about solar gain, about air flow, about all sorts of things that I know the media's political views, quality of monitoring is very concerned about, and they show up with all relevant legislation. However, right now I know we're talking about the shed, so why not need to find out the answer to your requirements under 3-0-4-D-1-V. I would like to understand, I would like to see the evidence that this is an un-due financial virtue for the obligation to be an un-due financial virtue to the owner. And if it isn't, and then you have to consider whether or not it's a development plan to provide a clear and substantial benefit for the municipality, I would reserve an under every time to pop back in to that, but all I would add for 3-1-V is I know that we don't necessarily want the necessary ideas on the panel of the board, but I do know that your operation is a framework, and that I know that un-due financial hardship is quite a high quality to see. So I'm very curious to see the evidence that would clear un-due financial hardship for the property and for this plan. Thank you, Courtney. Thank you so much. All right, so at this point, it's the board's turn to ask questions about what they have heard, if they have any. I have no further questions. Gene, I'll give you a moment. Yeah, just one second. This is Abby, I think I have a question for her, Meredith, for you. Sure, go ahead. I'm curious if you could shed some additional light on how we define un-due financial hardship, or if that is a more of a subjective term that we do have to carry on out from you. We do have an attorney sitting on this, near this panel, so I will put her on the slide. Thanks. This is Abby. So I'm not giving legal advice as an attorney, I'm giving advice as the zoning administrator and staff. Thank you for clarifying after I put you on the spot like that. So, with regard to un-due financial hardship, we follow the regulations, right? And we're not looking for some other legal term for un-due financial hardship, right? So there is a standard in the regulations for determining un-due financial hardship, right? Which is in 304D sub three. These are the standards that the different items to consider, right? It says the DRB shall consider the following factors, and there's a list of them, A through H, okay? And there's a whole bunch of those. Those are all things that can be considered. Historically, over the last three years, since these regulations went into effect, the board has not said that every single one of those things has to be found, right? You don't have to have every single one of those things. These are all things that are considered, right? And then when we get to 304D four, it says that a determination of undue financial hardship may be granted only if the project fully complies with one of the following requirements, right? There's the for income producing properties and non-income producing properties. So these are the big picture conclusions you have to reach after looking at all those standards. And I can't, if people want me to read all those standards, I can, but I think that's kind of a waste of time. But I'll do it if you need it. Would you provide the reference and page number? Would you please provide the reference and page number for those standards for anyone who wants to look? So the reference for the standards, I don't have a page number because unfortunately the one I have printed out doesn't have page numbers. Oh, but I do. You do, okay, so it's page three dash nine. Three dash nine. So three dash nine through three dash 11, and it's section 3004D three, A through H. Those are the standards. Those are all the different things to consider, right? So things like applicants' knowledge of the properties. Can you move the mouse on there? We're gonna pause for a minute while we get the Zoom people showing you. There we go, it was the projector. Sorry, it's the projector going quiet. Okay, cool. For examples of those standards, it's applicants' knowledge of the properties, historical significance at the time of acquisition or of its status subsequent to acquisition, so you don't have to know about it when you buy it. Structural soundness of the building or any structures on the property and their suitability for rehabilitation, current level of economic return on the property is one option to look at. There's a whole bunch. So those are those, right? And then it 3004D for A and B, there are the requirements for determining undue financial hardship. There's one for income-producing properties and one for non-income-producing properties. I'm gonna read the one for income-producing properties, although Allison, can you just confirm that at least part of the barn, or is the shed in the barn? So this is all about the shed. So we'd have to find out if the shed has ever been rented out, right? I mean, the barn, is the barn rented out sometimes? But you can push the microphone back towards you. Part of the barn, do tenants use the barn for storage? The tenants use part of the barn for storage. So I think it's gonna be up to the board to determine how they qualify the shed, because the shed is the only thing that's gonna be proposed to be demolished, right? So for income-producing properties, the standard is that the building site or object cannot be feasibly used or rented at a reasonable rate of return in its present condition or if rehabilitated, right? So that it can be rented in a way to recover what it costs to rehabilitate it, and denial of the application would deprive the owner of all reasonable use of the property. In this instance, I don't think, I think that language is drafted, anyway, it says of the property. I'll stop there. For non-income-producing properties, it says the building site or object has no beneficial use as a residential dwelling or for an institutional use in its present state or if rehabilitated, and denial of the application would deprive the owner of all reasonable use of the property. That's what it says. If people want to know what they think, then they can ask me. Okay. Thank you for that question, Abby, and that explanation, Meredith. Board members have some questions that they would like to ask based on what they've heard. With the applicant, would you be considered, I mean open to the consideration of just demolishing the shed and maybe rehabilitating the barn without relocating it? Or that's? So I just want to briefly point out, we did discuss that at last meeting and it involves moving the barn twice off the foundation to build, or off of its current location to build a foundation then back on. I understand that, but there's just, there could be just a consideration of just the demolition of the shed and leaving where you can rehabilitate the barn in place without having to move it, can you? Is it possible to rehabilitate the barn in place without moving it? No, no. I won't do it. Okay, that's, yeah, I really won't. It's within six inches of the next door neighbor. I understand. It would be even more money to move it, like we talked about A to B, B to C, that whole thing. I won't do it. Okay. It's too much money. Okay. And it doesn't make sense to put it back in that location six inches from the other building. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Jean. Just make sure you're next to the microphone. For this entire project as a whole, are there any public funds or historical grants or anything of that sort helping you do this project? This project I've been talking about for about 17 years, right? I hired Will five years ago to do site plans to facilitate conversations with my neighbors, to share that. I spoke with the previous owners of both of those houses for about 10 years about this project. And it was about a year ago, year and a half ago, I was worried about the safety of the building. I decided to tear it down, tear the whole thing down and build a garage, right? Within the zoning, which would have been allowed. And I talked to Meredith and she said, you know what, you can't just tear it down. You have to come to the DRB. And she gave me a little pep talk. She told me I had to talk to a historic preservationist. And I never wanted to take the barn down. I wanted to try and figure out a practical way to say that I researched grants, tax credits, the whole thing. There's nothing I can access. And then I continued to work to get estimates. And I talked with Judy and Steamer who love the barn. And I don't know, I just am trying to push through and there's just, and here we are. But anyway, did I answer your question? No, you did. It's one of our criteria, a G, I think you answered it well. No, there's no funding. Well, it's one of our things to consider and that was a good answer, so thank you. We're just getting, they're getting stuff on the record. Yeah, I understand. We're getting. Regarding the standards for determination, which are 3004D3, we read these at the last meeting. I'm gonna do it again. I think it's important. The applicant's knowledge of the, we need, when we're making a determination about whether this undue financial hardship exists, we consider the applicant's knowledge of the property's historical significance at the time of acquisition or since. The structural soundness of the building and suitability for rehabilitation. The economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the existing property in the case of a proposed demolition or the current level of economic return on the property as considered in relation to a number of other things. So I wanna see if specifically, board members have questions about those. We have heard testimony previously. There wasn't knowledge about historical significance when purchased, there is knowledge now. We've received testimony as to the structural soundness of the building. We've heard about the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the existing property, a $50,000 cost to rehabilitate estimated and the current level of economic return on the property. One of the things I've also heard you say is that it's not possible to maintain the barn and so to invest in your property with the shed present. Could, would you be willing to share the overall cost of the project so that we can understand the $50,000 shed demolition cost or rehabilitation cost in relation to the overall project? I think this might help us understand the level of impact. Kate, this is Brooke Dingledine. I'm going to object to that question because that is trying to elicit the information or evidence that the applicants failed to provide you. We don't exercise objections in this panel. We operate in a quasi-judicial format that is meant to be as approachable as possible for applicants and other participants. We would love if everybody had 110% of the information that we request, but that is not always possible. So as we seek information through questions and answers, which are part of our procedure, that is part of how we get evidence even if it wasn't initially provided. So I'm going to continue with that question. Please go ahead, Allison. $70,000 for a foundation, for site work, to move the barn, to do some landscaping, very basic grass and some carpentry. Okay, thank you. So that helps us understand proportionally what the shed rehabilitation would be. Okay, so I'm gonna stop talking for a minute and see if my fellow board members, including Abby, if you'd like to chime in. Thank you. I really appreciate that question. Because it does help to understand proportionality. I'm wondering if there's any additional guidance to override or please help us understand how to evaluate. Financial hardship. See, I'm going to argue this time. I feel like we look to the standards of the by-law using the information that we have and that's really the best that we can do as a board and that's our job as a board. Can I just make one comment, Kate? Yeah. I think that the one thing to keep in mind is that this keeps saying the property, I think in large part because a lot of the time this is considering, most of the provision is considering tearing down a large building on a property even though it says looking at part, any part of a historic building, the focus should be on what is being demolished. As opposed to the entire parcel with all the things on it. Right, as opposed to the economic return from the entire parcel. That is what I mean. Somewhere where we're talking in here, there's bits in here about this and I think that a lot of times when they're talking about the property, they mean the property being demolished, I think in its poor drafting. And I think that's consistent with how we've done it before. Yeah. But Kevin has his hand up. Right, I have my hand up. If you could get just close. Back to the mic. Yeah, sorry. I believe we've exhaustively taken the public testimony and discussed this amongst ourselves and when the board is prepared, is ready, I will offer a motion to close the public session and move to deliberative session for the decision making part of this application. Great, thank you Kevin. That is a good transition to the next part of our discussion which is for board members to discuss further how the criteria are met. Jean, did you have something? No. Okay. Second that motion. Not a motion yet. That was not a motion yet. Not a motion yet. I'll show you cards. I'm ready for a motion then. You're ready, Kevin. I'm ready. Okay, so before we do that, I did also promise that everyone who's spoken has two minutes for concluding thoughts and I want to follow that through. It's going to be a firm two minutes. And what I'm looking for at this point is new information. And I will go in the same order as before just for consistency's sake. So Allison, anything to add? I guess the one thing I will add is, I did reach out to my new neighbors this spring when it looked like my project was going to move forward and it left notes in their mailboxes because it was COVID and I didn't want to knock on anyone's door and I knew the properties were sold and this is a big project with a big impact and looking forward to getting through to a decision and then having a conversation about the project to hear their concerns. Great, okay. Thank you, Allison. I'm just going to go in the same order. You can pass if you want. Will, any new information to add? No information from Will, okay. And Amanda on Zoom, any new information? Yeah, I wanted to add something. For keeping a comment regarding something that Allison could say, I believe in the last hearing where Allison commented that the shed was not in such bad shape. That's really a relative statement. Allison is not an architect, she's not an engineer. I just want to put my two cents in as a professional. That shed has been long gone for a long time. It is structurally, it is not sound, and it has not been sound for a very long time. So I just wanted to put that out there to the board so they understand. Allison did not let that shed go intentionally. That shed has been gone for a very long time even before she brought the property. So I just wanted to add that, so thank you very much. Thank you, Amanda. I will second that. Will has seconded that. All right, so I'll continue in order, and so next would be Judy, if you have anything to add. Okay. I just would urge you all to be practical about what that shed is not a credit to the city, but any way you can perform. Thank you, and I'll repeat that into the microphone, which is urging to be practical with this and the view that this shed is not of historic relevance to the city. So please, please don't stumble on the details. Is that okay? Notting. Okay, and I will also turn to Steven if there's anything new to add at this time. I can't be insane what my wife has said, so I'll be quiet. There you go. All right. And so next, I will turn to you, Brook, for two minutes of new information. Please go ahead. I want to talk about the law. You were a cross-ejudice court that is charged with implementing a law, and what I found out today is you don't even know what the law is, you would have never read it. You are not familiar with the information that you were supposed to be gathering. No wonder that there is sufficient evidence presented to me, yeah, for further proof. You folks don't even know what that further proof is or what evidence that could be submitted, and I'm sorry if that sounds disrespectful, but this is astonishing to me. In 25 years of practice, I had never seen such a thing. Where the actual members making the decision came to a hearing, completely unprepared to know what the law is and what to include. There are two things to need to be proven. You need to read all of this, all of the section 3004, demolition, because it's lots of information. I don't even know whether this is an income-producing property or not. It is, you need to know what the law is before you hold the hearing, so that you know what questions to ask the applicant, so that you can figure out if she's never been approved and if you don't understand the information that she has provided. So I'm sorry that that isn't practical. It's called following the law. No one here has the right to deviate the law. That's just as a planning mission, that they decide to change their ordinance and change the requirements of saying that something isn't going to sort a billion, if it is only going to sort a register, sorry. It's in the demolition section and you have to follow the law. If she hasn't produced the information, those are the $50,000 to move this shit somewhere else and the ordinance is going to cost 70 grand, that has nothing to do with undue financial hardship. We have no relevant information about what money is produced by this property. Is it something that leads one to believe that there's a financial hardship and that is not the demonstration? Okay, thank you. Well, I would say something else. Lastly, let me see one more thing. The notion of limiting people to two minutes during a cross-state judicial hearing shows me and demonstrates that the board does not understand its different roles. It has public meetings where it allows people who want to speak on the general items to weigh in and make the meeting a limited amount of time that people talk about on the general items. This is a different matter. This is a big part of a judicial hearing and you don't just open it up because it's a free call or anybody wants to talk for two minutes. You figure out who it is going to be to the party and you allow them to present their evidence. You allow them to ask information from the applicant not through some other person. We were trying to do evidence but I was not allowed to do so because I was limited to two minutes. That's just, they were not needed to say which is not what a lawyer does. A lawyer who presents evidence asks questions so that the attorney general can get that information view-wise. It didn't apply the law to the facts of the case. So I'm very distressed about this and I think it is an affirmation of the due process. So I do appreciate you lagging me and initialized my due process argument but I would caution the board that this is not the proper way to proceed at hearing. And lastly I would say neither standard has been met legally before it has been approved. Thank you. Thank you, Brooke. Thank you, Brooke. Thank you for your feedback. Next is Kevin. If you have anything new to add. I'm gonna come up to the microphone if you want to add something. You're gonna switch off. Oh, that's the same thing. I just remember the thing I could say is that with those comment about the chicken and the egg thing. We've got the microphone and we're gonna support the meeting. I mean, what Will said with the chicken and the egg thing, it's in, as you guys, the board said, contextually it kind of leads one into the other that I kind of beg us to consider that although we're talking about the demolition of a shed, we're really talking about a much bigger problem or issue or proposal here. Okay, thank you. Amanda, go right ahead. My only comment is I don't think it's a very good time to be pricing out, fixing a shed because it's very, very expensive right now to get lumber. It's my only comment. Thank you. Thank you. All right, and Courtney. I'm running out, thank you. Okay, thank you, Courtney. All right, is there a motion? I will make the motion to bring the public session to a conclusion and to move into, for the board, to move into deliberative session. At the conclusion of the public meeting. At the conclusion of the public meeting. Okay, we have a motion from Kevin. Is there a second? Second. Okay, I will call the roll. Kevin? Yes. Jean? Yes. Rob? Abby? Yeah. And I vote yes as well. We will deliberate on this in a closed session at the conclusion of this public meeting and then a written decision will be, will be issued as soon as possible. But, do you have a question? Okay. So, if there are any process questions, go ahead. Yeah. So, the other applicants will go and there's, you won't have any more questions. That's correct. No. That's right. This closes the evidence. The evidence gathering is completed. And it's not rude to ask if you can go home. Nobody, none of the other applicants will take, will take offense. Yes, you can go home. Everybody for this application can go home if they wish. Thank you all for your time and work. Thank you. Okay. I'd like us. Brooke has her hand up again. Okay, is there a process question from Brooke? Brooke? Do you have a process question? Nope. Brooke's gone. Okay. All right, thank you all. I wanna make sure that we do the next application in one go. So, I'd like to propose we take three. Three. People can stretch, get some water, go back to sleep. Use the restroom. So, thank you. We'll be back in three minutes. And I think the people remaining or the people involved in this application, right? And I just want to get my bearings. We are, what we're going to be looking at for those just, who may be just joining us is a request for shared parking approval and more than two times member parking spaces, 485 Elm Street. And we have on Zoom, Cheryl Rape Adams, Christopher Adams, I believe, there you are, is Elliot Curtin present. Elliot is here in person and Les Church is present on Zoom. Hi Les, thank you. And then I also see that we have Paige Garten, Lin Welles, and Betty Crawford. Are you all here to participate in this? Are you all here to participate in this application? Mostly we listen for me, but thank you. And Lynn? I think that's me, and David's there to represent us. David. David is gonna represent you. Okay, I'll get right over to David in a second. And then Betty, are you here for the Elm Street discussion? Yes, I am. Thank you. And in person, David? That's right, David Welles. David Welles, great. David and Lynn. Okay, thank you. Thank you all for waiting. Thank you for being here on a Tuesday evening. So as I mentioned, this is 485 Elm Street. We're going to be talking about shared parking and perhaps about riparian buffers as well. We're going to take a similar approach structurally to the previous application you heard in which we receive an overview from Meredith and overview from the applicants. A couple minutes each from other parties and participants. So as a board, we can sort of hear what's on your mind, whether those are concerns or support. After each of those, board members will ask questions and then we'll go through the criteria and the considerations within our staff reports. At the end, we'll do a wrap up if we need to depending on where things land. So what I will start by doing, as I did before, is swearing in anybody who would like to speak on this matter. So if you think you might have even a comment, an opinion or a fact, whatever you like, please raise your right hand. And do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give under the pains and penalties of perjury shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? That makes sense. All right. Thank you all. Thank you all for doing that. All right, great. So I'll turn to Meredith for an overview, please. I just have one thing real quick. Oh, yes, Rob. I don't think it's an issue. Elliot Curtin did do work on my house in 2020. I don't foresee a conflict, but I'm disclosing that to the board. OK, that work is completed? Yes. OK. I knew we were going to survive. He was really paying attention to your house, Rob. Sorry about that. But actually, that's probably a good thing, right? All right, thank you for disclosing. Does anyone participating have an issue with that? OK. All right, thank you. All right, overview from Meredith, please. Just one second. Betty, was your hand raised because of the swearing in? If so, you can just do star nine, and the hand raise will go away. If you have a question, then you feel free to do star six. And if you have a process question, do star six and unmute, and then ask the question. I think I'm going to go forward. Feel free, Betty, if you need to to email me, if you're having some technology difficulties. And I'm also keeping an eye on email. And just because it's hard to remember sometimes on the fly, you said star six is on mute? Star six, I believe, is on mute. And star nine is putting your hand up and down. OK, thanks. OK. Thank you, Betty. Yes. OK, so did you have a question, Betty? Or was the hand raising for the swearing in? My hand was raised for the swearing in. I'm sorry, this is the first time I've ever done this. That's OK, you're doing great. This is the first time we've ever done this in person and Zoom at the same time. So we're all having firsts tonight. We're in it together. OK, all right. Thank you. OK, so everybody who got the packet ahead of time has had a chance to review the staff report. I'm going to give a little bit of an overview. And as I've been thinking about this, there's just sort of a way to describe the situation that I hadn't really pulled together in the staff report. And so I'm going to throw that in here as well. So this application began with a complaint from a budding property owner and enforcement proceeding at the zoning administrator level myself. And essentially, two activities occurred without a permit. There was new impervious surface created at 485 Elm Street. And then a business at Forcoming Street was using the impervious surface for off-street parking. The impervious surface could have been approved administratively in reviewing the way the regulations are drafted as they are written, which is zoning administrator. I have to enforce them as written. I am not allowed to use discretion when there's gray areas, nothing like that. I could not approve the use of that gravel lot as parking for a commercial entity as these regulations are written. So this is why this is before you. They could have come to me and said, hey, grant us this permit. Here's the application. And then I deny it. And then it comes here anyway. Or it just comes here as an application. Given the situation, I opted to let them just come here with the application as a way to try and resolve this zoning issue. So there's a couple of complications that are noted in the staff report. One is that the business at Forcoming Street is a non-conforming use in the zoning district in Res 9. I categorized it as a contractor's yard. And then two, the surface parking use is not allowed in residential 9. Our definition of surface parking is very, very, very generic. It basically just says a open lot or a structure used for parking. That's what surface parking is. So in trying to look at this and what the key question is, I think as I've had even more time to digest it, I think a key question is what the board determines is meant by surface parking. So surface parking is not allowed in residential 3,000 through residential 2,400 or the rural zoning districts. This is all in Figure 2-15, the use table. But almost all of the zoning districts, including all of those, require off-street parking. You have to have off-street parking available for your use. And in this section 3011 that requires off-street parking for all of these uses, it allows for shared parking agreements. So there's this conflict here between what is allowed and what isn't allowed based on the way things are defined. And so I think that there's this question of did the council intend to bar surface parking except in the highest density residential districts? So unless you're in the highest, is your only option if you need to get off-street parking to be in a residential, that's not on your parcel, to be in those in downtown? Can somebody in a residential neighborhood who doesn't have enough off-street parking not be allowed to use somebody else's driveway because that surface parking in that use isn't allowed. It's a weird conundrum as I'm continually thinking about this project, how, and this is why I couldn't resolve this. So does shared, your question, does when parking is shared, does it become commercial parking, does it become surface parking and therefore not allowed? Right, and there's nothing in our definition of surface parking as a use that says it's commercial. Is that just, is that an oversight, I don't know. So I know this is, this is a broader discussion than I normally do at the beginning of an application. This is something that I've been working with for months and months and months. And it's, at least it feels like that. And it was, I had some conversations today that had me sort of reframe this a little bit and how I was thinking about it. And so the determination level questions are in the staff report. It just wasn't pulled together in quite that perspective. Okay, yeah, I would add to that by saying, well it is our job as a body to interpret the law as written in black and white. There are also areas where we need to understand how the pieces of the law interact. And that is, it is those circumstances that will bring an application to our board for multiple people to discuss and understand rather than ask one person to go through a checklist to say that something is or isn't suitable. So that's why we're here. Okay, thank you, Meredith for that overview. So what I'm gonna do now is turn to the applicants and I'm gonna go in the order that is on the staff report and give you collectively a chance to talk a little bit about the project, what you're asking for and the circumstances. And you know, aim for a few minutes and then we'll see how it goes. So I will turn first to Cheryl, to Cheryl. Hi, our application contains what we're seeking which is to park those, to allow those cars to park there just during limited hours, those personal vehicles. And as we continue to manage the not-lead infestation down by the river, it sounds like there are other moving parts here, dot, dot. I don't think I have a lot to add to it. Okay, thank you. And I think you're there with Christopher. So I want to make sure he has an opportunity to speak if desired. Thank you very much. Cheryl said my feelings as well. Okay, thank you. So next I'll turn to Elliot. If you'd be willing to please come to this round table and speak into the microphone and just identify yourself and your affiliation. My name is Elliot Curtin and I'm four coming street, mall payer. We're just looking to get two parking spots. And yeah, we're just looking to get two parking spots put in the back. Just cars, maybe one truck and a car, office manager and then the owner of Free Range Builders Last Church. And obviously there'll be pretty quiet people. There won't be a lot of noise from those individuals at this time or ever. And that's it. Okay, thank you Elliot. You can stay there Elliot. Oh yeah, yeah. If David wants to talk, he's got the microphone over there. Right, and I will also next turn to Les if you'd like a chance to chime in. Please go ahead. Hi, thank you. Can you hear me okay? Yes, thanks. All right, great. So yeah, there's a, we have a number of vehicles. We're at some front of the building parking, but we are constantly moving vehicles at this point to get to driving around out there and make sure people can come and go. An extra two spaces in the back would definitely help really get that one. I think at this point, we're going out trailers or in commercial vehicles other than a pickup truck would be back there. And that's pretty much it. So we're just looking in the make up a little bit more means and means for the decisions. Okay, thank you Les. Okay, so in the order that I laid out, I said would hear from the applicants and then give board members a chance to ask a few questions and then we'll turn to other folks who wish to speak. So let's maybe do some kind of high level orientation questions from board members to the applicants if you have any. I'll kick it off while people are thinking, what is the required number of parking spaces for this particular use contractors yard? Oh, I guess that would be for Meredith. Yeah, so you mean the minimum, the minimum required spaces for this use? Okay, so it's because it's a contractors yard, it's considered commercial. No customers visit the site. And so with the 2,112 square feet of the interior of the building, it's a required minimum of two parking spaces. And then the maximum that I could approve administratively would be four. Once they go for more than four, they need to come to the board for approval. And so their total here, the request is five, counting the shared parking agreement. Okay. So even the backs you can approve administratively is four? Right, the most number of parking spaces I could approve would be four. But it's considered to be commercial, does that change that? No, this is the, because it's a commercial. So this is a, the calculation is based on it being a commercial use with no customers visiting the site. So then, sorry, I didn't, I don't think I put the actual calculation in here for you and I'm sorry about that if you give me one second. So it's based on the square footage of the commercial use, which is the contractor yard. It's the commercial square footage within the building, right, we don't count the outdoor storage. So here's a question. Up the street from this location is the timberworks. Yep. How is that under what criteria? I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna, it's the, so the timberworks should have been calculated on this same basis. I didn't do that permit approval. I'm not gonna go, I can't go back and like look at that but it would have been because it was approved under these regs. Here's the key. The key is that it would have or should have been evaluated under this. Yeah, it would have been evaluated under the same standards. I don't know if they said, their location is designed to be a showpiece. People are supposed to come there. So the exact calculation would have been different. The ratio would have been different but it still would have been based on the total square footage within the building, right? And looking at what's in here as to, it's probably commercial use with low customers, small customer visits. But they do have customer visits. They do have customer visits there, yes. It's also a different zoning district. It is also a different zoning district. But that doesn't matter for the parking ratios. Good point, good point. Okay. Other questions, basic questions to get us oriented. So this application is approval of how many total? Five. So just one more. Right, one more than the max I would allow. But two of those are not on their site itself. So it's a, right, that's the whole, that's the whole conundrum. That's the whole conundrum. Okay. So I'll ask, and since we're talking about number of spaces, when I looked at the map, it looked like the gravel area that we're discussing is larger, can accommodate more than two vehicles. Am I reading that correctly? Yes, can accommodate probably seven to eight. Okay. But for noise sake and for neighborhood. Make sure you close enough to the microphone. For neighborhood ease of use and for things like that, there won't be any construction trailers. It'll be blesses truck and the office manager's vehicle. And if we have to nail it down to those two vehicles and give you those plates and everything else, we can do it for you. Thank you. Thank you. The reason I'm asking is that usually when we approve a lot, we approve the lot and that's about as far as we take it. Though I appreciate the offer of license plates. I'm not gonna ask Meredith to do that enforcement piece. We don't want the full, we just want two spots. Yeah. So you're requesting two spots. Okay. Can I ask a question? Not just yet, Paige, okay? Okay. I'm gonna have anyone with questions who's not an applicant. I'm not actually looking at you. Bring that up during that time. Thanks. Thanks for checking though. Other questions from board members. Because we're talking about a shared parking arrangement, I think it's okay to ask this and tell me if I'm off base, board members or others. But I understand from the staff report that 485 Elm Street operates a home-based business that is correctly permitted. And that looking at the map, that includes some parking. And it is not our job to redo projects. But as far when shared parking is considered, I sort of look at all the properties around. And I wonder if, I'm gonna not ask that question actually. That's not what we're talking about here. I'm not brainstorming to tell you what to do. I apologize. I'll take that back. I just got curious. I'll rein that in. Other questions from people that are more directly relevant to what we're talking about. From board members. I said people, I meant board members. We're all people. Okay, I'm gonna turn now to other folks who wish to be heard on this. And starting with Paige, please. As a member of the Conservation Commission, really the only thing we can consider is the riparian area. But I'm curious to know if any part of those parking spaces will be on the setback because that is not, and if the measurements were questionable on the diagrams, and are they varied? And so, two questions with regard to the gravel. One would be if the parking is on the setback. And the other would be is the gravel more than 20% of the entire setback area. And my assumption is because Chris and Cheryl have this long water line boundary that probably they don't have a bigger setback than a big enough setback to accommodate that. But I just wanted to check. Yeah, thank you for checking that page. In our staff report, I believe it says that the percent coverage is five and a half percent. Okay. And the setback, sorry. That's okay. There's a lot in there. And the area that's designated for the vehicles to park in is not within the 25 foot water setback at all. Okay, thank you. Okay, yeah. While you have the mic page, did you want to make any additional comments as a interested person? No, when the applicants came to the conservation, commission, they did mention that their intent was to over time get rid of the knotweed that was in the riparian area. And I guess I would just recommend that that they continue to mow it. And if possible, wake up the mowings because knotweed can spread from very small amounts. And eventually get rid of that and replace with woody vegetation, which the applicants did say they were interested in doing, but that's not in the writing of the application. Okay. All right, thanks, Paige. Appreciate the conservation commission taking some time on this. All right, so to hear from other folks, next I will turn to Lynn and David. And I think I heard Lynn say that David will represent. So if that's correct, please go ahead and take a seat at the guest microphone. If you'd be willing to just introduce yourself and say your address. Absolutely, and thank you for giving me this opportunity. I have some concerns and I've put them in writing and I've forwarded them to Meredith, but I have additional copies that I can give to the board this evening. Great, thank you for bringing those. You're welcome. So my concern starts with, I feel there should be really strict standards about obtaining variances and the project or the work that happened on this parcel happened without an application and they happened without my knowledge or I would have brought it up to some authority in Montpelier. The business of Forcoming Street originally did not conform to zoning ordinances and this requests to expand non-conforming use on top of the existing conformity. That's a concern for me. This was brought up just previously in the meeting. The Repay Adams party and their business already has ample paved parking spaces and does not need additional parking in the gravel lot requested by the permit. Having a gravel parking lot used for business directly behind our border in a medium density residential zone inhibits our enjoyment of our property. I've included photos that shows the previous use of many vehicles, some small, some large. So there's the traffic but also my concern for the previous use was the noise factor that employees would come, some driving motorcycles and this would start at 7 a.m. and be directly behind our property. So that's a great concern of mine. I'm also concerned about the riparian barrier and the requirements around that. The Repay Adams party is claiming that keeping an impervious parking area is their effort to control knotweed but just quickly looking to see local experts, the UVM extension or the Vermont Agency of Fish and Wildlife. They all recommend cutting back knotweed, frequent cutting back and they recommend planting native species but nothing ever recommends putting an impervious area to prevent knotweed. I see no plans for a stormwater control included in the application. That's a concern of mine. And in speaking about setbacks, I know we're talking about the setback to the river but my concern also is that if a parking area is established it directly abuts my property, just right smack against it. And that's a concern of mine. So I'll just conclude. Oh, also in the evidence that I presented you could see that prior to this area being developed, a 2012 satellite Google image shows that there was woody vegetation in trees in that area before it was cleared and this project took place. So those are my concerns. When did you take these photos? The ones with the... You can tell it's up, so she doesn't have any knowledge. The photos were over a period of time in the spring. So basically from the period of February to now showing the use of the property. Thanks. Okay, I'm gonna give Elliot a chance to get to the page with the photos and I can share it on screen, so Cheryl and Chris and other people on Zoom can see as well. Thank you for accommodating our Zoom guests. So the pictures that we're looking of the title, they're about to appear. The title of the page is photos showing impact of parking area use. Is this the parking area in question? Item D on the site plan that we are talking about retroactively approving. So these are photos of the entire parking parcel which was a great concern to me and I'm concerned about the continued limited use in this application. Okay, so I wanna make sure that we understand what is part D on the site plan and how that compares to what we're looking at on the screen. Is from here to here, D on the site plan? Roughly, and if you look at the truck closest to us, I'm sorry, that red truck in the corner, and that other truck, roughly, those are where the two spots are being asked for. Roughly here, here. That's correct. If Mr. Wells feels that it's abutting too close to his property, we can take that and go a car length even further over from that. And Mr. Wells' property is right here. That's where that fence is. Okay, thank you. So Elm Street, your house, parking area, river. Correct. Okay. And I just wanted to add, as far as the Repair and Barrier and Japanese knot weed goes, we went through an extensive bridge construction project on Cummings Street that I was more than willing to participate in and help the city and the state in any way I could. One of the things that they did for Japanese knot weed mediation was put down weed, mat, and stone on the side banks from the bridge, probably 35 feet down the river, which is basically what I did in my backyard or their backyard. So the state obviously did that, and we followed suit in that. Thanks for that point of reference. Okay, so it looks like more than two vehicles in that area. And we're not asking for that. We're only asking for two vehicles. I went under, again, extensive bridge construction project. I needed more storage. We had a storage container out there that's been moved. Everything that has been asked of me on that property I've done. I've done light control. I've done parking control. I've told my guys not to make noise in the morning. I've moved the whole location. I bought a whole entire new place to go so I can get more trouble elsewhere. And that's the North Franklin, sorry, the Franklin Street, which I think we got referenced to in our staff packet. Okay, thank you. What was the date on the photos that you provided here, Dave? Do you know, David? No, I don't have, I have the approximate date. So it would be between February, 2021 and this month. Okay. And was that July? No, no, I'm sorry. No, to be clear, because the parties were following the request of Meredith that when they were to stop using that, they stopped using that. Okay. So it would be February till whenever that date was June 1st. February until they were told to stop and at which point they did. Okay, thank you. So February, 2021, was the bridge project completed? Oh, February, yeah, the bridge project was complete by then. And we could use the front of the shop at that time. Okay, all right. Good, we are gonna make sure that we hear from Betty as well. I do wanna just look to Lynn, see if there's anything that's come up. Looking if there's anything she would like to add. I ask everybody who's present if they want to speak. So Lynn or Betty, Lynn's shaking her head, no. So Betty, if you wanted to talk, you'll need to unmute with your star six. Sure, go ahead. Hello, Betty. Go ahead. Hi, I live directly across the river from the Rookie Adams building and I have a problem with the destruction of the view. I have a view of somebody's parking lot now. I went along, I've had hydraulic lifts shining in my deck doors at night, motorcycles in the morning. It's been a lot of noise. I don't understand when they took over this building, there was pre-existing parking in the front of the building and there still is. I don't understand why that isn't being utilized. And I just don't see a need for any parking lot behind that building, any parking spaces at all. Thank you, Betty. Okay. Does anyone have any questions for Betty or David or Paige at this point? Meredith, you want to add something? Just make sure you're talking about board. Board questions, thank you, that is important. Oh, thank you. Thank you. Lynn, you can't hear me. We'll just take a second to make sure that works. Okay, thanks for that. Sorry Lynn, I'm not quite sure what happened. Okay, questions from board members. I think we... Okay, this is Abby. Yeah, go ahead Abby. I'm wondering if the applicant could talk about the alternatives to creating these two spaces if kind of what alternative or other scenarios they may have explored? One alternative was to move out of that location and that was done. That's what you, but Elliot did with his business. And Les is still there, right? There was two companies in that one building, now there's just one company. And free range builders just, they do such great work that they have to expand. So they have to add another vehicle. So. Okay, thanks. So that's also a good reminder that we're talking about two businesses using the same location. One of those businesses has found an additional site or alternative, alternative, additional. You're moving. Alternative, two separate businesses. Yeah. So is the utilization of the two businesses using the same site? Is that a temporary solution? No, so that's, so I've removed everything off site. I have no vested interest in that building except I keep one office and that's the office manager that has one office and hence the parking spot. One civilian vehicle or whatever you want to call it, Turner, I get it. So I do want, I think Les has his hand up. And even if he doesn't mean to have his hand up, I want to invite any comment on this question. We're a little different business than Elliott. It's the more you do in a longer term project. Most of our equipment is out quite a long time. Most of our crew is off site. Oh, so I'll turn most of that. But we're still in. We have the project manager, the office manager, myself and usually one other person's in or out and so we're pushing for maybe five spaces. It's pretty tight out front. And it was really tight when we were going to Bridgewood, which I think some of those photos when the back parking lot of the stand are from when we had no parking in the front. Okay. Okay. All right, thank you. Thank you. All right, other questions from board members? If I'm going slow, it's cause I don't want to forget anything. All right. Yeah, Kev. Do I have all the property too? No, absolutely not. Okay. Two wheel vehicles or no more. Kev and I have that. Too noisy. Yeah, we'll just referring to other testimony. Thank you. Good to confirm that. All right. Okay, back to my notes. All right, so what I'd like to do now, this is the point at which we turn to the staff report and walk through some things. We may have questions for the applicants or for other folks during this process, but board members, what I would like to do is look at page six of the staff report. At the top, it's in red. And there are some threshold determinations about whether the use of 485 Elm's land for parking of employees, cars, of the adjacent contracting yard. These are some threshold determinations before we can even decide whether permit is issuable. So the first question is whether this is an expansion of a non-conforming use. And if so, whether it may be allowed under 1203D, that is the section of our zoning ordinance. So just for starters, I just wanna point out that non-conforming uses can continue. They just can't get bigger. They can change as long as they're not more impactful. So that's kind of what we're looking at here. So we are talking about a business at Forecoming Street using some space that's part of 485 Elm Street. And we are determining as a board whether that shared parking, whether the use of that parking expands the non-conforming use. It is on a different parcel. It is being used to allow forecomings to continue business. So we can either discuss it or just get kind of a quick straw poll on whether we see this parking area as an expansion of the non-conforming use. Would people like me to read the definition of what a contractor's yard is? Because that's what I was determined was the use at Forecomings. Thanks, I jumped ahead. Yeah, thanks, Meredith. Yep. Give me one second. I know it's in the staff report. Oh, yeah, okay. So a contractor's yard is defined at section 5101C17 as an establishment that provides storage for vehicles, machinery, equipment and materials used by a contractor in the construction, building maintenance or property maintenance trades. It may include a shop for maintaining or repairing the contractor's vehicles, machinery or equipment or the contractor's business office. A contractor is a person who builds, demolishes or performs additions, alterations, reconstruction, installation and repairs to structures. A contractor's yard. Good, agreed. Does anyone think it's not a contractor's yard? So from speaking of the front, I would say yes. The front is definitely a contractor's yard. The rear of the building, there are no materials that I know of, everything's been removed from the rear of that building, except for seven orange cones. I'm gonna interrupt you for a sec. When you say rear of the building, does that, is that part of the four coming street parcel or the 485-alm parcel? 485-alm parcel. I'm intentionally splitting hairs there. Okay, no, that's what I meant. But yeah, okay. So I would say that the rear is not a contractor's yard per se in what you're saying. The front, definitely. Okay, so the four coming's parcel is a contractor's yard. So we need to determine whether, and it's a non-conforming use, which means it can continue as long as it doesn't get bigger. Is it getting bigger? I will share that as one board member, I don't think that the non-conforming use is expanding because the property being used that's auxiliary does not belong to four coming street and there's an intensification of use in the area but not on the parcel. So I do not think it's an expansion of a non-conforming use. Just a reminder, we're talking about what's being requested, not what has happened in the past, right? So. Well, we can't make a determination on what's happened in the past. Exactly, that's what I was just, I was just throwing that out there, but I dealt with that. So we're talking pre-existing non-conforming use, but just talking. No, what's going on at four comings itself, right? So the question is, is the having parking at 485, which is what's requested, an expansion of the pre-existing non-conforming use at four comings, right? Four comings is the pre-existing non-conforming use. Is there request to have two parking spaces on 485 an expansion of that pre-existing non-conforming use or is it basically, is it a shared parking agreement to have parking on somebody else's parcel that does not expand the contractor's yard? Does the time at which parking began? No, I stopped that. That's done. The parking that happened before is done. They're asking for new parking, right? We have to view this very discreetly, just what's being requested today. So other thumbs up, thumbs down. I'm putting you on the spot because these are threshold determinations and we have to decide before we move on. I agree that this is not a continuation of a non-conforming use on four coming. Thank you, Abby. Do you mean expansion or continuation? Thank you. Sorry, it's not an expansion of it. Okay, thanks. I guess I would agree with the same. The reason it didn't make sense is because it's not an expansion of a non-conforming use on four coming, which won't make sense to me. Right, because it isn't. After careful examination of the pre-existing. Okay. Can I know that Mr. Church did comment that his business was expanding because it was able to see? The business can expand with, we're gonna, thanks. We're gonna take that as it is, it may. That's just a good point. I think Elliott said my business wasn't expanding. Okay. Okay. That is true, because he does such a good job. That's free range builders. Contact Elliott for the website. Okay, so they have more business. They're not expanding, they have more business. That's not the same thing as expansion of the non-conforming use. Yeah, I'm gonna keep it to board members for the moment. So, Kevin, would you like to weigh in on this? Do you feel that it is an expansion, or is or is not an expansion of the Karnat? I do not see it as an expansion. Okay. So, we do not see it as an expansion of the non-conforming use. Okay. So then the next question we need to think about is, is the area that we're talking about where two parking spaces are being requested because that's the discrete thing under discussion. Is it properly categorized as a surface parking use? And again, show me to read the definition. Please, please, thanks. Surface parking is defined at section 5101P5 as an outdoor site used to store passenger vehicles or site intended to store passenger vehicles at ground level under a roofed open-air structure. So you have two different options. It can just be site used to store passenger vehicles or it can be something with a structure that stores them at ground level under a roofed open-air structure. There is no further definition. It does not say, has to be commercial. It does not define it as separately from two parking spaces on somebody's house. There's no other expansion of that definition. The other place to get clarification on that, really, the only other place to get clarification on how that is worked is in the use table itself. Where it says that surface parking, so this is your figure 2-15, under the transportation facility uses. It says surface parking is permitted. That means allowed with an administrative permit in the downtowns. So UC1, UC2, UC3, the riverfront, which again is along the river. And this is along the Winooski itself, like along Elm Street, Berry Street, that's riverfront, Eastern Gateway and Western Gateway. So those are the far out along Memorial Drive. And then it's a conditional use in mixed use residential and in res 1.5. So these are all the highest density locations and locations where a lot of commercial is allowed or res 1.5, which is really tight residential. And then it's permitted in municipal and then it's not allowed at all in any of the other residential districts. I think that based on the use table and where surface parking is an allowed versus a conditional use versus a prohibited use, we can use that to interpret surface parking as being additive beyond a driveway for a typical residential. I don't think that even though it's a very generic definition, I don't think we can say that if you have space for three vehicles in your yard, then that is necessarily surface parking. The fact that surface parking is defined and permitted in more commercial areas, right up to and including medium, or res 1.5. I think that would lead me to conclude that surface parking is kind of over and above your standard parking and it would be added parking constructed just for that purpose. But I'm just one board member. Any further discussion by board members of surface parking, the definition? Okay, so I'm gonna do a straw poll and we will ultimately vote on these things, but do we believe that this area in question is properly categorized as surface parking? I think, yes, it is properly categorized as surface parking. So it is, the area D is the surface parking that's limited to those zoning districts? Yes. I think meaning it's prohibited in the zoning district that we're talking about. Right. Yes, that's, well, yes, it's surface parking as I've just interpreted it. Yes, that's my view. That it's surface parking, but can be an additive use? I'm just asking the one question. Is it surface parking or not? And surface parking, if it's surface parking is not allowed in residential nine in this current area. It is only allowed in certain areas. So as you answer, do you consider that? And as I was thinking about this, I feel like I'm talking too much, but there is a question to be had which is, is this an accessory use? Is the parking area an accessory use to 485 Elm? And I do not see it as an accessory use to 485 Elm because there is existing supplemental parking at 485 Elm supplemental to the primary use is my thinking. And I'm happy to have others. What's the impact of non-conforming surface parking use? The non-conforming use that we've discussed is the contractor's yard. I don't think we're talking about surface parking, the parking is non-conforming use. Yeah. Kevin, can you re-freeze the question? Cause I didn't even follow that either. Okay, so what's the impact of where we're heading with this with the straw pole results? That's a fair question. These are threshold questions to determine whether the use that for which a permit is being applied for is allowed in the district. As if we want to take a hypothetical from some other place. If we had a rural district where someone was proposing a water park and water parks were not an allowable use in the rural district, we wouldn't be talking about it. Right. And similarly, we're talking about whether this use is even eligible to apply for a permit in this district. So there are implications, serious implications to what I'm asking. What are the specific implications for this project we're reviewing? So if, sorry, can I? Yeah, please, please. So if the board determines that the area D, the new gravel area to be used and the use of it, the board determines that the use of the new gravel area on 45 Elm Street meets the definition of a surface parking use, then there's no way to approve the permit request. There's no, I see no way to do that. There's one space in jeopardy. Two spaces. They're asking for two spaces back there, right? Okay. There are ramifications, right? So big picture, if that's what the board decides, then if somebody comes to me with an application for something like this where you have two parcels, right, that have face, they're near a corner, they're on two different streets and they wanna create a rear parking space. It's just two homes and somebody wants to use somebody else's backyard for a parking space because it works with the way it works. I wouldn't be able to allow that if the way we've just talked about it unless resident A's request for parking is in resident B's parking lot that's already existing if they're creating a new space just for access for this off street, off site parking. Even if it's two homes, I'm gonna say it's not allowed if it's in a zoning district where surface parking is not allowed. Which is res nine. Right, res nine, res three, res six, any of those. But in this case, there's no additional use. No, that doesn't, that, not here. Here it's not allowed at all. All of those districts, I just, it has a dash. It's not allowed, period, as a surface parking use. So this is the question, does surface parking mean to get out of the surface parking box and have a shared parking agreement does the where you're gonna park and share does it have to be an already existing parking area? Does it have to be in somebody's driveway? So what is my, what are you asking me to approve for future permit applications? What can I and can I not approve? Typically, I'm gonna double check because I mean, this would also probably come back to you because off site parking. While you're looking that up, I'm gonna acknowledge that we have some hands raised and I can see that over my shoulder, but we'll try to get to that soon. Let's do a, sorry. Shared parking, sorry, I'm losing my spot. A shared parking agreement does not necessarily have to be approved by the DRB, right? So I need, I need guidance from you if you're gonna tell me that this is surface parking and therefore cannot be approved here, then if I get a shared parking agreement from somebody else where they just wanna park off, I can't approve it, right? If it's any of these residential districts, unless it's in an existing driveway. It's the way of interpreting what you're saying. So what we're talking about is that, thank you all for bearing with us. This is not, this is unique. So we're trying to treat it as such. We're trying to be context specific while also implementing the law. So sometimes that takes time. We're basically would be saying that building something for use as parking is automatically surface parking. And does that also mean if it's an expansion of an existing driveway just to do it? Well, I think that would be a different set of facts and a different conversation. Okay, so right now. I would be willing to set precedent on that. Okay, so, but right now, this part, building a new area specifically for parking for somebody else who is not part of that parcel. So parcel A builds a parking area for parcel B's use. It's surface parking, no matter what the uses involved are. I'm just trying to get guidance for when people come to me with applications. All right. I think we have to be careful. It was an intention here to not allow check surface parking in Res 36 and nine in the regs and so that's why I'm just making sure everybody, that's why we have to, you have to, I need you all to say, yes, this is surface parking. Yes, this is surface parking. So Rob and Gene and Kevin. Yeah. And Abby, do you want to? We just have to be very aware of what the implication is. Right, yes. Yes. And because this can be an economic burden. Well, and the other thing is if this is how the board is interpreting this, I also, I need to go back to Mike Miller and make sure that that is what people intended when they wrote it. Because if it was what they intended, great, we're doing what they wanted. If it wasn't, they have work to do. That, yes, we're interpreting it as separate from their intentions, which is our job. But if they want something different to have come out of a conversation like tonight, they should watch the, tune in and watch the video. I didn't mean to, I'm sorry, Kevin, I cut you off. Nope, you're good. Okay, Abby, is it surface parking? Abby, you need to unmute, star six. Oh, sorry, sorry about that. Yeah, I think it is surface parking. Okay. So I wish that there were, I wish that there were more clarity. Yeah. But the way that I'm interpreting it is similar to the other board members. Okay, thank you, Abby. So I consider that a straw poll. So I'm just gonna pause. I, many have had their yellow hands up very patiently. So I wanna turn to Cheryl next to speak. If you'd like to add anything, Cheryl, thanks for your patience. Thank you. It's true that we at 485 Elm don't need more parking as such, but we are using the entrance offcomings by the generosity of Elid and Les to access our lower yard. And that's the only way we can get down there to do things like plantarian buffer improvement. We had all kinds of tree planting there recently and the ongoing effort against the knotweed. So there is a purpose to that area for us as well. Okay, thank you. Betty, I think you have your hand up. I don't know if you mean to, but I will check in. You can star six to unmute or star nine to put your hand down. And now you're unmuted, Betty, just so you know it's hard to see when you're not on the Zoom. Okay, I did not mean to unmute. That's okay. I didn't mean to put you on the spot. You can fine, if you star six, you can remute. All right, I'm just making sure we're tracking everybody. Thank you. All right, I appreciate this discussion. It is not easy for anyone. So, what we do next, oh, sorry. Yeah, if you wouldn't mind using the mic. Thank you. Yeah, sure. So just for me, what we're looking at, I think the historical context that we've talked about is important here. In 2012, the area that we're talking about was a wooded area that's part of the 485 parcel and then the four coming street, which was already a non-conforming use when it was a well-drilling company. So it was non-conforming. I feel that this is an expansion. The use of the parking area came after all of this was cleared and it became part of a legal agreement between the two parties. So I see it as connecting. For me, not weed is a concern, but nowhere in my research from experts does it talk about people putting a parking area in the riparian barrier. I know the Department of Transportation may do that when they build a bridge, but I think that's a different matter and in different rules. If I may, this is captured well in your written testimony and your previous testimony. So if you have anything new to add, I'd welcome it. And I also will go back and remind myself as well that we're sort of looking at this just for what's being requested, the two spots. But we are approving, being asked to approve two spots in this area at the dimensions presented. I appreciate that. It's still just my concern that it's an expansion of the area. Okay, so you do see it as an expansion of the non-conforming use is what I'm noting. Thank you. Thank you. All right, so our next threshold determination, we're still at the threshold, we haven't gone through the door, is that the Board needs to determine whether, despite what we've just... Oh, Meredith, do you wanna direct us? I don't know if the next three. Maybe a lot of it. Okay, yeah, never mind, go ahead. So you've invited us to consider whether, despite what we've just discussed about the non-conforming use expansion and the categorization as a surface parking use, despite what we've just discussed, is it possible for this to be allowed as part of a shared parking agreement under 3011, which is the section of the bylaw? You invited us to consider that. Is there more to add on that? No, this is just... Part of this is leading you through the thought process I've been going through and trying to figure out how these all go together while trying to figure out if there's a path forward for approval of the permit. Okay, so we are noodling on shared parking and whether that is a different thing than anything else we've been discussing and whether that different thing would provide a path forward for the applicants. So shared parking in our bylaws, what it tells us to do is there's a calculation for the total amount of shared parking required. It says a shared parking plan may be approved to allow parking to be shared by two or more uses or to be provided offsite in accordance with the following. Determining the minimum parking requirements, figuring that out, calculating the total for what time of day, different cars are gonna be there, select the highest total as required. Other standards, any shared or offsite parking shall be located within 1,000 foot walk of the associated users. We've received testimony in our pocket that that is the case. Any shared or offsite, the applicant shall submit a written agreement between the owners and the lessees, et cetera. We do have evidence of that. The applicant shall submit plans showing the location of the uses or structures for which the parking shall be provided, et cetera, how it's relative, how the parking relates to the buildings that are using it. So the question for the board to consider is, does the presence of a shared parking agreement change the allowability of this use in this district? Can I just step in real quick? Thank you. So the thing to keep in mind is that shared parking, 3011E is referenced for when the board may wave summer all off-street parking requirements, right? So every use has a required minimum number of parking spaces. If a parcel cannot meet those minimum number of parking spaces, which I know is not the case here, right? But if that happens, the board can wave some of those requirements to the extent that, and one option is the applicant meets the requirements for shared parking in paragraph 3011E, right? So that would mean that in those districts that don't, if we take the surface parking use and say it can't be used in these other districts, then you basically say you can't have a shared parking agreement to meet your minimum off-street parking requirements in any of those zoning districts where surface parking is not in allowed use. If you follow through on the full spectrum of saying shared parking has, you know what I mean? So you'd only be able to use existing parking. It would clearly have to be shared parking, right? Where it is a, it has to be shared, it has to be used by multiple uses, including the parcel on which it is, the use for which, you know what I'm saying, sorry. It would have to be basically in Sheryl and Chris's driveway, that's the only place that they could offer a shared parking agreement. I'm just making sure everybody is aware of their own implications. Right, with the DRB granting that waiver of the minimum parking. Yeah, I mean, I read this and my gut tells me is that the whole idea of shared parking and surface parking was, the whole idea of like shared parking and surface parking in here was geared towards development in the more congested downtown areas. Now I don't necessarily maybe agree with that, but I just see where the check boxes are and that shared parking was not necessarily, or shared parking plans were not necessarily intended here to exist in the more rural, less dense districts. That's the way I read the regs and that's the, when you look at a number of different things in the regs, I get the sense that, well, that there just wasn't a whole lot of thought maybe put to or the less dense, more rural districts, and it's possible that something was left out. And I don't think it's our job to necessarily like fill in the blanks in this particular instance because it does seem like it's pretty, unfortunately it's clear, even though it may not have been intended. Yeah, I think that's really true. I think what we're dealing with is unintended consequences. I think we're dealing with unintended consequences in the new zoning regs, which haven't, you know, we're just now beginning to flush it out. And it's, I mean, I don't like where this is going, but I would agree with you that the language is pretty specific. I think there's been areas where we've been able to use our discretion to sort of like overlook that, but unfortunately here, it just seems like it's so clear it's hard to find a way around it. I wish I could find a way around it. I mean, I think we're boxed in. I would note that the condition that can lead to a shared parking agreement is a request for a waiver of the minimum parking requirements. And we are talking about granting parking that is over what the minimum requires. So that's another reason. That requires a separate application and warning. And it's not what their businesses need. Yeah, Abby, would you like to weigh in here? I don't think this is shared parking agreement. It doesn't sound like that because it's not truly shared. It's for the purpose of one of the parties. That's another point. Thank you. Yep. So I think that where this leads us is because these are threshold issues. What I would recommend is that we have a motion to indicate what we have, words. I'm gonna figure out the words here. We need to a motion that indicates our conclusion that the use proposed is surface parking. Is, what is the pleasure of the board? And we can pause, like I said, this is novel. This is different than what we've encountered. I don't wanna rush anybody into anything, but I don't wanna belabor it if it's... Let's take it into deliberative. Well, so here's, that is one option, except that we would have to close the hearing on this application. And if we do determine that it's not surface parking and it's an allowable use, that would have to re-worn the entire rest of the application to be heard on approval of this project. Right? Yeah, I mean, it's, may I make a, may I just talk, proceed to hear? Yeah, yep. The board can have a motion about whether, just, you know, motion that the board find that the use requested on 485 Elm Street would be surface parking use, as defined in the regs. So that would be your motion. That doesn't end everything right now. You can still then go into deliberative session as to how to deal with the rest of the application as a whole. I see. Because whatever way, the final decision, there's gonna need to be some guidance in there as to how we're supposed to work with the regs, right? But you can make that motion now and then else do a deliberative session to finalize everything if you want. You could also, you know, if anything, we need that motion to just get on the record vote as to where people lie on that determination. Yeah. I would recommend that we take that approach. They kind of know where the board is going. Do they want to, you know, need more time to bring more information or anything like that? I don't think that, I'm interested. That's a fair question. Based on the long discussion you've joined us for this evening and thank you again. Do you feel that there is applicants, so a look at all the applicants? Do you feel that there's additional information that would enlighten the board based on what we have discussed and the sorts of interpretations that we are bound by and considering? And we can take five for people to chat about the sidebar, is that for sure? If you guys, I don't know if you have any questions, I'd like to talk to you guys. If you and Cheryl and Lester want to have a separate call or something outside, I don't know if that's necessary, but we also don't have to. I guess I could call Lester and Cheryl and Chris so we can do a three-way call. If you wanted to do that out in the hallway, that's fine, we don't have to. It's not a requirement, we just want to preserve a little space for you. Yeah. No, I mean, I feel comfortable. It looks like, would it be any different if I own that parcel of land? That's a good question. How are we allowed to talk about that? Well, that would be... That could go back to our first question regarding the expansion. The sale itself wouldn't be actionable, but if you combine the lots, then you'd be operating under a new adjustment. A new adjustment. I think there are two factors to consider. One, it would probably still be considered surface parking, which would probably still not be unallowable use in the area. Why would it be surface parking? Oh, it wouldn't be surface parking if you owned it. All right, let's get into that. All right, it's getting late. Then the question would be, would it be considered an expansion of a non-conforming use? And there could, right? Is that... You guys are hitting all the conundrums. I hit, like, every time before it came here. The non-conundrum application, okay. They then have to come back. And you have to come back, yeah. So it sounds to me like we're good then, as far as denied the application would be denied, right? As far as there is clarity anyway, I imagine if I could understand if you're not good with it, but it's clear anyhow how we've thought through it and where we are. So to be clear, we have not voted as a board to deny the application. You've heard us think through it and you understand how the criteria are or aren't met. Thank you for taking your time, I appreciate it. Well, sure, sure, and I appreciate everybody. We're constrained by what the ordinance actually says. Sometimes that language is general enough that we can make an interpretation, but in this specific instance, it's pretty clear. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, so I got all the information that I have to make a decision here at the threshold is sort of got us in a place where... Just make sure you're at the mic so that when it comes time for the minutes, Tami can hear. So is there a motion? Wait, hold on, Les has got his hand up. Oh, sorry, Les, please go ahead. Just back to the, I'll add a bit of use of that space. Cheryl, basically is using that access for their company, for their business at that point, as well as as you put some parking area. So that goes back to whether or not it is a shared parking area. Is that what you're asking, Les? Because Cheryl and Chris are using it for something. Are they using it for parking? They use it to bring compost and things into their business. Okay. Board members, does that change your thinking on shared parking and whether the presence of a shared, is it shared parking because it's used as a back and forth way? And if it's shared parking, does it supersede the zoning regulations on that issue? On the surface parking definitions. Yes, thank you, just totally, yeah. I mean, I think the shared parking intent in these regulations is not what I see here. Unfortunately, I think it's different. Like I explained earlier, what I thought shared parking was in year four and intended and where it was envisioned. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that it was envisioned in these districts. And there should have shared parking. I would refer to a section of the regs. We'll read that again just so we're on the same page. There isn't less, like a definition of shared parking. There's a definition for surface parking. So it sounds like the issue is that it's the surface parking definition, right? And how that interacts with the shared parking allowance. Okay. And our question, what we should be considering is, does the presence of a shared parking agreement mean that something is less surface parking than it would be otherwise? For me, the intent behind the shared parking appears to be to minimize overall amount of parking because it is triggered by a request for a reduction in the parking requirement, in the minimum parking requirement. All right. Maybe another couple hours. We hope not. All right, so with that in mind, is there a motion? We've discussed the possibility of a motion. Does a motion for the board to find that the proposed use is surface parking and to close the hearing on this application and enter into deliberative session at the conclusion of this public meeting. So move. Motion by Jean. Second. Second by Kevin. I'll call the roll. Kevin. Yes. Rob. Yes. Abby. When? And I also vote yes. That is what we will do. We will deliberate. We will issue a written decision in as timely a manner as we possibly can. And we really appreciate your time. We appreciate, I personally appreciate that you're running a business and that's work. And thank you for your efforts. I appreciate your volunteer. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. So, Zach, you're next. I want to check in with the board and everybody else. Do we need to take three? This is an unusually long meeting. It is that unusual. Let's take two. Okay. So that we will have total to five minute break, which I think is reasonable. We will impose upon Zach's goodwill a little while longer. All right, we're back. Thank you so much for waiting. Nice to see you. Well, thank you. That's nice of you to say. Yes, it is. That's how we roll. So, I'm going to look behind me and confirm it looks like there is nobody here to be heard on this matter. I'll dive right in. This is a sketch plan review of a subdivision applicant essential Vermont Habitat for Humanity. And the sketch plan process is a chance for future applicants to come to the board and get a weather report as far as what we see when we look, when we compare what's proposed to the standards that it eventually has to meet. It's also a chance for people who are curious about the project to learn more. When we review subdivisions, it's to ensure that any lot we approve is going to be developable in the future, whether that is as the applicant envisions or in some other way that a future owner of that land might choose to develop. So this is a sketch plan. This is a conversation. I'm not going to swear anybody in. We're just going to, we're going to get to it. Meredith, do you want to do an overview of this one? And then I'll just, I'll turn it over to you to introduce yourself and tell us about the project. So you kind of stole my thunder and did pretty much everything. Yeah, as Kate said, there's no written decision or permit coming out of this discussion. One thing to note is that sketch plan for a subdivision is tied to a deadline in that once someone goes through the sketch plan review they have a year to file their final application for actual subdivision or they have to start over again from sketch plan. So there is that deadline in there. In this instance, applicant has presented some ideas regarding how the parcel might be used and included a preliminary site plan for discussion purposes. In the staff report, I've included some comments on that potential future plan, but I've really tried to focus on the subdivision request itself because I think that's the most important part here right now, the applicant and I have had lots of discussions about future development options and that discussion will have some other avenues to go forward on. All right, thanks, Meredith. Over to you. Zachariah Watson, I'm the Executive Director for Central Vermont Habitat for Humanity. We're a 501C affordable housing non-profit. We've been in Central Vermont since 1989 and I was, everybody knows Jimmy Carter as a big proponent of Habitat for Humanity but the biggest program that habitats are known for across the country and the world is our home ownership program. We serve a very specific clientele. We work with folks that are within 30 to 60% of area median income. So we basically, this parcel that we're looking at this project, it came to our attention earlier this year as part of a larger proposal and access from behind. So the lot, like I said, is forced and currently, this would be an ideal situation for us to build affordable housing on if we can do it. So that's the key, that's why we're here. In the application, I did include, very clearly shows what the issue is that we're dealing with on this parcel is the slope. So red is not good. Red is very steep and so for us to really make this work we're gonna have to dig into the bank. And excuse me, I should start by saying this is a subdivision and development application. So we are looking to subdivide about 9,000 square feet from 102 to 110 Northfield Street which is actually two parcels which covers pretty much the entire lot here. That's all in rural. This part here is a mixed use residential. That's the part we're looking at. And then it's also connected to a second lot which is residential 9,000. So there's actually three different zoning in here. So we're looking to subdivide that small parcel and build a single family house on it. So as I said, challenges are with the slope, we need to build some retaining walls back there to deal with runoff and things like that. Meredith and I have lots of discussions about this to try to sort it out. And we've also run into some other challenges with the ordinance in mixed use residential that we are looking at alternative ways of approaching it. We've given you two proposals for a single family bedroom or a single family household, excuse me, it should be in both of them should be in your application. The major differences is that one of them is a shared driveway with the neighbor 88 Northfield Street and the other is its own driveway in discussions and a preliminary technical review discussion with the Department of Public Works and the fire department and building inspector, got it. It was lovely servants to our community. It was determined that probably having a our own individual driveway for a lot of reasons is the best route. But of course, I'm here to hear from you all to questions you have. Meredith, I don't know if you want me to get into the problems or if that's something you'll cover. Yeah, I mean, I think the subdivision is really what's before you because we'll have a separate discussion about the house design itself and how to go about that with Mike. And that would, Meredith may have told you this, most likely when you do go for a construction permit, that would be a separate visit back here at which point we would assess the exact design relative to the steep slopes. Yeah, anything with the build on the steep slopes and we'll discuss how to go about that because I mean, there is the option to combine it all into one permit application. The subdivision and the steep slopes. There is a way that you can combine the subdivision and then it's one permit for both that can be done. Well, we'll leave that to the applicant. Yep, exactly. That's a good fit. It's a strategy thing depending on all the different business dealings and different conditions of different things. Okay. And ultimately, I think if we can't build there, we're not going to do the subdivision. Right. Really, the nature of the site itself would be pretty challenging for anybody to build there. This plot, the history of this land goes back to 1965 when it was a larger parcel that got subdivided. So this lot has been in the hands of multiple developers at least in the last 20 years. And nobody has been able to figure out a use for this despite that it is in a mixed use residential which has lots of options for developing it. It's meant for infill. That's the purpose of mixed use residential is my understanding. We haven't been able to find a use for it and that's because of the character of the lot. So we are trying to get creative to build a house where others have not been able to. And we can do that partly because as a nonprofit we have access to grants and the way that our organization is structured. We can take some hard hits and other focus. So the subdivision that you're proposing is there a structure on the existing lot? So it's kind of tricky. There are two lots. Technically it's two lots. Are you referring to the lot that we want to subdivide? Yes. The lot that we would like to subdivide there is no structure. Okay, so what would be the plan short or long term for the non-developed? Portion. The larger portion. So that's, we are currently working in the city on applying for a community development block planning grant for a 50 unit housing development up on that parcel. This is a little bit premature right now because we have no idea if we can build anything up there. It would be a carbon negative housing community with old growth forest and solar panels and battery power backup storage and mixed income housing. So it's a larger project. We would, we still need to. Yeah, I should think. Like I said, the history of this lot, again, in the hands of two developers in the last 20 years and nobody's been able to figure it out. So as in my discussions with Mike Miller, it's gonna create, it's gonna take some finagling to make. It's a good architect I can recommend. Yeah, and it's good background. So with that information, I think we're not bound to consider the future use of the other lot or so. Yeah, but this is sketch plan review. So we can keep around ideas. Okay. I'm happy to talk about it. Oh yeah, I just don't wanna put you into a corner like talk about something that's not ready for that. So lot one with the proposed home is the 9,000 square feet, lot two being the 56 acres. The subdivision is on the 56 acres? So here's the thing. Should we put up an image? Yeah, I mean Abbie can't see it, so I'm not sure how much it helps. But I can, give me a second, okay? Okay. Because I didn't have it open. Sorry, I am. The 9,000 square feet is the sub... So is the new parcel to be created? Right, is the 9,000, this application is about just subdividing those 9,000 square feet that abut Northfield Street. Okay. The information that I have from Zach that's in this application talks about this whole thing, the res9, the rural, and the MUR, all is one parcel. I have no evidence that says that they're actually two separate parcels. That's one of the things Zach has to do for me before we get to the final, is where is that? So the subdivision is off the 56 acres? Yes. Okay, that's correct. That's a problem. Are we good without an image? Shall we proceed? Yeah. I'm just gonna make sure I have it up in case I need it later. All right. I gotta eat too, so. I've looked at all the land records going back to 1965 and haven't been able to find the properties of joining so I need to learn how that happens naturally. Is that right? But that's why I'm assuming everything's two separate lots, technically. Although the last two transactions they've been sold as one. That might have created a merger, I don't know. Right. It depends on the language. That's why you're the expert. That's why I refer people to title attorneys. What's that? Yeah, I'm not gonna go there. I can't. Or whatever. I can't make an opinion on whether something's merged already or not if it's not something in a decision. What does title 24 say? But no. Yeah, no, we're not. I'm too tired to start digging down there. Yeah, we're not gonna do that. All right. So looking at the staff report, it sounds like a number of the factors about the character of the area are things that are gonna need to be presented in some sort of narrative or summary to help us understand those details. It seems like there were two things that kind of jumped out at me. One about a height requirement and one about the driveway location. And you've already brought up driveway location. From where I think, the way I think about things is that multiple driveways and curb cuts are less friendly for people walking and biking because those are extra exit points onto a road that could be a cause for vehicular and pedestrian or vehicular and cyclist conflict. So my natural tendency is towards shared accesses, especially on that, where it's a little blind there coming up the hill from town. So I wonder if, could you share a little bit more about your conversation with the public works and public safety folks as to why they thought it would be, is it because it's straight instead of a little curved? So we would need to do a curb cut anyways to expand the shared driveway. So there would still need to be some of that anyways. I think the other challenges would just be about talking to me, I'm sharing a driveway with a neighbor and all the complications that come along with that. We have not talked to the neighbor about this, so if you're watching, don't worry. So if you're up at 10 o'clock at night watching this. But so that's one piece. The other, that seemed to be the primary piece was the complications around just sharing access with a neighbor. I know for us, it would be more expensive to have a larger car curb cut, but that's not why. But for us, we're looking at having a separate driveway because that was what the DRB had recommended. So that was not part of our consideration. Yeah, I would leave it to the neighbors to figure out whether a shared driveway arrangement is convenient or inconvenient, it may be the experience of people who work in city government that those things have some challenges, but I think each circumstances is an individual one and that's ultimately up to you. That's my feeling about that. Yeah, I mean, my sense was that it wasn't because of any DPW standard per se. And there definitely was an openness to discussion about that, was my sense from the TRC that in this situation, because this area, this specific area is relatively straight, that they didn't see sight line issues with either option and because the neighbor is a single family home and because of the slopes they didn't see either of these parcels being, getting a lot of development. So it's not like there'd be a ton of traffic here competing with each other. So I think they were open to either option at DPW. So just having been there at TRC. Her cut's not cheap anymore. Don't forget to be near the microphone so Tammy can hear you. Well, I don't know, her cuts are not cheap. So I would pull her to do whatever it's cost effective. Appreciate that, Rob. We are certainly always looking for ways to save money. That's, you know, we're building affordable housing. We base how much they, our homeowner's pay based on their income, it has nothing to do with how much we spend. So the closer we can actually get the expenses building to what that person can afford. It certainly makes a longevity in the financial strength of our organization last longer. So, yes. Did that go to sleep? Cause we went back to city of Montpelier. We don't have an image here. So we don't have an image of the room anymore. I know, this is, it's actually been like this for a while. I think that would be a question of the video. Yeah, Steve. Nope, not you. You don't know, I don't know what happened to the, we don't have a picture of the room anymore. Displayed over Zoom. I don't know. Huh? I don't know why. Okay. Okay. Turn it off and turn it on again. No, don't do that. We can't do that. No, we can't do that. I mean, technically I could. No, I'm just gonna go, I'm gonna look at your computer because I don't think anybody's still watching me. We're gonna pause for technical. Sorry, I'm, no, now it's just looking at me. Okay, hold on. That's probably not what it's supposed to do. No, it's supposed to somehow tie into... This is a good, take a little pause, that's all right. We've had pretty few hiccups with this format so far. So I've been very impressed. Hiccups? Hiccups. Oh, hiccups. Yes, no, it's working fine. Yeah. It's 10 o'clock. Yes. Abby, thanks for bearing with us. We're fixing some computer stuff. Yeah. It's only giving me the one camera, if something happens. I think we're, it'll still... Oh, there we go. Okay. All right. Turn it off and turn it back on again. That was me. Okay, let's move it. All right, great. So, so driveway location, something we talked about a little. Do others have questions about other issues that they saw? Any feedback, reflections? I'm just kind of curious. There's a, I think there's a minimum height requirement of 24 feet in this district. And I read in the report that that can't be met. And I'm wondering why. Well, so it's partly because of the character of the lot. It's also partly because of restrictions we have and the way that we build our housing. So, the 24 foot height requirement is based on the average grade of the property, which due to this, the slope of the property increases the grade. So instead of the 24 foot minimum, for us it's a 29 foot minimum. That means we need to build a three story house. And typically we're building for three bedrooms, one and a half bath. For us to build a three story affordable housing house with three bedrooms and one and a half bath would be pretty unfeasible for a number. It would be pretty. Well, I would, we could do it. It would be really narrow and really tall. It would look very silly. It would be a duplex. All right. We looked at a duplex. A duplex is not feasible in this spot mostly because we like to provide a shed so that our homeowners have a place to store their things, a lawn, so that their kids can play in the yards. And we also provide parking. So the two challenges for Habitat for Humanity are costs. So one choice is that we could put the garage underneath it. Garages typically cost about $30,000. Our houses by themselves without a garage cost $150,000 to build. So $30,000 is pretty extensive when we're looking at trying to keep it affordable. The other part is we use volunteers to build our houses. That's how we keep them affordable. Tim and Cork. So having volunteers on the roof of a three-story house is not safe. And our architects and our builders do not feel comfortable with it. That these two reasons are the main reason why we probably would not qualify for variance from the 24-foot minimum. So because that is our discretion. And so that's the challenge right now. Thank you. Do we have to go 5% or is that... That won't get you there. We've, trust me, we've worked those. Do you wanna hear about how we're looking at solving this with Mike Miller or not? I think we'll let you work on it some more. Okay, thank you. Yeah, the purpose is of... You just called him Mike Miller too. Did I say Mick? I'm so tired. I did a whole separate meeting with hearings before this started, except I did. Well, I appreciate you all very much. And this is a complicated one. Meredith and I were reading through all three different zoning ordinances to figure this one out. And really getting into the weeds about it. And it's been a challenge. So yeah, we're looking at other... I don't know exactly where we go from here. That's kind of where we're at. Since we are looking at this larger parcel, there might be potential for rezoning the entire thing, which could increase our density and allow for, make this a lot more cost-effective for us. If we rezoned a residential 9,000, also if we did that, we would apply for a variance. And the variance would apply in the circumstance because there's a requirement for a 20-foot setback and these properties would allow it. So what that means is we're gonna build the house there. Which means that we have to go through rezoning and a variance to build the house there, as opposed to just building it because we know we're gonna build it anyways. So kind of back to our original consideration with what we do with a sketch plan review. We, I think, are looking at this as a board and saying, yep, you could put a lot there and one could build a house there. It is a developable lot as proposed. Whether it's developable in the manner you need to develop is a separate question from what we determined. So good to know the background, but I feel pretty comfortable with the nature of this lot, and I've said my piece about the driveway. Any other questions or concerns about it? Habitat owns the whole parcel, no. We have a purchase option on it. Great. It goes, yeah. Yeah. Well, if there are no other questions from board members, I'll pause so that Abby can chime in if she chooses. So that was the case there. Okay, thanks, Abby. All right, in that case, thank you for waiting to present this evening. We really appreciate it. Thank you all. And thanks for your work. Thanks for coming in. Thanks for coming in. Appreciate it. Actually, we have an American crew joining us on our house in Barrie right now. It's exciting. And they're all from Georgia and California, so we got to get them some goodies for the month. All right. Ben and Jerry. There you go. Break it in, yeah. Thank you all very much. You're welcome. I hope to get home as soon as I meet. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right, folks. Other businesses that our next meeting is scheduled for July 19th, if there are continuations from this evening, and there are not any. So if the next meeting date will be August 16th. With that, I would accept a motion to adjourn into deliberative session. So moved. Is there a second? Second. I'll call the roll. Kevin? Yes. Jean? Yes. Rob? Yes. Abby? Yeah. And I vote yes. We are adjourned to deliberative session. Thank you. Abby, stay on. We're just going to bump everybody else off. And because I don't want to try and send you an email with a link or anything like that.