 So the chair of the relative development review board and I'm going to call our April 2nd, 2024 meeting to order. We have an agenda with several items on it going to take testimony since they're all for public hearing. In the order that they're listed on the agenda. And they are going to do that. So first item on our agenda is CP 2423 23 Catherine Street. David Baron, Eric, the housekeeper, Dacey O'Connor conditionally used demolition to this garage. You can start a new habitable building insane footprint and we have an applicant with us here. Is there anybody here besides you who wants to speak on this application, either in person or on Zoom, raise your hand if you're interested in this application. Alright, so we'll have you raise your right hand. Oh, no, I took that back. We had a delayed hand raised from 6, 0, please. Okay. Okay. So, anybody who wants to offer testimony on this, please raise your right hand. Yeah, that'd be you. Do you swear the testimony you're about to give the matter of a consideration is true and correct. Yeah, okay. Very simple public hearing items. So we often ask the applicant or the representative to just explain to us what you want to do. We have a staff report. We have the analysis, but why don't you walk us through which one? Sure, we're We're looking to tear down our current garage, rebuild living space in the same footprint, the current building. Originally, we were just trying to rehab it, but the foundation is crumbling crack and the back of the building is sacking no contractors. Contractors with The foundation. You see the copy of the staff report. Yes. Yes. Do you have any issues with that staff report? Any concerns or questions? No. We're on the board of any questions. It wasn't marked for consent, but it's public hearing items. So the questions are for the applicant. When did you move in? So it was originally going to be an ADU and then I heard this proposal. It's just looks more like a kind of like sweet guest. Yeah, I think there were stipulations on ADU for square. But it may be that we didn't. And I think we were falsifying it. It's that, but I can't remember. There was a, there was something we weren't getting work to be technically an ADU. But the plan remains the same. You tried to do any sort of rehab or Oh, yeah. Yeah. And then we had an engineer come out and they just like Like all this, this, this work was in the past couple months. Oh, yeah. We've been, yeah, working with, with, and it's like, yeah. And then it just We started the process and it was really when they like started to take the deck that we were getting rid of that they really saw However, the foundation was built. I think it was cinder blocks sort of a perimeter and most of those involved. When you also look at the back, I think there's an animal den, but the whole back, it's the interior has plywood and a couple of contractors thought that that's Right now. Right now that wherever the strut along, you know, it's It's unfortunate that we was in historic buildings, but you appreciate that doing your best to match it in style, exterior form. It's not something we've seen all the time. Exactly. So we appreciate that. There's some nice historic additions or renovations. Do you have anything to add that we should know? No, I really don't. I think Dave and Erica presented the project very well. And yeah, we're basically taking down an existing garage, putting up a building that looks just like it. Only instead of a garage, it's going to have a living area with a with a three quarter bath inside. There'll be no kitchen. And also the plan shows the patio that we'll be putting down as well. Any other questions from the board? All right. We want to make a motion on this one smart for consent. I'm not sure we need a lot of deliberations. Okay, one second. All those in favor, approved. Thank you. Thanks very much for your project. Thanks. Okay, next item on our agenda. 140 North prospectory ZP 2458 seeking a variance for more seven like to add to find wheel pad unlock a three foot by four foot connection to the house. And gradually accused of us. So thank you. This is Peel of It's not just an appeal or it's not an appeal. It's a variance request. Very true. And this is to add, I want to be clear about something because I did a little research and I think I want to note something. This is to add an ADA component structure. Is that right? So it's involved in this over a couple of years ago, but there's a case out there and it's union bank. It says this board is subject under the ADA to make reasonable accommodations to the application of its zoning regulations. It's such a combination that it may be necessary. You have to individual people opportunity to use and enjoy and that is federal law that I think we're beholden to. And so we have to take into consideration reasonable accommodation standard. In dealing with an ADA building, which I It's a little bit of a very standard that I think we have to take into consideration. And so the question that we have to keep in mind is not It's I think strictly by the variance standards, but also whether or not We are making a reasonable accommodation To accommodate ADA request to So what we'll need to give her as it asserts a new standard. That this is a reasonable accommodation to the extent Flex where zoning regulations. So I say that to give you floor to respond. Perhaps I will speak first. I'm the grandmother of the summer attorney. It's one of the three months in the students shot on North Prospect Street on Saturday the 25th bullet still with his and his spine. He is paralyzed from here down. He has returned to Brown University. Since I moved here, I moved to live next door to my younger son in 2013. And since that time, he shaman, his family, regarded my home as theirs. They live in Ramallah on the West Bank. My daughter and son are registered to vote my house. He shams college address in the United States is my house. He will. He will graduate from Brown University in the couple of years. He's an extremely bright student. He is bound to go to graduate school here in the United States. So I anticipate my home being his for the next six or seven eight years. I want him to be autonomous and independent. I want him to be autonomous and independent. My house is not suitable for an elevator or for a service. The bathrooms are too small to accommodate someone in a wheelchair. I want him to be able to come and go without my help. If he has the wheel pad next to my house, he can enter my house freely through the connecting passageway. On the other side, he can leave and go down a ramp and go downtown with his friends if he wants to in his wheelchair. And he's not beholden to me as I get older and I say well to help. And so this is the vision that our friends over here who invented the wheel pad were able to offer that as. In fact, it was back about it to suggest that I look into the real pattern as a way in which I can meet. And my friend here Patrick is helping me with the technical aspects of the country. Yes. So the reason we want it on the north side of the building is. First of all, the south side as looking at the report south side putting in on the driveway. It's a shared driveway with 136 no prospect. So that would infringe on the neighbors block and drive. And option and putting it in the backyard would making him go through the yard to get to the house. And I'm going to put you so right so you couldn't connect to the actual inside of the house without taking off. Is there so one of the additional suggestions was since your neighbor happens to be decided to potentially merge the lots and others. Is there a reason not to just merge and unburdened. I imagine that I can start to tell you would be in danger. The inheritance rights of my other children. If my property is tied up with my son's problems of disconnecting degree seems to be it. It kind of some way of compromising. What's on the other side just so I understand it's the site plan doesn't quite show it. North of the wheel pad. What does that look like. That's my son's house. What are we actually looking at on that side. I mean is there a house there or they're planting screenings. What's what would be north of wheel pad between sort of what's blank like space now. So the currently there is a fence. And then right now there's trouble sort of where it is that is sitting between the two. So this would sit up against the fence. Foundry lines are great. We probably will take the fence down so that his sham can have around that would extend towards my son's house so that he can visit them easily as well. We don't want any gates or doors. It's not in our application now so couldn't say yes or no right. I'm in that photo. What are we specifically looking at there. That's the house. It's your house right. With the red dollars 140 North prospect. And it is the white the white. Longer one is the wheel pad and then the smaller square is the three by four connection to the house. That is recommended by wheel pad to get that fall out to do any kind of maintenance. And there's also a key pump on the North side. And what's so there's currently fences if I look so that's north. This would be. Right so seven piece the back of the house is right. Correct. What's along the fence like planting garden or landscaping. Yeah landscaping and there's a long tree. Sort of between whether walkway to the name the two. It's the main sun's house and where the wheel pad square is. So that's the North Sun's house. Correct. And is there for the wheel pad itself. So I require utility suckers. And where will that come from? Welcome through the house. It will come through the four by four. So that's for transit between the house. Yeah, so water, wine and what you want. Well, the wheel pad stand on stupid question, maybe stay on wheels or to say, once it's connected to the house, there's a connection that's set down. You get three blocks foundation. It's just on. It's called papers and that has jacks on the side of it. We'll talk. Well, then it can be moved to the writing that you close the connection. That's my assumption that when the sham is living independently fully employed somewhere. I will pass that wheel pad on to another family that needs it. And what you take it with. Small, in a sense, is it going to replace behind the fence. Yes, the six inches, the six inches between the fence. So from the street, you're going to see the fence then you would see. Oh, we have to remove the fence to bring it in. But then we'll put it back. Do you have to move the heat pump? I mean, the condenser. It shouldn't be that it was four feet away three feet away so that we can move it in. Of course, that's delivering it. That is their job, not to hit. Oh, you know what, I didn't swear you all in so anyone wants to speak on this application, but you raise your right hand. So the testimony you're about to give is true and correct in the paints and penalties of perjury. Yes. I'm using. Okay, that's fine. I'm going to interrupt us so that people can see what we're talking about. Sure. And then I. So this one in the upper right hand corner is on fine street right now. Thanks. So there is one environment already. I unfortunately have to leave. I'm the owner of the company. My husband is the architect designer. He placed around the country. So my colleague and our director. Usually the connectors are five foot by five foot. We've been able to figure out how to move it smaller to deal with this current situation. And as to the electricity and sewer and water, it connects to the host homes. So the electricity takes the electrician and work from four to six hours and the same with the water. Where does it progress happen? Is it in order to get into this structure? In order to get into the structure, there is a ramp gets placed. And then that, and then through the connector gives the person. Right. It's an exterior ramp. Right. Where, so where does, where does that fall on the plants? In the front. So it's not on there now. It's not on them. From itself. The West. The West street. Will it be, will there be a. Some form of walkway or. Papers ready to provide access to them. I guess how from the street, because there's a fence there. No, the fence is only. It's only on this side. Okay. Access would be around, but just, well, you can just go to the front of the house too. Oh, okay. Sorry. You could all you could put it on the side, either one. Well, that's not part of that. Where do you want the ramp to go? How do you want the individual to access. As I do, once she wants to have an access through. Sounds. On the side on the south side. So. So, so the door to the wheel pad. Without going through the house. Right. We'd be facing the street or facing. Right now there's a trampoline where the, where the map would be. Definitely will move to another part of. Okay. What would the face of the wheel. Face of the street. I saw that. So. If you're going to. You can stand in the microphones. We can catch it. Introduce yourself. Yeah. Hey there. My name is RJ. I'm going to look at the front side of the wheel pad facing the street. It's going to be. Wood. And then on the top, it's got a high privacy window. You're not going to be able to see into it, but it lets him light that end. Is the bathroom end of a wheel pad. So. You can't see any photos of it. You can see an interior photo of it. The top right here. And you can see on the screen right now. You can somewhat see on the side. It's hard to see. The high privacy window into the bathroom. On the. On the. On the side of the. So. A plane level. First. First level of the household. In the same plane as the levels. Yes. Yes. So. I think it will be pretty much a single story. That you can see from the street. Yes. And you. You'll have to remove these two shrubs. Yes. Which I've never liked. I'm so. There used to be three. I cut one down. The other two. I left because I believe in nature. The. Back there. I've got. I'm planting wildflowers. Okay. So. I mean, there is. I mean, there is. I mean, there is. I mean, there is. I mean, there is. I mean, there is. I mean, there is. I mean, there is. I mean, there is. I mean, there is. I mean, there is. I mean, there is. I mean, there is. So, I mean, there is. One. Challenging thing that I think we have. I'm just a. Learned. It's obviously. Part of our decision. We. Can't approve. That access ramp. At this time. It's not showing on the plans. It's not a different property. It's on a platform. So. No matter what we do. You have to be aware. I mean, there is. One. Challenging thing that I think we have. We have to be aware. That's not part of our. Proceeding. That would have to come back. I think this was. It's not on the plans. And. Ways. In this. Not shown on the plans. And it's on a different property than one noticed. And. Yeah, necessarily, even if. Relative. Family member. Without some specific. Representation or agree that it's only. Attach a condition that by the way, here's a ramp on your property now. He can. So. I did want to flag that. Before we get into. Yes. I'm going to undo what you just said. We can play. Well, so this is a very true question. You guys approve it. You approve breaking the rules. So. Yeah. It's minimal. Right. It's minimal. So the application comes back. Or the acting comes back. Actually do it. And that will include. Ram. Ram. Specifically called out. As I'm setting. Setbacks. So. So. So. Right. That's that. Okay. So a variance request doesn't then trigger the ability to do the action. It triggers the ability to come before us. This is one piece. Can we put this thing in separate? Okay. Okay. The answer is yes to that. Then they have to come back with the actual. Showing it. That actually does undo my statement. So that is fair. Regardless. You can't build a ramp. Well. But not. Not. Not. Okay. Right. There. I have a question. Do you have a question? Um. If this had wheels on it. What makes itself count as a structure. Where it's proposed. It's not about the unit. It's about where it sits, which is basically the storage of the party. That's why I said it goes with the driveway. The driveway is already there. It's on wheels. And. Of course. But that's predicated on it having wheels. And I'm pretty sure I saw something in it. Location that said the wheels could or would say. That would be a move point. You're at the very sort of to be a structure. As you've been part of a wheel trailer and setback. Right. Right. But the wheel trailer would be in the setback. Technically. Of the. Set. Unit. Because. But because it's an existing driveway. It's a long. It's a long. It's a long. It's a long. It's a long. It's a long. It's a long. It's a long. It's a long. It's a long. It's a long. It's a long. It's a long. And. And it's an existing. To form a. Correct. Right. And also the wheel trailer. The driveway in the set. It's hard. But the driveway. Where this to be on the driveway with. With just back. Kind of back. With the garage. When it completely limit access to the crash. And. The neighbors. I guess in the photos it looks like it splits. Yeah, I know you've thought through all this, but just kind of thinking through that. The actual loop had splits. No, no, sorry about that. I'll drive it, yes. Oh, I see what you mean. But they have to pull through the share. Yeah, they need that attachment for the space. It's pretty far open. Can you use that drive like her? Oh, yes. Yes, yes. And it's difficult to back out whether my neighbors have that cost that. Question for staff is there anything in terms of. I want to improve something for two years that must be. There's variances are limited to two years, I think. So they would need to file an application to do this within two years and then it was going to permit itself is valid for three. I saw something in the CDO talking about variances that they reviewed on a really. Is that. Check, man. It might be a year to act on it. I have a short history. I see that being shared. You're asking. Yeah. I think it just said. A lot of yearly basis. I don't know. We can't go. We can't leave an open ending. Right. It's a shorter time to do it when there's a year or two years short of a tree. We should have a little down to have people come back and report to us. It's not really much we can do. Right. Get their report. On depot street. They had a front yard set back. Because of walking neighboring properties of that expired. Have become to renew them. Is that that steep slow property that. Joseph some product. I. You are your deliberations have covered it. Scott. Some valid points. I was going to share some of the experiences with municipalities across the country. We have. 18 placements in places like Boston. A car. Washington state. And we. We've heard some of the concerns because. Frankly. And I appreciate the questions and integrity. Which you're approaching. It's. I know that you need product. It does not exist. It shouldn't exist. Frankly. Every first floor of every home in the United States going forward. You build a successful bathroom. It's ridiculous that they're not. Still. But that's the way it is. Consequently mean. Well. Yeah. Sorry to keep. Sorry to keep. Sorry to keep talking about ingress and such. But so. Regardless of this next year ramp that's planned towards the. The north. Sort of. Where this. For this variance. And. Secret allocations. There would be access possible through the house. Yes. Yes. Yes. That could be an issue. And there's. There's adequate spacing. Of the window. There's a window on the suite. Sorry to speak in the mic. That's adequate size for the life safety purposes. So. That door. If it were an operational, it would still need life safety. Is there an expectation about which entrance would. Be used. North or south. On the suite. So the swing door is typically the door that people connect through. That's where all the connections. For. Plumbing the life for a place of water. We'll go and announce this. The typical connection. In this case, it's also. Really. The place to come back. So. What is the height? What is the final. Roughly 13. I don't know exactly based on where the bottom floor. It's going to be to make sure it's not. And eventually we're moving some, some questions. I'm just looking in the, in the aerial. Those are the ones. On the street side of the fence. Yes. Okay. So, so from the streets. There'll be a clear site lines to, to the fence. And then. Sure. But, you know, there'll be landscaping. So. What's the deck construction back? What is the back actually built like. It's. Tracks stacking. Tracks stacking is a. Surface or is there like a great. It makes a difference. Four steps. So I steps up to it. And then that goes into what kitchen area back. Or the back area, but there's another step. Beyond that. So. So from the deck to the house. And what's the backyard. Great. So. Yeah. So. So. Yes. The audience wants to speak with us. Anybody on zoom. Want to. Comment. Sorry. Your hand. Okay. Okay. Um, questions from the board. I guess to jump off the last set of questions. Did you consider. The backyard at all. My feeling was that. In the backyard. The house. In. In time to be developed. My grandson. To come in trouble. Building. Has to play. Out of. Backyard. Didn't see. You have to take off the. To the house. Is there space to do that there. Whether or not there would there even be space to connect. To the house. in the space like between the garage where the deck is and the back of the house, is that it? You mean when you removed the deck? If you took off the deck, we all had to fit up against the house with the garage where it is. Questions, how do you get in? You'd have to turn it at 90 degrees. Not much where you could get it in. I couldn't get it, I don't know if you could get it in. I'm not saying you couldn't, I don't know if you could at 24. I think it would be very difficult. Make it 90 turn. Because you'd have to come in through the side, make a 90 turn in the space and get it in there. You might want to be able to do this. And it would change the use of the backyard. So, you know, Mary and her son share the backyards together for grandkids, grandkids, grandkids, you know, travel through the back yard and you can see a parking lot, for instance. And it would take up a lot of space back there, not to mention sort of having to change the deck and having that arrangement. It would most likely need to take down the plum tree in order to get the model back there. It's in between their two properties. So it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to get it there at the right spot. And then also with the lock and the access, you would have to come to the front door to go to the garage. You mentioned that you don't expect this to be here forever. Just roughly the timeline you're seeing. Well, we travel around from around in 26 or 27, depending on the manager's physically. He's bound to go to graduate school. He's a genius. So he'll, you know, go to get a PhD three, four years or more. Yeah, I can't think after seven years that he's still really interested in that stuff. But I hope so. And then, yes, but he'll know. I will no longer feel when I need to provide an answer. And Wilpette has the ability to repurchase, repurpose the model and send it out to another family. That's here and there, I think. Right. Well, I appreciate the engaged discussion on this. I think we're going to wrap up the public hearing and take this into deliberation. So, thank you. There's too many more on the bottom. Yeah, I asked for trouble. So the next item on our agenda is 230 Main Street. And then this is an appeal Z204-1. He'll, I feel like 50. No, hold on. Thank you. Well, we'll reach a decision tonight. And so contact staff tomorrow, I guess. This is a ZAP 24-1 appeal of administrative officers notice of violation in December 27, 233, change of crystal surface parking lot without solving permit. This is an appeal. So we typically ask the city to go first and establish the basis for the zoning violation and why they should want to, why we should hold it. So, Ted, are you going to do that? Attention to fire from the city on. Everything for the city on this item, but that comes really way in as the public. I'm apparently, as I have learned, I've invested some property in the city. Okay. So Scott, you're speaking for the city? Yep. Anybody else speak on this? Please raise their right hand. Do you swear to test the testimony you're about to give in the matter of the considerations? True and correct? Do the names and penalties of hergery? I do. All right. So Scott, you're rolling. That would be saying. Yes. So there's a fairly long history here, but I won't get into because I could do that sort of thing. So we have before the board tonight an appeal of a notice of zoning violation that was issued in November of 2023. And that violation notice to paraphrase sites unprovided use of the property as a surface parking lot, parking area, and non-compliance with the zoning permit that was issued to demolish the town or the town and convert the property to clean space. So that's the approved site plan that goes with the reference zoning permit. The bottom, although it's fairly basic, shows what's supposed to be green landscaping in front. That zoning permit was valid through, I want to say, November 20th, give or take 2023. It's expired for humans. And the property continues to be not green, continues to be gravel and asphalt. And city staff simply requests the board to uphold that the property is not in compliance with that permit. Scott's question, we extended this review for a while. And if I'm correct, it was some discussion that this would be a laydown site or a parking site or a main street of renovations. Was that a- That was talked about while the permit is still valid. We talked about potentially signing that into an agreement. Ever got signed, never became an agreement. Fast forward of this coming before the board in February was deferred to allow more time for parties to work at an agreement. There's been a few versions of agreements floating around, including a few today, and I'll make a quick sign. So here we are. What would be the impact of holding the violation? Could follow up with that. Would it be that they could apply for more parking for cuts, or would they be limited from doing that? What would be the sort of impact? There's clearly there was some understanding for a period of time that somebody could park there or something. That's who you talk to. Okay. Are those cuts parking there? So my understanding cuts was parking there while the permit would still lock. Okay. If you might recall, we issued a violation notice a couple of years ago. Yeah. And the interesting thing there was that violation, again, to paraphrase, said, hey, not compliant with the permit. Healed it to the DRB. DRB said, well, we think there's a lot of violation here, but we think it's different. We think it's that you're running parking. So the court is, the DRB didn't just uphold or deny the violation. So when it got to court, the court said, well, you can't do that. So basically we lost that on the penalty. So then we let the permit provide its course so you can remember it to me three and issued a new notice of zoning violation. After that, the permit expired because the property was still not green. So what did we not do the last time this came through us? The board did not directly uphold or overturn the notice of violation. Violation notice and not compliant with the permit, right? Or it said, well, you think there's a violation, but it's not there. We think it's because you're running parking. So the board said something different for the violation. So the court said, it can't do that. That's different from a violation. So we would have had to deny the violation and you'd bring it differently. Perfect. That's kind of what we did, but we just wouldn't follow that source. And the court process said that the permit was still valid. So we couldn't uphold or that's a violation until the permit expired. But we had to wait until the permit expired before we started the process of it. So the permit expired in November 24, 23, correct? And you brought a violation after that. So the specific violation now it's what? So that makes a mistake. It's being used as sort of a parking. It's not being used as surface parking. Yes. I thought it was for its expired, so it cares for you. Well, that's the most recent permit, operation to that government. Isn't the violation what's not green? Yes. That's, I think the violation of the permit. It's the same for me the last time you sang. All right. Parking still. The penalty that was made last time was that before we decided something would be different from the previous one. Technicalities aside, the property would be changed. So the description of violation here is change of use to surface parking slash parking not without a zoning permit. So green has nothing to do with it. Yeah. There's actually two different things. The change of use illegal use of a parking space and the nonconformity with the permit that's been approved to be in space. So that's why it says the change of use is being used as surface parking, which is not permanent. What it says here is it's, you know, it's the service partner and the property not compliant with the zoning permit. Right. That's it. The zoning permit says this should be green. The zoning permit expired. Yes. Yeah. That's expired. But it was expired. But the midtown has gone. The demolition of the the demolition contingent upon the use of it as a green space. Okay. So they did part of the permit. Yeah. Is surface parking allowed use in this district? Yeah. We just whispered solely. It's not allowed use of surface parking. Right, right, right. But if you have a building, you can obviously have surface parking. We can't. That's the Champaign Farms. Not the case from the corner there. Oh, I forgot. Okay. Ted, do you have anything else for us to know? You're good. I'm good. Thank you. All right. Let's hear from the property owner. Yeah. Can you ground roll money a little bit? Yeah. The venture propanity. I don't know what you're talking about. Maybe a little history. The infamous midtown motel. Everybody familiar with it, but the views still apply. We purchased it back in 1995, thinking that we would have a chance to redevelop it through the cost of the city. And that was a slight miscalculation of it. We ran it for 10 years in the motel, closed it in 2005, because there was changes to the codes. We had to sprinkle it and do a lot of things. It didn't seem like it was the right way to move forward. So we shut the motel down as a primary use back then. We parked underneath the motel on a surface parking lot and in our 1986 permit, it was referenced as least parking in the permit in 1986. So in 2005, we shut down the motel. I'm learning a lot along the way here that I didn't bring this up in 2001 when we were providing a demolition permit, but that became the primary use for the parking. And the city never said stop parking. So we continued to park on it for 15 years. So then we thought, I said, the roof that failed 2000 quantities so they're rather to spend $30,000 on the roof. Said, okay, time to end the motel down. I thought that would have been welcome to tear that motel down. And I was met with a series of obstacles, one of which was the threat of a demolition by neglect because there is a code in the ordinance. It's something in the ordinance that says demolition by neglect, the property order can be fined. I said, well, I'm through this because the exciting time on tell was deemed historic. Well, I come to the business organ second, I said, this is not demolition by neglect because I could stop everything and put a new roof on it, but that's not a wise use of anybody's resources. So, and then I reminded the city that demolition by neglect might be similar to the Memorial Auditorium because that's coming from the city of issues. So we stopped talking about demolition by neglect, but then I have proved the city that it was not destroyed. So I went to the state and a certain review board and won that round. They said, no, it's not a short, it's just all the dilapidated. So they said, you tear it down. So we said, okay, tear it down. And Scott asked me, what are you gonna do with it? I said, well, we'll continue to use it for parking. And he says, no, it's, you can't use it for parking because it's a change of use. And I scratched my head as it was a change of use, it's a parking. And the city said, well, it's going from structuring parking, right, to surface parking. It's just because I'm carrying a building down, the pavement that the motel, the parking sat on had no reference to the building of all the structure. Not like you built them today, where the concrete would support everything. This was separate from the 1958. So then I have an engineering reports after the fact that says it is not structured, but it was always surface parking. So we should have been able to continue to park on it. Nonetheless, we wanted to tear it down. So we agreed and we agreed to grass it in. So then we had three years to comply with our permit conditions, but we were threatened with fines by staff because we continued to park on it. We had to go to court that was referenced earlier and we won because we have three years to comply with the conditions. Then Cox calls me, the same, we're doing a project on the street. We need a CG area for a contractor parking. I said, no cop to staff because they told me no. Lo and behold, Cox was given the green light to use it for parking. I confirmed it was Scott. I go, was that who gave permission? Staff. We never executed anything, right? No, we didn't, absolutely. We didn't because I didn't think it was necessary. I'm just there. We got to get along with everybody. I said, let's go ahead and use it. No charge, you got it. Okay. So Cox uses it. Cox goes beyond the three years because they weren't delayed. So I let staff know that, hey, what do you want to do here? I was never explicitly told that you've got to come in here and get a permit condition to this and that. So Cox went beyond their date. Now, of course, we're in November and you don't class plant grass as a member of a foolish. So I figured, and then meanwhile, I'll back it up a little more. In 2000, early 2003, about a year ago, I learned that DPW was looking to do this main street project and would like to maybe use our life, our safety area, right? Let's work something out. So those conversations were ongoing, right? My thing is only over here. DPW is over here, I think. Same building. I didn't think I needed to like, hash this out to anybody. I said, the city wants to use our land for a project. I'm happy to help out. So long beyond, we can't notice the violation. Like, why would I grass in a lot in November, knowing that the city would rip it up in February? Is that a big deal? It doesn't make sense to me either. So DPW still want to use it. Absolutely. And we're this close to an agreement, but as you referenced earlier, agreements are flying back and forth. We probably would have had it papered over by now, but the city attorney's kind of, there's been delays obviously. So we're very close. So that's where we are. And so back to over the last three years, we've learned a lot of things about how this should play out, especially when you think about, if this is brashed in, it will likely become some type of homeless again. We all know this is a big problem to have. I've already had three tents on this lot that we had to remove. So I think it would be foolish. And I've talked to chief mirad, I've talked to the fire chief. Neither one of those folks wants to see this grass in because they know all about it. It seems foolish to be rashed in. I'm suggesting maybe we grapple it, some extent. And then maybe I'm not asking for parking because that would be rich too far. We don't need to talk about parking. So I think it's parking happening a lot right now. It was one, I can't control public. They're, well, I own this truck was there today because they happen to be using it, but that's why we're not. It's cost parking. What's that? It's cost parking. No, cost is budget is done. Yes. See, we have tenants and I rather agree on what we do next next week. We have tenants that should park on their side, they should park with it. But that's about it. And then some contractors come and go because the projects are going now. So, you know who's absolutely practicing. At least the mainstream project and I owns equipment and everything. And not everybody understands which property is which. So, So other than the mainstream project possibly using the last staging area, what's your goal for this? Well, it's no secret the city, there's a development group that we're talking about. And so it'll likely change hands in the future. There's a development agreement with that group, with the city now. So over the years, we have a lot of ideas for this part. REI wanted to be here, partner wanted to do two-story building. We work with the UVM on their arena idea. We work with Robinson High School, they were looking at high school, side school. We've been a good player for the community. We've analyzed a lot of different things in conjunction with the city. So kind of, we've been treated, we don't feel that we've been treated very well over the years about here we are in our court. We're deemed to be in violation, but we did cause a big favor. It seems like a odd place to be, given what we know today. I'm wishing you didn't say you'd grass it over. I didn't wish you'd ever said you would grass it over. I mean, that's the basic problem here. Well, let's be, can't you, the DRV could say, the chief year-end is by the chief, and we know we have a homeless problem. Why do we want to put the city in this position? But the premise that you agreed to, that would be a step to the basic issue. We'd like to, I'm asking you to consider the one extension, so that we have time to finish our negotiation facility, and a reconsideration of the landscape plan moving forward. And I'm not going to hold it. But I don't want to settle the city with the homeless again. Well, so we can't solicit a degree. On this notice appeal, subject to, apparently, back on the first slide, slightly wrong with our slides. Only we could reevaluate the landscaping. Limited to say, yes, there's violation, or no, there's violation. That's it. So we probably have some sort of question if you were that some leeway in terms of creating a window to address the violation. And plus, well, when addressing the violation, it's going back to the Virgin permit or filing some other application. Yeah, to some extent, but sort of adjust that window. But that's true. I would just mention in your answer that it hasn't come up. There's a reason why the approved plan should be. That's because it's in the form. Jeff and I have this discussion. This is one basically. Any development, any development on that line has to comply with the warrant. Right. The only alternative is nothing. The only alternative is nothing. What is nothing, sir? Nothing is allowed in the legal. It can't have a walkway, it can't have a fence, it can't have a shed. It doesn't care what the form is code or vehicle. So it's just dirt. Dirt with grass. It could just grass or something. It could just be dirt, but our friends down the hall had stormwater with them. So it was approved as grass with some landscaping. So grass in the form is code is effectively perfect. Right. Well, it's not a sell bar, and then it's a stay party. Well, it pertains to our definition. That's my question. If I were to reapply knowing what we now know, and knowing that the decision couldn't have been made, because there's a gray area here about construction parking, surface parking, change of use that I was brought up in. And now that I have an engineering report I've been sharing that says in a picture that says that pavement does not connect to your motel. The foundation of that motel and the supports supported the building only did not support the parking pavement. So if you have to make it that, we have to get to that amount of detail I have it. That says it should never be a change in use because my primary use in 2005 changed from motel to parking. The tax records will show if you stop collecting tax from us on the rooms. So in 2005, it became a primary use of parking that continued all the way to like them on the building. I inadvertently agreed to that because I desperately wanted to tear it. It was rotten. It was falling apart. I had a specialist to have it do. Plus, it's 140 grand to take the thing down the correct way with the specialist to be able to do it. So we've been good citizens through this whole process. And so I'd like to say, if that's the only option today under the current permit, could I come back, reapply? You make the decision that, OK, it's surrounded by all of this parking. Anyway, it's all going to get demoed and rebuilt soon because the city's now engaged with the redevelopment the whole lot. Why would we ever want to grass it in, create a homeless encampment for three or four years, and then rip it all up again and have it developed? I mean, we're bound by the zoning ordinance. So I mean, but if you if you choose to, if you can't unring the bell, that's correct. You can't collaboratively attacking the application. That's not to say you can't apply for something else with its own window of compliance, that there isn't something else you could have on that goal date on that site or that there isn't another way through it. But I can't, certainly not now, wouldn't advise one way or the other. But we can't reconsider or reopen it once it's decided three years. What's the status of a violation? If I have to be right, this is a violation of an expired permit. Correct. So the violation of an expired permit and what's there, it can be permitted anyhow. But the permit said take down and make a grass. And the time to make put the grass in their past, that's really what expired. And when it was not grassed as of the end of that period, the violation was. I guess what I am, I would like you to clearly tell us is why you don't want to grass it. Is it just financial when you're planning on? Well, for one thing, if I grass it in tomorrow, the city is going to rip it up in three weeks when we sign the agreement to use that as a staging area. So and it didn't make any sense to me to grass it in October when Cox was still parking on it. Because the city was already talking to me. They evidently nobody was talking to each other in this building, but I think his only thing was ready to find aid. And DPW is asking us to use it. So, so the best case scenario for you is that the city uses it to the Great Streets Project or it was called that last year and a half. And then the block that everybody's trying to figure out comes up and then you blend into that. But if that doesn't happen, you're back in violation. We still are based in violation of that. But hopefully by that time, the new owners will be talking to you about fairing parking. Really about the window of compliance that Brad could talk about. Yeah, I got it, I guess. But the window of compliance, if I had thought that I needed to do this, but when I'm talking to DPW about ripping up my lot, I didn't connect those dots for six weeks or however long it was. It seems foolish. So public works and BPI and fuck up, we're making a decision. So would I have liked them in knowing that what Scott just said, why didn't somebody just call them? So say, hey, Jeff, you really ought to paper this over. I would have. I think we've heard good arguments from all sides. I do have one question for the staff. Even if the DPW signs an agreement to use it as a staging when they add, it would still, I mean, it's still not, but I think this is DPW is asking it to be used as the non-permitted use in the foreign ministry. Right. We cannot be being in my department. They should not be to be staged in our department. It's all about some sort of additional time. For example, the city could agree to that, you know, enforcement could take place for an additional extember period of time so that the city can serve the city. And we don't really make any statement one way or the other about enforcement. Is that, that's true, we find out violation, not violation. You know, but she could say it needs to be resolved, you know, with that. Right. Good. So we can say that. All right. Well, good. Is that ever something just paying in green? No, no, no. Anything is a thank. Is that up close to the public airman in this agenda? I don't know. So, wait, we should tell them it's on Kim. Sorry, Kim. Turn his shirt around, hands are hand up. Okay. Good evening. Kim's starting right here. And I just wanted to, there's a few things that I just wanted to touch upon for the board. One, the terms that we're throwing around about expired, just in my mind to be clear, this is a permit that was acted on. And so the question is, you know, compliance with the terms of the conditions of the permit. And we're past the point where the compliance was supposed to occur. And that's, you know, the basis of the notice of violation. Another issue was brought up about non-conformity or statute limitations about surface parking. In my point of view, that is not an issue for this application or this permit because there is a permit and an unappealed final permit that was not challenged at the time. It was enacted. And now there's a condition that the space needs to be green. So any, if there was arguments regarding statute limitations or pre-existing legal non-conformities, those are superseded by the permit that was approved and enacted upon. And it's before you now. I think those are the big things I just wanted to touch upon. I mean, what's before the board is just, is there a violation or not on this property right now? Okay. Thank you, Kim. You're welcome. Thanks. So with that, I'll close the public hearing. Just a question. Okay. Yes. Are you deciding among this, just an extension so we can get the notice in place? We are deciding on how we will roll on the appeal of the notice of violation. Don't know about that. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Thank you. All right. So last item on our agenda is CP 2465 140 Grove Street. Okay. Requests to do a collection of things at a previously approved PUD including re-approval, remunerated approval of more, we need to encourage. You know, we've seen a series of modifications to your PUD. We know it very well. Just highlighted the changes. Sure. Just on this. Yeah, that's where you went. All those. Anybody on Zoom who wants to speak on this too? Sorry. Sorry, Rachael and Jenna. We have Caleb and Anna from Public Works in case there's a question, though. Okay. Yeah, Sharon Butcher with their hand up. All right. Sorry, Rachael. Rachael, do you swear the testimony you're about to give is a matter of consideration is true and correct of the PUD's and it will take some territory. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. By the way. Yes, sir. Thank you. Sure. Nick Smith. I work with West Maryland. Please. And we're part of the developer here. You can expect that. All right. And I'll just briefly go over some of the changes that were highlighted in the original letter to the Department of Dispections and that with the number one, we're trying to come into compliance with the number of things that have been since our previous permit. Some of these include coverage that's discussed and the sun report, parking spaces. There's a lot of kind of thoughts and then items on stair removal, like fence construction items, a few other items that are, I guess, we can talk about maintenance. And the maintenance garages. Well, a site plan in case we need maintenance garages. So we need as-built changes or? Correct. Some of these are built and need to go back. Yeah. And so what I'm discussing to start is all these changes have already happened. We're asking that as expeditions would be accepted. But the maintenance garages near the maintenance garage was approved, originally, that's how it was inspired. Speaking of maintenance garages, if it's the one of them. Yes, and that was what I was going to get into. So the maintenance garage has this, we are actually asking for location care. To see if there's a building in the past. Yeah. Other operations that we're asking for that have not occurred would be the entrance within the right of way. There's a sidewalk that is supposed to cross the mediums that we're looking to install. It's just a really- I like that. That's a good point. Yeah. There are photos, but yeah, if you look at the bottom of the page there, there's a photo. We have a photo there. If you go right there, you'll see, we're looking at a crosswalks, at a connection point across. We'll see that we're also looking to remove staring conferences on this plan. Yeah, adding some additional. So these are all proposed changes here. The best point. Best. Thank you. Sure. That seems generally nice to keep together. Do you have any issues with that sidewalk across the door? Well, of course we're the stars. Yeah, we got comments on just marketing. So I assume based on those comments that they were intent on all the other proposed changes. Caleb, is that true? Caleb, this is your big moment. You know, I had a glass of milk. I'd have to come back. I talked to Caleb. Yeah, I was. He says. Okay, part of me is to follow some of that stuff. So yes, some of this stuff was previously approved with a green stretch in the cross, the sidewalk that crosses those lines. And a few other modern things that we never got to. So when it came time to, for example, first to decide we want to go through the policy of the department. Secondarily, there are some items that are a general cleanup. That's an information that we need to improve for. For example, the last part of the presentation. So this is both a general cleanup and to do some things that we already were supposed to do under the agreement. Then the last kind of highlight item that I'll bring up is the overlook that was originally approved for Pavilion for requesting them based on continued conversations with Citi and also in combination with just, we're unable to get that building constructed up there on our insurance coverage. They just, nobody gives my building coverage for that essentially. So we're requesting that that would be eliminated from this application on that. We would in lieu they'd be to the department of parks and some people think they could do it in the park nearby and in lieu of that. So we talked to them about that and they fixed up. It seems they're a specific amount that's been agreed to the parks right? Yes. A little bit of history on that one. So it was initially conceived by us, the applicant that where the old existing concrete plant is, you'll see if people lie there, you'll see the old plant. So the thought was what we would do is kind of turn that into something really cool. So in discussions back then with the DRB and Parks and Rec, we thought it would be a really good idea to build this into a kind of a small forum and what we're going to do is put a table on it. And we went so far as getting involved with I think it was like the head committee. And the idea was people coming down on bikes or places to stop. Look, it was all a great idea. And we got a approval until we discovered through that process that the city wanted us to do with the ownership of it. Subsequently, we found out that our trumps company would not buy this. And so what we're doing now is we're simply went through this exercise to restore it and we made it smaller to do this and do that. There was a plaque dedicating it from the Stue Island to Stardustier, which was the first compute plant there. And so it was, we really wanted to do it, but there's not enough room between the green spaces which would create another encumberment from it. So we had this idea of maybe doing something in New York City as a part. And that's that. What's the dollar, city? I don't know, it really matters. Well, I still, I don't know, it's several thousand dollars. City and the report is in addition. A number is not in addition, but there's a condition that's identified in my report. We have that as something that's provided to staff. Sure. Yeah, I just, not that it's out of the question. You just have an appeal hearing. Yes. Something that was not being clear. So let's just be clear. It's a text both parties, you know? That, if I remember correctly, as I can probably answer to this, that a million, what was there before was used to grant additional height out of the buildings exists. So I only has benefited three or four buildings of additional height and additional rents, revenues, as a result of the building that existed. So we should tell them to build it and not get insurance for it? No, my point is that it should be got up cheaply because it really benefit me financially. I have additional bonuses. I appreciate that, but I understand you're retired. Actually, we're still on the table. We're not even parks department though. No, but I guess, you know, that's a fair mistake, right? Because when we were going through this, that was the basis of a height. But in Scott can cut me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that that structure was tied to the fact that it needed to stay nor the grant the way, but we were just trying to make limits out of a lot, limited aligns with the structure instead of what stayed. And I rotate. It's flashed on itself mostly already. If I can just jump into, I would say that the density of this development would be unchanged whether the heights or the extra storage that were granted. I mean, there's the ability, there would have been the ability at that point to add an additional building in these units as far as rightful collection and things like that. I think I appreciate that. I think the parks department, if they are accepting the payment they will ask for what they could be fair to them. And then the last item for, I guess, really, obviously the type of complex is the maintenance garage. So we can go over any of the design of that. Because we already saw basically, is it changed often? It's very, very similar to the original. It's just a refined design. That's different. The configuration of the parking and the storage of stockpiling and onsite materials, locations, same location, same size, right at the same corner. Yeah, materials, colors, materials, matching everything. It's already existing. Sharon, you had your hand up? Yeah, I'm sure. Sorry, I didn't realize you asked me to unmute. Excuse me. Thank you so much. My name is Sharon Busher and I live in this ward. And I had a couple of questions. I think that you addressed one of them or clarified one, but I wanted to, once again, verify what the maximum height was that was allowed because of the existing tall structure that has been torn down. And there was all that issue regarding what could be allowed based on what was there. And I think that the height that you said was 50 feet, as opposed to 35, but I wasn't clear about that. The other piece had to do with the residential units. Now, the maintenance building is for them, not for me to weigh in on necessarily. But the residential units, anything that is built from now on, and I don't know if this is the last phase, it's just, I go there because I now work for the government for another purpose. And I go there and interact with some of the people who find the housing quite accommodating. And I'm glad it's there. But the noise issue, so I just knew that, I don't know in new structures if there will be more attention paid to soundproofing, if at all possible from the noise of the, not only the, I'm not talking about the F-35s, I live on East Avenue and I can't talk to anyone on the phone or anything. So I'm not suggesting you can really overcome that, but just the other noise from the airport, I think is really germane. And in this proposal, there was improvements to or a modification to the entrance and exit of the going into Baybury Commons. And I just wanted to understand was that based on accidents that have occurred there or is that based on turning radius or what was the motivation to change that and is the motivation and will the DRB look at that to make sure that any necessary improvements are imposed or occur at this opportunity. And the other pieces, you know, pedestrians do cross that entrance and exit and has that been a problem for pedestrians or and mainly those would be occupants of your property, but other people who might be going from grove to passion. So those were the issues that came to mind for me. The last thing which has, you can't impose, but I found it when you first proposed this development, I thought that this would be a great place for housing for university staff and medical center staff and having a shuttle bus like they run other places to bring them to those institutions. I still feel that there was great value in that. That was not entertained seriously. And I regret that when I was a city counselor, I didn't do more to try to make that happen because there's such a need for creating housing that is in close proximity to where people work and shuttle service reduces the amount of cars on the road. It's still a vehicle on the road, but fewer vehicles. So anyways, I just wanted to put that out there again. I just feel like we are missing opportunities in this community that might not be as costly as initially we thought. So thank you. Well, I'll address those just by the way. So Scott outlines the building height limitations and the report that appears. So the steel structure was 59 feet, but a lot of things got heated height, 35 is the maximum. The highest building is approximately 58 feet height. So. I mean, so many cars changed in this thing, but Scott. So you could go to 15 now, essentially, because it's the height of the principal building on site. It's pretty good, I think. As far as, I guess we'll just take note of the construction material and soundproofing on our end. Yeah, there's not really a building. And then I'll move on to the entry. The entry, this is to come into conformance with the previous approval. The modifications really are a little bit of curbing that will be lower so that we can actually get pedestrian access. So it will be addressing pedestrian access across the front. There's no change to turning radius or any configuration. The same geometry is just now processed. Even long and sure of it is, we never built the sidewalk, right? So they cross in front of the island now, rather than through the island. And so now, DPW has requested that we author what was originally almost an approval. So the sidewalk was right through the island. So it's really, exactly. I think that was awkward. Any more questions from the board? What was the public carrying on the siege on Titan? What was it like right now? I think it's all very right. Recording stopped. Sure. You got it on me. I didn't call him. It wasn't 12 minutes long. He's not going to get it back. We've seen some restaurant spots. So I don't think I can see it on you. Yeah. Oh, the 238. That's for the past. Sure. That's what we got out of the cell center. What's what are you all? That's OK, Brad. 12148. Yeah, 12148. Yes, it says. And we already approved. That's great. So we did, right? For me, for the Himmels Street. Relatives of what we do, we can also encourage them to come back and apply for some treatment. Well, since they don't want to be applied for. They can do whatever they want. Well, after we make our decision. Right. That we continue and apply for backup people. Are we talking about? Why don't you say, why don't we do Main Street 1st, 7th?