 not taking the square here but the square here. I think this was a square here, but the mutual. Yeah, because they're doing the mutual. Oh, that's a good idea. Yeah, but the only thing that's going on, is that my request, I feel for observation. I want you to know what I think. I think there is something about that. Well, I think Debbie's coming. Debbie's coming. Second nothing but good things. Other members from my right are Rob Goodwin, Kevin O'Carroll, Meredith Crandall, Staff Kate McCarthy, Ryan Cain. Good. The first item of business is approval of the agenda. I'll make the motion to approve the agenda. Second that. All those in favor of the agenda. Second. Second by Kevin. All those in favor of the minutes. As interpreted. Is there a right hand that our eligible host? 27th Court Street. The do is I'll have your, state your name for the record and I'll put you under oath. Is there anyone else here this evening of your testify on 27th Court Street? Great. So I'll just state your name for the record. Do you solve this where our firms, if the evidence you're about to give for the matter under consideration, shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the paint penalties of burgery. So Meredith, why don't you give us an overview of this application and then I'm going to let the applicants give their presentation. So I'm going to keep this pretty brief. So this is a renovation plan. The big reason that it's here before the board is because part of the plan is partial demolition of a portion of a contributing historic structure. So that bumped it up here immediately. It did also go through design review because it's in the design review district. And so you'll need to re-review that and look at the recommendations from the design review committee and confirm that those are all going to be included as conditions on any permit going forward. There are some minor site plan questions that came up during the review that most of them I think deal with facts that the applicant will need to address which is coverage amounts and an issue with regard to exactly how far the corner of the porch on the rear of the building will be from one of the site setbacks. But the big issue is really the demolition. And just to be clear, the application is for demolition of a significant portion, not the structure. Great. It's an addition and a shed that are attached to the back of the building that were added on after the original building. And this, for members who have been part of this work for a while, this is a revisit with a changed plan for the renovation plan. But that demolition of the rear portion was part of the old plan as well. Right. I was going to note that that I think at least Kevin and I were here before. I don't know if you were here. Okay. I don't think so. So it is a few years, been a few years. How time does fly. But obviously you're not bound by that earlier review, but I did remember that we had reviewed that and I remember that there were some questions about the historic contributing nature of this portion of the building. And I presume that based on the application that Dan is going to have some testimony to offer as to the contributing nature of this portion that we wish to demolish. With that, I'll give you the floor. In the first place. I've lived in the homes since 2014. And I remember very recently, with the view of prominent discrimination. Demolition would be at the shed and in addition... Sorry. Is there a reason why you dated that, not that late, but that different of a time if this is a sort of 19th century structure? I would then speak to the lead on that. I don't have this professional opinion on that. Yeah. I don't know exactly when this was built. We can tell it wasn't original. We can see there's some kind of ghost lines in the paint on that rear cable end that clearly there was some other little shed back there at some point. The quality of the construction is markedly different than the quality of the construction of the original house. The original house is a well built addition and shed is a very poorly built addition and shed. Maybe some of it was... Some of it is not finished space. The shed is certainly not finished space. The addition, maybe it was never finished space and maybe someone in the 40s kind of attempted to, or at some point along the way, attempted to bring it into the house and raise the square footage of the house. The finishes in that space kind of streamed in 1940. Sorry to interrupt, I was just curious. So the intention is to renovate the house to scope in three presidential units, one unit on each floor, the first four going from a three bedroom to a two bedroom unit and the second and third floors. That's the scope of the project. And so what's lost by the demolition is that it goes from a three bedroom on the first floor to a two bedroom. Is there any impact on the second or third floor? It is, yeah. I didn't hike on the second floor. Currently the second floor addition, which would be demolished, houses the kitchen. Okay. So you're going to... It's going to accompany a sort of renovation within the apartment itself, then moving the kitchen forward. Yeah. Over the last four years, as I've lived in the house and used the house, sometimes I've lived on each floor. So I've experienced the problems on each floor and the opportunities. And I've rented out each floor, of course. The second floor has been a two bedroom, with that kitchen being in the addition section. And so this would move that kitchen to where one of the bedrooms is currently. Referring to the addition on the back, because I know that there's also sort of a bump out on one of the sides. Correct. Okay. Yes, I'm referring to addition in the back. We had for some time assumed that the bump out, which is about five feet, and it is just on the first floor. Although the second floor addition is matches that bump out goes on the first floor. Okay. We suspected for some time that that bump out was not original for the house. More recently, Dan's opinion is that it may well be that bump out on the first floor original to the house. And there's a couple of things to look at. I hadn't considered in the past that indicated it may be original. So I'm looking at the drawings of the elevations. I just want to make sure I fully understand. And I'm looking at A3. And that's... That seems to illustrate. So you've got the existing front porch of the house that's staying the same. And I'm looking at the existing elevation on that drawing. And then you've got the main house building, I would say. And that's going to stay the same except for... Looks like you're replacing a window... A door with a window. And then it's in the back, really, that the demolition is occurring. And so is that entire section, in your opinion, Dan, newer to the house? Absolutely. Okay. So it's a distinctively different quality than the main house. From foundation to roof. Okay. So it's not as if you're taking part of the old house and deconstructing it. The original house will be, you know, will undergo, would go undergo the remodel, but that rear half is absolutely a different vintage. I've been to some of the other issues. So when that portion is taken out, you're then going to resize the back of the house and add that cupboard porch. Anything else? Anything else as far as kind of what changes on there? Windows siding and the porch. I'm going to jump to the provisions for the tear down. So I think that, before we talk about any of the setbacks or issues, I think we do have to take a look at the... Evolution group seven. There we go. Right. I just want to make sure we do the right findings that we have to, because that seems like a threshold because we don't get into any of the coverage issues unless we can make a sort of determination as to whether or not the standards have been met for the demolition. So to accept we have questions about that. I'd like to go through the findings that we do need to make. And so section 3004, section D2 states that the demolition or replacement of any structure or portion thereof listed as a contributing structure to the Vermont Historic Sites and Structure Surveys and the National Historic Resources is prohibited unless a development review board approves demolition and site restoration plan and the board makes the following findings. A rehabilitation of the structure or portion thereof would cause undue financial hardship to the owner. So if you could address that criteria, it hasn't necessarily... I understand that it's about lesser quality than the main house. It looks like it was added on, but that's true of a lot of old houses. What makes this cost prohibitive to renovate as it exists currently today? I would, in no particular order, the foundation, it's not on a quality foundation. The rest of the house has a real foundation under it, so this back part of the house has some rocks laid on the ground and it's like a little crawl space kind of scrambled to get in there. So I would say for starters, it needs a new foundation. The lot is very, very hemmed in. There is a significant ledge on the north side of the property that comes down right to the building such that you can see over the years that north wall system has been repaired again and you can see it's just kind of undergone some pretty marginal quality repairs over the years. It has, you know, kind of debris and leaves and things just kind of have found their way into that kind of acute angle there. So would you call that a perpetual problem that is just always going to have either rock slides or leaves? It's impossible to detail that properly in its current state for sure. So you one cannot access the foundation repair from any side other than the driveway side and gets one would need to get access all the way around to do a proper foundation repair. What kind of foundation does it have? It's got, it's like some rocks just kind of, you know, placed there. The original slab. It's pretty minimal in its current state which I'm, you know, Theo can, you know, kind of share some stories about various, various, you know, critters getting in there and wreaking havoc within the house. I believe at least one picture was submitted that shows a shock within the shed, the foundation of which is just dirt. On the story issue, I think you did a great job with the meeting skunks. I wish it weren't true. Better than fiction. I'm not far enough removed from that experience to think but fondly. I'll try to contain myself. So to put a real foundation repair in there would require lifting the building, you know, significantly up in the air so that we could excavate properly and, you know, we haven't, you know, that's an expensive proposition right out of the gates. And then, you know, the amount of structural repairs that needs to, that would need to happen to the existing kind of structural components, you know, is, it really just kind of a significant portion of it just needs to be rebuilt. I'm certain that the sill all the way around the things that's sitting on those rocks is just completely shot and that rear northerly wall is also just completely shot. So again, so we start with the foundation significant expense, structural repair is significant expense. It needs, you know, it needs, the siding is, you know, in incredibly poor condition so new siding, new windows, I mean the whole thing just really needs to be rebuilt and then of course the interior finishes would need to be gutted. There's no insulation in anything over there. It's just a complete rebuild to the point where, in my experience it would be an unreasonable amount of money to capture an otherwise fairly small amount of square footage that would not be, not contribute much to the way of marketability or income revenue for that property. I'm noticing in the staff report that these repairs have been estimated somewhere in the neighborhood between 165 and 185,000 percent. That was a study that I did just kind of adding up all the things and then probably some more that, you know, that I just kind of rattled off there. No problems in the known unknowns. Right. And then there was a supplementing letter that the deterioration of this particular area was not caused by your neglect but just was inherent within the nature of this portion of the building. I don't know that I specifically stated that in my letter. I did include a letter from Orjoy's who I purchased the house from and he had been up front with me that this portion of the house would have to be demolished at some point. That's a conversation I had had with him at the point of sale and I had asked him why and he said it's in really poor condition. It's not original to the house. It's not a good use of space and he walked me through it and we looked at the various issues, most of those being foundational. So I was aware that there were significant issues with it. I cleaned up the garage or not the garage but the shed. It's a two-story shed and used it sparsely for some storage over the last number of years and fell out of favor of doing so because it felt dangerous to go up the stairs within the shed and a number of times I put my foot through a hole in the shed and hit the dirt below so I determined that it was not good for the purpose of which it currently is standing. That's the shed. The addition has been used as living space, as the kitchen on the first floor and a bedroom on the first floor and on the second floor it's just a kitchen, sort of a dining area next to it. And Dan was describing the finishes on it were quite poor but when I had a lower door test done and had an energy audit of the home those areas of red is particularly leaky. Although there were many leaky spots throughout the rest of the house too to be sure but my hope was that area was newer and perhaps had some insulation and that's not the case. But just so I understand, I can understand the shed portion seems to answer to all the issues but then the addition to the house does that have the same issues Dan with the lack of a foundation? Okay, so it's of a piece even though it's a little bit more habitable? Yeah, the condition of the foundation that I described specifically for the addition I actually haven't crawled far enough back in there to know what's going on is underneath the shed part so the foundation conditions that I was describing were specifically for the addition. Anyone else have any questions? I'll simply note that there's two standards one is about undue financial hardship to the owner and the other is the demolition is part of a site development plan and design plan that applicable would provide clear and substantial benefit the community, I presume you're going to the first route which is the undue financial burden as opposed to presenting some community development plan I believe our project clearly qualifies for both the benefit of the community being this blighted section of building being removed and creating parking spaces that don't currently exist on a very very tight corridor in the city I have a neighbor that is very optimistic and hopeful about there being more than one and a half parking spaces on my property that my three units would avail themselves of as that's been a challenge for him and his tenants to navigate as we share that space I have no doubt that that's a benefit to you I just think that at least the second part when it talks about clear and substantial benefit to the community raises a slightly higher standard than I think that's true of any downtown property if you tour down the backside of French block you'd have more parking spaces and fewer units that you need to occupy with such parking spaces it is an or in our determination that's what I'm saying I'm just trying to understand to make sure that we're doing the right analysis with the undue because I think I'm just one board member but I think the undue financial hardship is something you presented a great deal of evidence on and more than sufficient but I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything that there was some there wasn't some other plan anybody else have any other questions? I think I was sort of going the other way just because the actual full the list of things to be considered for undue financial hardship under the current rags versus the 2011 rags is so extensive we do have but I mean there's as long as there's not an and in there right and so this is one of those things where I was it might require a little board interpretation because I don't think we've dug into the financial hardship quite so much so far in demolition under these rags and the because we're talking about an income producing right the standard for income producing is that the building site or object cannot be feasibly used or rented at a reasonable rate of return in its present condition or free-abilitated and denial of the application would deprive the owner of all reasonable use of the property yeah and that seems a much higher standard to me and that's why I was going more in my analysis in here of sort of the not just focusing on the benefits to the applicant but the benefits to neighbors also I mean you're almost talking to public health issue if you're talking about pests yeah I think so Berman and the safety of that real structure I don't know you know this is just my staff process but that's why I didn't go into the full financial analysis in here because it seemed that we did not necessarily couldn't necessarily get enough data well what is the current value of the property on the grand list two hundred nineteen thousand five hundred dollars which was the sale price it's maintained it's maintained its value on the grand I'm kidding apparently I mean that in and of itself is and you bought it how many years ago four years five years in April so Dan the hundred sixty five to hundred and eighty five thousand dollar estimate is to remove it no no that was the new foundation the structural repair is exciting the roofing the whole the whole thing maintained just the addition of the addition and the shed the latter do you have any sense of how removal of that or how rehabilitation of the structure would affect the value of the property I mean you're not adding any actual square footage above now you're essentially just making what exists safe I don't know that I'm qualified to to answer that the owner of the property of any sense of whether you think that it would greatly increase the value of the property to rehabilitate as opposed to demolish from a marketability standpoint maybe two different questions from a granular standpoint I'm not sure it does it I could say in the eyes of a lender as it doesn't add square footage the argument that it adds value is limited to rehabilitate that space but from a marketability standpoint certainly those units are more attractive if they're fresh and that space can be used without the current issues that you face in using those spaces particularly the vermin it's a problem that I've never been able to to stop or lessen in any way I grew up in New York City and I I drove with my family and friends back there that they don't know what my problems are like until they've lived my house on Court Street no I think it does and so I mean one thing is if you increase the number of off-street parking spaces theoretically increase the value of the property theoretically it's also smaller square footage for the units right but I mean but the off-street parking lure maybe may get more marketable especially in a town that has had so many winter parking bans this year I would say I've definitely encountered tenants prospective tenants for whom as a top-level concern as it is for me I mean I'm looking at the standards for determination and one thing that the statute doesn't by-laws don't say is that the applicant has to hit each and every single standard squarely and I'll just note that you know the first the first one talks about the applicant's knowledge of the properties historical significance at the time of acquisition status subsequent to acquisition and I think I think the applicants that burdened by showing that subsequent to its acquisition or you know at the time of acquisition he knew this was a portion that needed to be torn down or that was in rough condition as opposed to the other portions of the house and that this was always had different historical significance the second talks about the structural soundness of the building and I think we've heard a lot about that and their suitability for rehabilitation and both of those do not seem like a workable solution here C talks about the economic feasibility of rehabilitation over use of the existing property in the case of gross demolition as Ryan pointed out you know we're talking about a demolition that's close to equal the entire value of the property with with a end result of if the renovation was done the value of the property would not double because we're just talking about a small portion in the back and then it talks about the current level of economic return on the property is considered in relation to the following the amount paid for the property the date of purchase a substantial increase in the fair market value of the property as a result of the denial of the permit fair market value of the property at the time of the application has filed real estate tax three years annual gross income from the property remaining balance on any mortgages or finance secured by the property and all appraisals obtained within the previous three years and any state or federal income tax returns I think these are all things that are used by an applicant to raise a financial viability issue where the other factors aren't there I don't necessarily see a reason to go deeply into those I mean what it seems if I'm understanding the testimony correctly it's that your property hasn't decreased in value and if this permit is this demolition is denied it's not that the it's not that you'll be denied the right I didn't deny it will not be decreasing in value but it will just simply hold at this sort of consistent level it's of a particular type of quality and what you're proposing is essentially to rehabilitate and renovate and there's some evidence that that would increase the value with off street parking better fixtures I mean you have would have a modern kitchen at least in two of the apartments and so then subsection E talks about the marketability of the property for sale or lease considered in relation to any listing of the property for sale or lease again this is not something that you've attempted to do to market or sell or lease the property F talks about the feasibility of alternative uses that can earn a reasonable economic return it's not the key here isn't that the economic return is such that you're affording the apartment you're continuing to be able to live in it it's just you've now built up a certain amount of money to invest in the property and presumably once these renovations are done it's a tighter more efficient house and those payments pay off over time and then your rate of return increases right at the end of it perhaps related to this is we might conclude that if you spent the money to rehabilitate the additions on the back you would not be able to charge rents that would allow you to pay that pay back whatever you borrowed you would not be able to achieve a reasonable rate of return to cover the costs of the rehabilitation of the rear and this rear section is not a it's not an acute problem if it's falling down right now today but what your testimony is also that it's on its way it's a perpetual problem it's been on its way for a while it's been on its way for a while so the time I purchased the house it was clear it was on its way we don't want to let it get there especially not in that location in the city so again studies and evaluations I don't think are relevant here input from community organizations preservation groups other associations or any private citizen who may wish to evaluate and comment on the submission made under financial hardship provision again is there anyone here who's here to testify about this renovation project I will say that my time spent serving on the DRC with Eric Gilbertson taught me that if someone was definitely going to flag concerns about the demolition of any historic structure in this town it's my friend Eric and I was curious how he would review this project the second time and I was pleased that he focused on aspects of the exterior of the renovation of the original house and it was quite quick to dismiss any potential concerns about demolishing the shed in addition that's just because you never met Marco George I don't know them all well God rest her soul but she makes Eric look like a pushover that's an accomplishment yes so when we talk about the determination of undue financial hardship and I'm pushing the board to go in this direction I'm not hearing a lot of pushback is I just think that the community benefit I mean obviously any property that's cleaned up has some community benefit but I think that's just it talks about clear and substantial and it talks about community as opposed to neighborhood or property which suggests something larger than the property itself and so I think we fall under this undue financial hardship and so you know the termination of undue financial hardship may be granted only if the project fully complies with one of the following requirements so this is income producing property the building site or object cannot be feasibly used or rented at a reasonable rate of return in its present condition or if rehabilitated or if rehabilitated and denial the application would deprive the owner of all reasonable use of the property the way I would read this particular provision is that the building site cannot be feasibly used or rented at a reasonable rate of return in its present condition or if rehabilitated which is Kate's point that you would never even come close to capturing the amount of money that's necessary to rehabilitate the existing structure on the back and you really are faced with a situation where do you either tear down, do you either let it continue to rot and maybe let that rot transmit to the main part of the house or make the business unfeasible because of frost issues, foundation issues structural issues that your expert is testifying to and I think that in that respect denial of the application would basically deprive you ultimately of the reasonable use of the property because you're faced then with the situation of either letting this rot into the earth or to pour godly amounts of money into a fairly minor portion of the property does that make sense to everyone yes okay let's not forget the health of the no action option and I think that's where the pest environment really do impact the quality of life inside the residents of the house so while yes it's better not to have pest environment they're going to scurry back up the cliff and hide out they're not going to go away they'll just wait another decade or two and come back down but they're not going to but I think it will have a huge impact on the quality of life I say that having renovated my house and listening to the mice who have gotten up into the we've all been there I agree with the chair's approach to talk about this in terms of the financial hardship test rather than the clear and substantial benefits of community test I think that's important for us to do in terms of setting up how we think about future demolition applications I do note that in our new zoning regulations and this is the first time I've used them for demolition review we have a much higher standard for financial hardship than we did before I think on balance we have met that standard and I hope that we can continue talking about those standards and whether they're going to help us achieve our goals but in the old ordinance they didn't even mention financial undue hardship is my recollection mentioned economic feasibility I think it was squishy yeah I don't have it here so I can't sort of have it here but I do know that this is much much clearer all reasonable use of the property standard is extremely high I think on balance we can probably make a determination in that area but let's keep an eye on that in the future too I appreciate the chair's approach on that as well because the factors for consideration under three if really all you're talking about is this high standard of deprivation of all reasonable use of the property then why did the regulations have eight considerations that we're supposed to do if it's really as simple as do you have any reasonable use of the property or not so I think you have to read those into 4A and look at it in this more holistic approach that we're adopting here I also think it's not clear in here but I think we do have to consider the value of what's being demolished because I think if this were the main part of the building it could certainly be the case where it's the cost of rehabilitation is exceptionally high and may not be easily recaptured through rents and yet I still think in situations that economic hardship alone should not be sufficient to demolish a historic building here and this is why I personally think that it would meet either tests here you're talking about removing a later addition that was poorly built you could make the argument that that would actually enhance the actual historic part of the structure which would be a substantial community benefit in addition to the parking in addition to removing an unsafe situation that was not created by this applicant so I don't know I'm comfortable doing either but I do think that that the approach we're taking here could be read to I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with the economic hardship analysis if we were talking about the historic portion of the building like the front section of the building if you could just say there's no way I could recapture this through current rent rates the cost of rehabilitation you know that's a different analysis I think there's two things embedded in that observation which I would agree with one of which is you know there is a balancing you know the difference between a shed that was kind of tacked on and expanded sometime in the early 20th century or mid 20th century versus the original historic structure itself as well as I think there's and it's not called out explicitly but I would argue that there is at least an implicit understanding about good faith and bad faith in maintaining the property and I've been around long enough to have seen these regulations come into play in Montpelier which didn't exist and in part they were done for the purpose that there were a number of historic buildings where the owner would just simply wait until the property rotted into the ground and rehabilitation was no longer feasible and I don't have the sense that this is from the testimony that's here alright so I think we unless Rob you want to chime in which you don't have to I'm not asking so let's move back then so when we talk about the rear set back which I think is the next question so my sense here is at least a weather report is that we all seem to be in agreement about the demolition that meets the standards that have been set out but when we talk about the rear porch now goes into about five feet into the setback area and the Meredith we're talking about this is essentially a waiver right for the setback so there's a problem is what the waiver allowance is for the porch sorry I think I don't have that right in front of me at the second I think the max waiver is five feet well that's how much it's supposed to be the new rear porch is closer than right that's what I'm saying the allowed is five feet when we're talking about the porch are we referring to the item of the deck on drawing a one point yeah yeah so it's labeled deck on the elevations and the floor plan it's just that in our regulations my understanding is that a deck cannot be covered once it's covered it's a porch I guess I have a question the fact that it's inside the footprint of the existing building how does that it's unclear there isn't that's so yes it's inside the existing footprint however it is a new structure being added you know what I mean so it's not like it's not like the porch is technically a nonconformity right because the nonconformity you can allow something that's currently there to remain there but once you remove that completely on your own and it hasn't fallen down by itself you can't rebuild it but if you were proposing to rebuild to tear down put a new foundation in and rebuild the same addition just such that it wasn't falling down that would be a permitted well you wouldn't wait you wouldn't be rebuilding it from scratch you would be you wouldn't rebuild you'd be rehabilitating you wouldn't completely tear down the addition piece by piece and take all the sticks apart you were talking about lifting it up to put the foundation in if you were typically if you were going to put a foundation under something you don't take it all apart and then put it all back together they haven't filed a written request for the waiver because the analysis that they would actually need a waiver was on my part was a little too late for that it would be oral I tried to put it as much in here as I could so so we understand and is this on the east side where the five feet non-conforming western western elevation so it's the western elevation so if you look at the site yeah if you look at the site plan it's the west view so that's on a 1.0 the proposed site plan but it's just the portion of the porch that sits behind that little bump out that's already existing so they're not they're not extending the line of the house closer to the setback it's flush in that respect then okay you have the issue with the accessory structures in figure 3-07 in that you know, it's porches even if this is counted as a deck the 3 or 2-07 it's sorry so it's on page 3-8 so it's figure 3-07 under section 3003 yep so even as a deck your minimum allowed rear or side setback is still 5 feet okay and a waiver of a side setback your maximum waiver limit is not less than 5 feet there's just no at least administratively on my part I see no way to allow, they don't allow something closer than 5 feet from the side setback from the property line so if I could just restate that to make sure I understand it when you say the maximum is 5 feet you mean that any waiver cannot let something get closer than 5 feet to the property line right that does not mean that we're talking about 5 feet here or 5 feet there right and this is just for waiver as opposed to a variance right but a variance would be based on the physical nature of the property and having no I believe it's reasonable use of the property we've we've done some creative analysis in the past my understanding is that was under the old regulations where you didn't have specific waivers yeah but the variance was I mean that's a statute so okay so the question is I mean so the actual portion of the house is already existing that's not seeking the waiver the question is does this small 5 feet by how deep is the porch okay so really 5 feet by 5 feet 25 square feet actually a little less than that because we are some amount back from the property line there so sorry Dan are you talking about the total size of the entire structure just what we're focused on with the waiver which is the you know I want to make sure that we isolate what we're not looking at which would be the building and then the portion of the porch the only portion of the porch that we're really talking about is this little 15 square feet okay we're 2 feet away from the property line thank you so 6 feet go ahead is that approximate or is that an unknown fixed line that is approximate no less than 2 feet it is you know we it is no plus or minus 2 feet it's essentially based on what we found from the city and then my repeated conversations with the neighbor Steve Rivolini that we both understand it to be the property line being at the center of the tree that is we both understand it to be the point to which my property and we went through I forget where I'm looking for but we went through records and plotted the property plotted the property corners based on those those records I mean to me this is still there's a pre-existing non-conforming structure there now that's going to be removed and replaced with a much smaller enclosed porch the whole approval of this will decrease the level of non-conformity and as such I don't even know that we need to grant a waiver also I'm looking at the non-conformity section 1203 E provides that a non-conforming structure may be enlarged or expanded without waiver variance provided the addition does not encroach beyond the existing non-conforming building line which this deck would not with regard to that side yard setback so I don't I'm not inclined to worry about granting a waiver or anything else and as one board member I'm happy to approve this without as presented without any of these other hoops that we might try to jump to the run certainly without requiring them to cut off three feet of deck to tuck it back in from the existing property line right I have a hard time viewing it as an existing non-conformity because it doesn't exist the porch it does not exist wait but the house does so is the porch an extension of the non-conformity non-conforming house even a new structure you can expand onto as long as the addition does not encroach beyond the existing non-conforming building line okay thank you so you're building off the non-conformity that is the house correct thank you that makes sense well that's much easier I think it's important for us to explore these new aspects of the new work I don't know if we carry that through I'm perfectly happy substituting Ryan's analysis for this whole waiver because I think you know part of what I was wrestling with was that I think the waiver makes sense as Kate was starting it's just when you have a completely new structure and we can wave some of the setbacks but only so far because that's when you have total control over where you're planning to situate this whereas here we're talking about the extension of a non-conforming structure which is just the classic problem we've always dealt with this is board where we have a garage that sits on the boundary line that somebody wants to build a second floor to or continue to have a reasonable use of it alright well let's move on no no this is how we learn apologize to everyone sitting here through some of these newer provisions so then you have the coverage which I believe I'm hoping applicants have some new data for so we should get the new data for them the exact measurements Dan if you just want to for the record go for this so I took Meredith's template which I appreciated it being organized as it was in this document and the staff prepared documents and dialed in the numbers so that they were more more accurate so we've calculated that the total square footage of the lot is that top number 4687 when we combine the footprint of the house and all area that consists of the driveway the walkway and all parking areas total 2860 square feet based on the 4678 square feet of the parcel 70% of that would be 70% which is my understanding of what we're allowed to kind of take up take up with it is 3275 square feet we are proposing oh I'm sorry there's a typo in there isn't there that second number that line down towards the bottom that's supposed to be 2860 to be consistent with that upper number at 2860 square feet I believe within the allowable percentage of coverage the building footprint includes the front porch it's the existing front porch yes existing front porch I don't believe I did include that front porch would be and if that's an error I mean I guess I guess in my mind it was a little maybe that was unclear but I still think even I'm confident that even if we were to include that front porch we would still be within we would still be within that 70% because the front porch is probably less than 30 feet long it is absolutely less than those numbers that you just said yeah because that's what you basically are working with is 300 300 or 400 extra that answers my question I think we can at this point move on to the DRC comments and the DRC found this by a vote of 50 to be acceptable but they had it looks like approximately four recommendations that they recommend one of four options for the front south facing door oh right and were those out of four options that presented to them for the front those are the four options that the DRC provided to the applicants is what was acceptable to the DRC because the applicants were going to just replace the front door and so the DRC had some specifics with what they would like to see that actually replace oh okay I see sorry so one is the repair reconstruct the existing double doors the other is to repair or reconstruct and attach existing double doors so they function as a single door the third was to replace the front double doors with a new single 42 inch door with an appearance and profile which matches the design of the existing double doors and four to replace the existing double with new in kind recommend not changing the single window on the south face of the attic level alternative single window on the south face of the attic sorry do you have a type absolutely gibberish I am trying to read Steve's handwriting okay so not changing the single window on the south face of the attic level the alternative recommended is to add either a an additional skylight on the east or west side of the roof or b increase the size of the existing skylight fixed or operable skylight and then I think the third was raising roof support brace for the rear porch to allow headroom for accessibility were you acceptable to all those changes have you made a decision on the front south facing door number three number three which has replaced the front double door with a single 42 inch door with an appearance and profile which matches the existing double doors can I just ask a question out of curiosity were you able to was the gentleman that was recommended to you to build that that wasn't relevant to me because we do that but you made sense to build it yourself cool clarifying question on one of the design review committee's recommendations number two about the single window on the south face of the attic level it says that alternatives it recommends skylights as alternatives and was it your sense from the DRC that was optional that you would not be required to put in a skylight they were just thinking with us about since they kind of take it the way they were trying to add back in should it be desirable because I wouldn't want you to be required to put in a skylight there will be no additional skylights alright thank you it makes no difference to me best decision you'll ever make with a house in Vermont alright and then the roof support brace racing that is that something that you're amenable to doesn't cause radical changes no great there was the last thing that came up during design review was that it was determined that there will be new lights on the back so lighting is discussed further on in here to get some details on that but the DRC was happy with giving the applicant options for either a recessed light in the ceiling of the porch or something on like a wall sconce back there either one was fine especially because it's on the back of the building right okay any questions about those one staff comment is about erosion control where the project doesn't disturb an area greater than 10,000 square feet so no erosion control plan is required but the staff recommends that the board include a condition of approval or calling the applicant to follow erosion control practices that's outlined in our bylaws is that condition that's acceptable to you is important in this respect because obviously as the melt comes and as the work starts and the demolition off of the cliff there may be some issues and I know having walked down Court Street the way water flows off of the properties does have a direct impact onto those streets okay and then Department of Public Works reviewed the application and indicated no concerns regarding the plans as presented um we have a requirement to determine whether the project complies with storm water management this is hooked up to um there are storm sewers and other drainage improvements there's no drainage or storm water improvements that are being proposed in this project that's correct but this is a property that's served already by storm sewers um on a relatively small lot right alright so the question is do we uh do we find that complies with 3009 for storm water given that the Director of Public Works finds it in no issues what we do alright sorry guys just sort of a technicality um so so one thing that I did not see I'm happy to understand if I missed it you've talked about adding parking spaces along the back there is that part of this application now have you outlined it's in the site plan missed that so that's all detailed it's a comply so I put that all in here oh I see the parking sorry okay so parking 1, 2, and 3 you've got the snow storage area marked approximate line of the ledge great any questions from the ward so we find that the parking conforms to the requirements um they're past the front line of the building one per unit standard is met this is a minor site plan one question that we do ask people however is bicycle access and circulation is there a spot for bicycle storage planned for the property yes and hopefully we could use the full length of the porch in between the back porch the door and the end of the porch because my bicycle will fit by 6 inches with the plans as they are okay well with that extra 15 feet yeah exactly I mean okay the front porch could also be used for bicycle storage more likely at the back porch alright so no landscaping is proposed and I'm skipping over most of the other pieces that are largely acceptable such as sidewalks pedestrian circulation as an in-city lot so we're still working with 3203G landscaping yes we're still working with it trust me I'll let you guys know as soon as if hopefully City Council approves the interim adoption of a new landscaping provision so this is a new provision and talks about site landscaping it requires one shrub for every 5 feet of building perimeter and one tree for every 30 feet of exterior principal building exterior and so Meredith has done some calculations based on the scale not including the barn or storage areas approximately 168 feet so 33.6 shrubs and 5.6 trees if we got down to it I was going to let you guys decide if you were going to round those up or not sorry we might as well round them up before we round them up to zero I want six tenths of a shrub and six tenths of a tree so you haven't proposed do you have any rough count as to what's existing on your property as far as trees and shrubs go yes there is one large tree in the front there are approximately 50 small trees in the back that are all on the slope all the little volunteers growing up in the crevices and cracks and I know that we have a definition of shrub in our wild off but do I remember correctly that there is extensive landscaping in the front in the form of the lilies black-eyed seasons or both this house is somewhat well known for its rather wild flower putting the wild in the wild flower front yard so perennials yes large number of perennials you know one of the ways we've gotten to work with this landscaping and screening is that it talks about the purpose and I'll just simply read this I think it's important although we have as a board heard it many times in brief it's there I keep putting that and every time we have to go through this so the purpose of the section is to protect the quality of life and community character by one enhancing the appearance of the build environment it's viewed from public vantage points creating shade alongside walks and walkways within parking lots providing landscape buffers between residential and non-residential land uses and screening land uses and development to create visual clutter and distraction and you know one purpose that's stated in sort of the longer definition this is not meant to hide houses or developments it's not to create like the cedar screen that your neighbors down the street used to have it's intended to enhance and to soften and so is there room in the front yard for another tree or would that crowd your existing tree and gardens there is room for several more small trees in the front yard one large tree but actually trees aren't the issue because you have the 50 in back yes that's my count okay you only have to get to 5.6 yeah I think I'm splitting hairs between what is a tree and what is a twig on its way to being a full tree on some of those I'm just looking and again this is I think we're not trying to play games necessarily but we're trying to under this section here really talks about enhancing this appearance and generally landscaping should be designed to fit into and enhance the site's natural features and setting landscape plans that feature a mix of plant materials arranged in informally shaped and space groupings are strongly encouraged so I mean what you're saying is you have a tree in the front yard you have extensive perennial gardens in the front yard in the back you have more wild growth picturesque as it would be they have leaves and they have leaves and they have you know but they grow they only grow to a certain size and then the rocky soil limits them okay any questions we're just wondering we're trying to meet the intent of creating an improved environment type of situation through landscaping perhaps we could we could approach this a somewhat different way which would be to say that the applicant has provided evidence of existing landscape which meets the intent of the ordinance and that the board approving the application with the existing landscaping and no further landscaping is necessary and we can create that as a waiver if necessary or some other it's also a way to add a level of practicality to an ongoing discussion no I think I think that's well phrased Kevin and I think that's where I'm edging towards so succinctly put it's fine with me good alright so let's move on when we talk about outdoor lighting which is what we started to talk about earlier is there a proposal for your outdoor lighting we don't have like pictures specified but would be more than happy to comply with the standards that are presented here okay um if there the lumen and the energy star requirements fully shielded pardon fully shielded is that if that's a requirement oh right yes I mean one thing is where it's situated underneath a porch roof may affect how it's shielded right so as I understand the DRC's concern or allowance was either recessed lighting or a sconce and you're comfortable with that under the porch okay um alright so condition that they comply with the energy star shielding and lumen requirements is acceptable alright I don't know if I have any more questions I can always create more but we have a couple of different things so we've got minor site plan review which we've conducted design review which we've conducted demolition of a contributing structure review so there's three of those I would propose we make three separate motions and I would suggest we start with the demolition contributing structure so who wants to make the motion I'll move that we approve the demolition of a portion of the contributing structure as presented in the application okay motion by Ryan do I have a second second by Rob any further discussion hearing none all those in favor of the motion please raise your right hand okay we'll take a motion about design review that would incorporate the conditions that the applicant has said are amenable to move design review approval at 27 Court Street with the following conditions the applicant should choose from one of the following options regarding the front south facing door is it necessary to list them as recommended by the design review committee the next condition is that the applicant shall leave a single window on the south elevation of the third floor instead of the proposed additional small windows the applicant may add a second skylight on the roof on the east or west side or increase the size of the existing skylight the next condition is that the applicant shall raise the bottom of the connection location of the rear port roof support to allow head room underneath for accessibility as well as the last condition pertaining to outdoor lighting as recommended by the design review committee motion by Kate do I have a second second by Kevin any further discussion all those in favor of the motion please raise your right hand alright and minor site plan review and I think we'll have to include the conditions in regards to the erosion control I'll make a motion that we approve the application for minor site plan approval with the condition of the applicant shall follow the erosion practices outlined in section 3008B of the regulations motion by Ryan second by Kevin any further discussion hearing none all those in favor please raise your right hand alright you have preliminary approval and just so you know that of course is subject to the 30-day window once the decision issues in its written form but you have nothing more for us tonight unless you wish anything else thank you all for your thoughtful consideration thank you for your consideration alright let's take a quick two-minute break but if the second applicant you think want to come forward and get set up ready to go back on alright thank you all very much we're back on the record here at the development review board sir if you'll introduce yourself I'm Samuel Newara okay Mr. Newara we're going to do sketch plan reviews so just so you understand we're not going to put you under oath this is really an initial opportunity for us to ask questions for you to present your subdivision plans nothing we we don't determine anything that's binding tonight it's an opportunity for us to raise questions or issues that we think you may have to address going forward and to get a general sense of your application so that when you do the final subdivision you have the benefit of this opportunity to have sort of vetted through some of these issues is anyone else here to be heard on this particular application sketch plan review okay so just if you could indicate to me if you have any feedback it's a very informal process but I would ask you to step up to the microphone when you do if you do want to speak to me if you're here to just simply listen that's fine as well obviously as I said nothing tonight is decided it's just simply an opportunity to listen to here but if part of what you're hearing has a concern for you or you think needs to be addressed one you can raise it to the board tonight put it on our radar to the extent that our bylaws would consider it but two it's always a good opportunity then if you have a concern you think the applicant can meet by making alterations or changes to start that conversation so I'll simply put that out there as a way of trying to help foster a successful application process do you want to give us just a quick overview of sketch plan general no of this particular application just wanted to make sure so this is a fairly basic to me two lot subdivision of a residential parcel such that the new parcel won't have any structures on it all of the current structures will remain on the initial lot there's a few factual matters that the applicant needs to clarify some of them are minor like whether or not utilities will be underground one of the the biggest items I think for the applicant to get feedback from you on is whether or not you have any thoughts about driveway possibilities the current they've included a potential house and driveway in here just to show that it's doable that it can meet the zoning permit requirement later on and the potential space for a driveway is pretty small it meets the requirements that was one of Department of Public Works issues too just because it is a very it's a small parcel but in general there's not major issues that I have seen a few notes for final subdivision application of things to include or things not to include such as the house outline one question along those lines as I'm looking at the sketch in back the blue dotted lines is that the building envelope there's like a red highlighted that looks like the boundary there's a footprint of a proposed house this yes okay so the black sort of dotted line I'm just trying to understand because one of the issues about the driveway might be ameliorated by pushing the house a little bit further back on a lot it is going to go further back this was you know we've been going back and forth with the architects and that was one of the first things that I discussed with them when they brought this to me because part of the main issue is going forward not just to adjust the driveway but you know our intention is to make it fit as well as possible within the existing space when you're actually there and look at it pushing it back will allow better sight lines for everybody and avoid more of kind of a cramped you know look so that's my issue I think and that would be at the zoning permanent stage right I think it's just and I understand that you're not proposing a house or specific development but I think illustrating that often is a way of meeting these concerns because um you know obviously driveways are a necessity and likely in a house like this to have more than one car and while you know we don't have to permit I mean we don't have a requirement to show more than one car showing that adequate space is helpful okay so was there any sort of initial direction you wanted to show us for this too long subdivision no I think it was pretty um self-explanatory as far as you know the sizing issue trying to get them relatively even because you want everything to to fit as well as possible within the existing community you know avoiding any major issues for anybody in this surrounding area so let me jump then to some of the questions that the staff has raised and I think are relevant one is we've talked about the driveway um the utilities will those be underground um if that's a requirement of the I mean I'm more than willing to meet any potential requirement that's proposed obviously I'm trying to remember it is that on this street underground utilities just in subdivisions in general subdivisions the question is that utilities be underground because we're trying not to add I mean if there's a line you'd want to go underground probably from the nearest place that you're already underground yeah underground from the street to the house if there's already a line at the street I just I I haven't driven down here I did that in mind okay well again that's um if that's something you're amenable to I mean if that's what it if that's what it takes I'm sure there's a way I'm sure there's a way to get it done it's a requirement they shall be located underground unless prevented by lead or other physical conditions okay now there's I mean it's just on a regular street although the poles are on the other side I'm just thinking of it now because the one runs to the existing house and then runs to the neighbor on the other side it would have to be it would be helpful before your final subdivision is just to maybe inquire not looking for a commitment or anything like that but it's helpful to us as we're making this decision if there is an impediment or something that would limit to raise that now just so we know that that is a restriction we either can or cannot meet it and that's that's helpful so I would look a little bit closer you know and I don't know if that's a matter of talking here if you've hired an architect or an engineer to have them have that conversation or they may be able to direct you to the utility company because really what we're talking about is you know your electric and your phone and cable those are what run off of the utility lines I presume you'll have either a propane or a oil system for heating so it's not as if it's running off the street it would be this is served by city sewer and water but that's already underground except for those of us who have fountains the only issue I can see is that the falls are on the other side of the street so I'm sure there's some I'm not sure how that would work well how is the existing house served from across the so the wire comes across the street above the street so the question is can it be run off of you know and that's a I think that's an important question in part because these are relatively new requirements for running underground utilities so it's helpful for us to understand not as if 6 other lots on your street have done this and have all run it underground sorry you're the canary in the coal mine but it may also be coming down to our office to have a little discussion and bringing department public works into it and just to make sure that you know where all the potential sewer and water connections are to be a new lot as well as the electric and you and I can walk through some of this together because a lot of times for subdivisions I've been lucky enough to have engineers on board and so they just give me this lovely survey with everything already on it I don't have to go and help the applicant find it but I'm happy to help you with that one too so one I was just going to say what's the of the existing lot and what are the two proposed lots the existing the existing now what was previously I actually just finished a survey so some of the numbers will change but the existing now is 15,438 okay I see that proposed there's one that'll be 6,400 approximately and then lot two will be approximately 9,000 and I would just observe as we're all getting to know the new zoning regulations the new minimum lot size in this area is 3,000 square feet so the new lot is two lots according to the zoning and it's actually slightly bigger comes to the next application some of those numbers are going to change get slightly larger okay covered the driveway the one thing that the staff has noted is that there's chapter 350 subdivision standards and these really are the sections about capacity of community facilities and utilities says the applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed subdivision shall not cost disproportionate or unreasonable burden on the city's ability to provide community facilities and utilities including local schools, police fire protection ambulance service, street infrastructure and maintenance, park and recreation facilities, water supply sewage disposal, storm water systems, infrastructure, solid waste disposal services and facilities in I don't and then it it has other sections such as suitability of the land traffic design configuration of parcel boundaries these are just things that I think your application is going to have to touch upon just to answer or be prepared to testify to why they don't I can say the capacity community facilities I just listed off I list them off because I don't think this application touches upon any of those it's an infill it's existing within the city limits it's in a tight urban area you know it's not going to you're not going to bring in 300 kids that will change how the school functions you're not forcing police to go in an area where they don't usually patrol or fire for that sake there's no park or it's not going to impinge upon the gateway to a park area those kind of things but just having those answers and there's a number of sections in here so that just take a look and I think a brief narrative Meredith can certainly help you address those but we'll obviously be looking at those as we go into the final subdivision yeah by brief narrative sometimes people will just take this list of what's in section chapter 350 subdivision standards and for each of the standards I showed a list of standards and how you met it so it can really just be that simple we have some templates oh great, we have templates okay and then one of the last a few more existing mature trees on the lot whether or not your proposed development is going to affect those trees and you may want to provide information about potential privacy screening this is one of the rare flat open areas in Montpelier where you don't have a cliff providing natural screening such as the last applicant so certainly how you understanding that you don't have to propose actual landscaping but addressing it would be helpful to identify what the trees are where the sort of landscaping exists currently as well as identifying areas where such screening could exist to prevent you know suddenly I'll use as an example worked on a house once when I was a landscaper that just sat out like a big open house in a farm field with no landscaping anywhere near it and I think we try to avoid that because we don't want that kind of sore thumb architecture we want it to sort of blend into the neighborhood and this is an existing neighborhood and transitions between and that's really what we talked about in the last applicant is you know making sure that the landscaping helps those transitions so identifying those areas will be helpful just one quick thing that tree in this picture no longer exists I don't know when this picture was taken and I just got here last summer and I've never seen it so I don't know at what point it was taken out but it's the grass has grown over so it's been a while I don't know that one is no longer there this is just a Google Maps image I don't have time to drive around every single house we get an application for I'm just pointing it out there's one here and then you'll see on some of the drawings there's one major one it's actually the boundary line on the other house and that one's staying obviously and I think that's just not necessarily get into at this point a lengthy discussion about landscaping but I think for the final just to have that indication so that and I think obviously frankly a lot of these things help neighbors understand too how this house is going to look as in Phil is it going to disrupt what's an existing sort of flow between the houses is it going to fit in as the zoning regulations intend this type of event Phil to which is to be of a piece so that when somebody moves in like you did they won't say well where's that where did the house come from you know I just wanted to note there is something that in editing I failed to put in red on page 13 when we're considering energy and energy conservation issues there is a requirement that you not be impinging on general issues with appropriate protection for each plot's solar access within the subdivision because I know this might have been an issue I kind of went a little step further and on page 13 I can look and considering the way everything is oriented a new house in between 19 Pearl Street and 27 Pearl Street could potentially have some solar impacts on the neighbor of 27 Pearl Street that picture is shown with the north south portable orientation just something to think about even though I know it's not the left within the subdivision I think our current subdivision regulations are really written for larger multi lot subdivisions not two lot subdivisions infill I would agree with that so in that case this calls for appropriate protection for each lot's solar access and appropriateness may take into consideration the fact that it's infill but it's something for you guys to consider when the regulations don't quite necessarily apply to this situation I'm saying that they could be you'll need to appropriate them with that would be interpretable in this context but definitely something for you to interpret not me I'm always happy to interpret okay do you have any questions about that part of it is about like light trespass you can't build big imposing structures that cast a giant shadow on 27 Pearl Street and I think that's very similar to the way in which the solar if a solar rays on a roof and you build something that's going to overshadow but at the same time part of this is just and again I think this is where if there's concerns rays shifting building back and forth I think you have some play in where the proposed house could be okay and then I think the other the only other staff comment was really about whether or not there was a survey of the existing parcel and did you say that there was a survey okay great fresh out the presents excellent so I think that that will take care of that issue but moving away from the staff report are there any questions from other board members as to concerns about this two lots of your vision any questions I just had a discussion about the utilities and the underground and maybe something that could be identified on the plat is what sort of rights exist for utilities access to the parcel if that's determined but that's actually a great point and I think that's wasn't expressly said but I'm glad it was which is obviously that impacts how these two parcels relate if there's a need for utility easement across parcel what you're describing is lot two which is existing house to benefit a lot one that's one way to that will be helpful identify that whether there's going to be a need for one because if there is we don't scrutinize the language of the easement but we do require it to a certain satisfaction so that we can review and approve it great any other questions any questions from the public or comment feedback great so from here we don't take a vote or make any decisions you've gotten some feedback from us and really I would characterize it in terms of more detail and addressing some of these looser issues I'm not seeing any setback issues or boundary or size some of that was some of the further details we had to wait for the survey and go forward with the architects any questions for us not this time thank you very much our next applicants please come forward come on down that's what Rod Roddy used to say the price is right he was the announcer and the price is right he was a host I think Rod Roddy may have done over time I neither being ill what's that unemployed I have not watched a price of right you sure does he have a long microphone alright please introduce yourselves Matt Womski has some global partners and Jeff Velasquez consultant engineers so raise your right hands both you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give for the matter under consideration shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains of penalties of burgery very good actually I'm going to have you guys just jump right into it I think that's yeah leave us down the path Jeff yeah yeah so very similar application we've submitted to the 367 River Street project that was approved last month and that we've got a previously approved site plan development for new gas station that was approved in 16 or 17 and where essentially the property has been by out by new ownership group and they're just looking to make some very minor renovations to the approved plan as such in our discussions with staff we've made this application and attempting to permit this amendment to the previous permit so we're back to a situation where we're still reviewing under the old regulations so all the plans the development plans that are presented to the board still relate to those owning requirements so if it pleases the board I'm happy to provide a brief run down of the changes that we've done since the previous approval if that makes sense yeah okay so similar to what we've done we've taken the proposed site plan and again we're talking about the existing curly fuel gas service station on route 2 in 366 I think he's about to go your road sorry Jeff just so we understand you have a sheet number C2 I do I have C2 and that's the one with bubbles again that show us so C2.0 the REV4 with a small date that has your parking your 119.19 revision references with the bubbles around the different changes that they're making this is giving the one you're probably going to want to refer to through most of this and included everything but this is the one that really helps so somewhere before we've provided the existing conditions plan as the site still operates now we've provided the proposed condition site plan and then we've also done the proposed site plan with these revisions to kind of annotate just where that we're proposing but I do have a full plan set here if anybody wants to look at the existing conditions I also brought another big one yeah so I think everybody's probably familiar with the property right now there's three structures there now there's a small gas station with a canopy there's a kind of mixed use right now in the middle there's kind of the existing canopy that's along the frontage there's a mixed use office building on the south side of the property there's that kind of large storage barn in the back of the property now and as it previous before that the buying plan is called for the removal of everything essentially and reconstruction with the new proposed gas service station building convenience store small deli inside and then canopy located to the north of the proposed building the building footprint and location have not changed at all access, flow you know the majority of the utilities have not changed so the really the changes I think are relatively minor and more utility oriented than anything but again I'll just run through them really quick I think that the primary one and the biggest change is probably the one we can discuss the most tonight is we've relocated the fuel pumps and canopy I'm not sure who here on the board was part of that original review process but right now there's an existing canopy so this being the front property line of the right-of-way line and back in 2011 regulations there was a 50 foot front yard requirement so this setback line here actually bifurcates a large portion of the existing canopy out there right now so that the whole existing canopy was more or less nonconforming as part of that review process back then essentially it was determined that we should remove that canopy and rebuild it even if we're making it less nonconforming and that we actually had to just maintain it or truncate it and add on to the back end of it in order for it to be allowed to be grandfathered in and based on conversations with staff and the desires of the new ownership of the property that existing canopy structure is just unsalvageable and reasonable it's just not good practice to build something that's kind of falling down anyway so what we're proposing now is the removal of that canopy and then the new canopy to be built substantially further back and I'm guessing we're talking maybe another 15 to 20 feet further back from the property line although it still would not fully comply with the old zoning regulations and that the new canopy would still stick out into the front yard setback I believe staff did know to comment though that the new front yard setback for the zoning district for what that's where it would comply I think it's a 20 or 30 foot front yard setback now so if we were looking at today's regulation it would comply so we just shifted this back and reconfigured the pumps and we weren't bound by needing to work off of the existing space more effectively and efficiently the second change was just the relocation of the underground fuel storage tanks we shifted these to the north and kind of get them out of the majority of the driving course of the general public that'll be using both the standard canopy and the parking along the building frontages change three involved the relocation we had three landscaping new deciduous trees planned along the north property line here and to accommodate both the new underground storage tanks and still provide what we thought was a represent amount of snow storage we just shifted these a little bit in location same number, same area of the property just shifted same thing with the dumpster enclosure and we can talk a little bit more about this because I think there was a staff comment on it but this still ends trash recycling the dumpster enclosure was just a little further shifted to the north on previous divine plan understanding that the proposed traffic pattern they'll still have two curb cuts but we're nearing up the southern curb cut pretty substantially making this an entrance only so that large trucks delivery trucks, tractor trailers the traffic pattern is really going to be to come in on the southern access go to the back of the building on the front deliver the gas and then exit and all traffic from the site regardless of where it comes in will exit on the north curb cut to make this turning movement a little more functional we just wanted to get as much room there as we could so we shifted it 5 or 10 feet there was previously as part of the proposed building here the previous owners were going to maybe do some second floor off the space I believe as part of the building layout that use has been removed from the proposed design now this will strictly just be a gas service station with an alley as such we've just updated the parking and design flows with the water and sewer and things of that nature and that's kind of reflected in the summary down in the bottom left corner so that was the next two revisions 5 and 6 revision 7 at the new owners request we've added a few more exterior light poles and light fixtures we didn't have much on the site plan previously beyond the building mounted lights and the canopy we just thought giving the space along the back and the perimeter and some of the parking areas some additional exterior lighting would be necessary still all LED downcast you know shielded cutoff fixtures and then the other couple are very minor just utilities just where the underground electric and water come into the building based on the new current design building footprint light and mechanical location we've just had to change the utility sizes and locations to accommodate that I think in general that's a quick rundown of what the changes were proposing so I'll hand it over to the Board of Questions or we can go through some of the staff comments as well Sure, any initial questions off the top of the lineup alright so I think let's dig into the real the first issue which is the canopy within the setback how far within the setback is the canopy still going to be can you scale? I've got one like that so as proposed so 15 to 18 feet into the front setback of a required 50 at its furthest point it's kind of a triangle right here so here's the setback line at its furthest point currently currently we're talking 35 feet or so the approach with this again being a setback and then this dashed line being the approximate existing canopy and that's about where the permit approved before correct so before they didn't want to lose this shifting the canopy all the way to the back just giving away the right-of-way sits here with a 50 foot setback it was going to make a big chunk of that parking area unusable and so what we did is we had to maintain some component of this so we actually held this corner and instead of going three by two we wanted as far as layout of fuel pumps you don't like having three in a row because you've always got one in the middle you're trying to parallel park into or get to so all we were doing before on the originally approved plans we were just lopping off the car itself then the canopy and maintaining the 2 by and then just extending it further so now we've still got the 2 by configuration we've just pushed the whole thing further to the south or west rather you say 2 by you're meaning 2 here, 2 here, 2 here so that means people are going to drive in here and then make their way across the front where people are parking and kind of in like this and then out like that correct or they'll be able to enter on the north as well so the north curb cut will be a traditional kind of two-way curb cut we lobbied to have this maintained as a two-way but essentially our discussions with public first process understanding we're very close to an existing driveway here the compromise as I was saying was to narrow this down to an entrance so there'll be signage here do not enter signs and so on I'm just trying to envision the internal circulation of the site if you've come in here and then you need to exit out here I would imagine most people are probably going to be coming in here just getting gas and then moving back out or coming in if they don't need gas and just parking in we've got 10 spaces here 5 and 3 and that actually reminds me of one other staff comment was the discrepancy in the parking spaces and you're accurate and that number here needs to be 32 I'm not 30 so that's an update we need to make so the circulation is going to be really similar to the barn in Randolph I support Randolph yes so as far as looking at the we've already approved the fuel canopy that was further into the right of way but that was really a remembering correctly that was just essentially allowing a grandfather we were proposing to keep the old canopy whereas now that's not going to happen that's not going to happen that's not going to happen whereas now that's going to be removed this is a brand new canopy entirely what's the pleasure of the board on that canopy issue does it work with the non-conforming non-conforming issue we had before we also don't have the new regs and this is it's a bit of a conundrum because it ends up with a much better design well plus under the old regs that specifically said you can only reconstruct if it was damaged by fire, flood, explosion or other causality I don't think there was any testimony that the old canopy was met any of those so it's not clear to me that how it was granted to reconstruct a larger existing canopy under the old regs in the first instance we weren't the old regs and I don't know if anyone else was on this application before other than Kevin and I but my recollection was it was just keeping the old canopy I believe the argument previously was that as long as the structural supports maintained we were making an existing grandfathered non-conformity less non-conforming by removing a portion that was within the setback that was a belief how it was justified or whatever language you want to use so keeping in mind that if they were to apply fresh today they would be allowed to do what they're doing without any limitations so when we talk about non-conforming we're really only talking about sort of procedural hiccup where we have an existing permit shouldn't have to necessarily redo the entire permit but the old bylaws don't aren't as generous as the new bylaws but to the extent that there's an issue created it's one that dissipates given that in the future it's a new bylaw so moved was re-application under the 2018 regs contemplated? it was contemplated that in discussions with staff this appeared to be the path of least resistance I'd say or given the minor scope of the changes sure because what we're reviewing is only the delta and because of the flux with the new regulations and all the changes happening with them we didn't want to invest a lot in landscaping and I think there were also some questions about then needing to apply for a new flood plain application for potentially the whole site as well it had already been approved previously so we have to pick one or the other there's no saying that they can't then re-apply under the new regs they have problems here this seemed like even though I know we have a canopy problem it seemed like potentially the best way to go forward this is still going to result in less canopy within the setback than was previously approved exactly by a fair amount by quite a lot and again I realize the current regulations don't mean anything but the current canopy wouldn't comply with the current regulations whereas this proposed canopy would the other conundrum we found ourselves in was so the company I work for bought this project as approved by the current we came on board we started looking at it and they got approval to keep a portion of a canopy which you can't really do that because each individual canopy is designed by a structural engineer as that structure so when you try to keep this corner up here in these two columns and then try to tack on more you're going to have a hard time finding a structural engineer that's going to want to do that and they're all going to say no you can't do that you can't it's impossible so what got approved was almost not workable in that sense so that's when we started digging deeper you know we can't doesn't work very well what's the pleasure of the board it may be just simply the hour that we were at this evening my sense is this is that the non-conforming structure reconstruction we're not really talking about a reconstruction because it's that's really intended for damage by fire, flood explosion or other casualty at the same time it's not the same type of non-conformity that was envisioned by the old bylaws which is to say something that the bylaws have moved forward and understand we can't sort of toggle back and forth between new bylaws and old bylaws at the same time it seems ridiculous to ignore the reality on the ground as to what we have today for our regulations governing this so I'm comfortable seeing this as a not necessarily a reconstruction but as a essentially a continuation of the non-conformity in a manner that makes sense given the structural limitations of the existing what was approved originally back in 2016 and the structural realities of this particular canopy system which is you can't have a canopy that you cut in half or tack on to it has to be to allow the canopy to survive as we've already permitted we have to look at the non-conformity in a larger sense and in this respect given that these are the older bylaws that if they were to come today sort of a blank page we wouldn't even be having this conversation I think that the old bylaws have that flexibility because they weren't as complex or as laid out as the current ones are so the idea of keeping a non-conformity or having this is really a technical problem less than letting a reconstructing a non-conformity because nothing's happened to it but the reality is that we've permitted and allowed this and that means in some ways we're obligated to act in a way that makes sense you just put that in the proper context and as we're transitioning from the old to the new regulations we're going to have to continue to be light on our feet for the time being and be able to address it from these two perspectives so I agree with your reasoning any uncomfortable with that? Mr. Chair are you saying that because we've permitted and allowed a larger structure assuming it was an existing structure it would now be irrational to say that a smaller structure that is less non-conforming even though it's built anew should not be permitted we're talking about as though we have approved a footprint and you're saying it's a technicality as to whether that footprint is for something that is existing versus something that is being doped anew yes I think the footprint in this respect is the concept and we're trying to discuss or conclude perhaps that it would be irrational to not allow that footprint just because something is being built it's a proposed amendment to the footprint which will decrease the amount of non-conforming we're already getting a benefit because the original permit talked about reducing the footprint and now there's been an additional reduction and it comes with the idea that the materials to be used are not reducing the existing materials because they have any cut down in the footprint there has to be an entirely new structure just another way to look at that I'm not sure if it's necessarily case law oriented but that what we're looking to amend is the prior permit so the starting point is the prior permit and what was previously approved so in a sense that previously approved footprint is a non-conforming structure not what's actually there right this second potentially is one way to look at it I remember going around about this Jeff were you on the earlier one I'm trying to remember I think we had a little bit this is the same sort of pull and push we had we did yeah these these old permits never fade away eventually please Aaron is waiting for the day but I think that's what's important to me is that the prior board did all that push and pull and said we're going to allow this canopy to exist in this footprint in the setback proposing to amend that approval for a decreased level of non-conformity so I'm with you it doesn't make any sense to deny that under the regulations that previously allowed it right the bigger one and the fact of the matter is that if they choose to get a new permit going forward they already start out as a conforming structure so I think I'm comfortable with we have landed on this because it's fair and I look forward to not having more of these overlapped forms that your staff does as well but I just like to note for ourselves that this is something we're doing because of an exceptional situation and these types of rationale or contortions in the future not for you just in general are something we would want to be cautious of right and I think that goes out saying but it's so the applicants who've gotten a permit under the old don't have to either go and redo completely anew or get stuck in some sort of limbo I know I were doing an app in terms of the type of logic that we're applying I just want to make sure it is being applied because of the to avoid limbo alright so let's talk about the garbage enclosure so you're proposing the same type of fenced in enclosure to for the dumpsters yeah the fencing detail hadn't changed we just shifted it I guess in 10 feet closer to the south to provide more turning radius in the back right and is this still within is this still outside of the setback or is this it's in with I don't know if it constitutes a structure per se fenced in area there's not going to be a shed or anything it's literally just a fenced in area for them to put the trash recycling enclosures but it was previously within the setback and it's still within the setback one thing I did bring along with me was pointing out in the staff notes that the approval previously was that the applicant was to provide letters of support for the project and maybe specifically the enclosure to both the property owner to the west and south and I actually have copies of both of those letters that we were able to locate she's willing to take them now the letters from Kasella which was the property owner to the west as well as Chuck and Paul Haynes Paul Haynes actually the audience tonight both of those letters pretty much just say that they're in general in support of the project as approved and presented previously unfortunately they don't call out the enclosure specifically but I thought those might be helpful in the board's assessment of us complying with that condition that we previously the Haynes do call out the trash enclosure actually both of them do just so I'm and I'm sorry it's just the lateness of the hour how far further back have you put the trash from the original permit? So what is this way the shaded box here is the concrete pad included in the fence around it that box was always within the bubble so it wasn't like way over here it was just from shifted again I don't it's just a couple of feet five feet or something the big issue I had was that I could never find the letters to that condition and that's one of the things that's required if that's within the setback area now you have the letters and Mr. Haynes have you been appraised of the change in the garbage location I wasn't aware of it I don't see any issue with it I feel the letter from previously still maintained and it would be a great irony if Cassella had an issue well could just throw it over the fence just throw it over the fence I don't know if we can require that but are you going to move it to Cassella they're huge so it's not moving any closer to their property just slip so the proposed dump underground storage tanks new tanks was there permitted to be within the 20 foot setback? yeah underground storage tanks and it's actually I think they're in a better location the reason we moved just so you know is they were located under the canopy and if you've been to everyone's been to gas stations you don't want to drive over those things we don't want you to drive over those things all the time and they're usually humped up pretty good to shed water and they were all laid under the canopy which is just not a good position for them plus when the tanker comes to deliver fuel he completely blocks everybody off from using them so he can instead deliver where they are and keep the fuel pumps open so when I was talking about front I was thinking about the first proposed revision you wrote and just so I have a larger overall since the building is just going to be a convenience store at this point so it's going to look like the traditional gas station layout canopy pumps that convenience store no office buildings just one story one story they ever posted a spot deli inside with a few seats yeah, but did you convenience store not unlike any of the other convenience stores that shall not be named at this evening meeting so one concern about the the red maples have shifted and how far off are they from sort of the the sight line from before from route 2 if you're coming if you're heading east on route 2 so again I don't have from how the previous previous you have a second C2 point in there so oh yeah so here's the original this is the original improved one so essentially we've just taken these three trees this one is very close to prop line to begin with we've just far below close together and shifted them to this location this one maybe moved down I think the biggest impact is this one moving down maybe 15-20 feet yeah I'm trying to remember but part of the reason for those trees there were to create some visual break up of that and I understand that if you're moving the underground storage tanks then you don't want to put a tree where it's going to die but I'm wondering if there shouldn't be some other sort of landscaping there to visually break up you know just because that is closer to the road as people come see it yeah I mean I obviously can't speak for a matter of the owner I mean we can certainly investigate doing something here I think the only reason we didn't want anything we want obviously it's a relatively built-out site there's not a lot of room for snow storage given the lack of room on the back property line so this kind of triangular piece of the area is probably a constitutive significant amount of the snow storage and understanding that any type of small shrub probably won't survive there very well which was the intent to make this location of three of the larger deciduous trees and then get them as far back to provide them as much opportunity to you know survive long term you know there is quite a bit of bushes and shrubs going along the front of the area here as well as a couple more trees in the back and then there's kind of landscaped grasses and shrubs between the building and parking but if there's an interest in maybe supplementing with some bushes along the proper line I don't think it would be a problem necessarily so the plan is to have the snow storage but those are going to be the snow storage is going to be behind the fuel tanks in that back corner there so I mean I'm not really concerned especially if you're putting those trees there you know I'm not looking for any more planning there I'm thinking just more where the deal the tree would have been located so if there's any type of like shrub and berm type start to get a little outside my area expertise here but if the point is to lessen the visual impact for someone traveling like this could there seems to be an existing tree maybe on the neighboring parcel would it make sense to put one is that way the immediate neighbor to the west north yes I believe this is my way here one thing to keep in mind with this whole thing and I'm just recalling it now because it's been so long since I've looked at this but if you see this dashed line here that kind of goes around this tree it encroaches quite a ways onto the adjacent property right now that is all existing gravel parking lot that is kind of an encumbrance on this there's actually a strip of property here that's the old railroad bed right away and that's still a right of way and that's still a right of way and we actually located some train tracks as part of the survey you can see here but a part of that original plan is we're reclaiming all of this turning from gravel to grass landscaping essentially as an additional benefit just reducing the footprint you know I think the only potential issue is we just between the property line and our pavement we get very narrow there I didn't realize how little space there was so I think I planted a tree on your neighbor's property which I'm not supposed to do so thanks for walking me through that actually if we're talking about Agway I mean they already have that fencing line too so it's not the visual commercial use and I think that the parking lot and the pavement kind of comes to right up to that area as well any other landscaping questions or issues I think that the answer about the relocation of the fuel tanks and storage tanks I'm satisfied with that unless anybody wants to do deeper than that and we've gotten confirmation on the parking spaces that it's 32 and that's what's shown on the plan it's just that we need to somewhere in the transition parking somewhere that we not get updated appropriately so we'll make that correction somebody needs to get on the ball someone dropped it alright so what's the pleasure of the board would you want to adjourn to deliver this session that's the pleasure of the board I throw that out there I'm not feeling it's necessary I think it's a pretty straightforward amendment and I don't feel like we're putting on any particular conditions I mean it took a little while to walk through and this may be something where the final written decision should be circulated a little bit wider that's really what I was thinking before the deliberative session for the second deliberative session well I think that makes sense so I'll go ahead and make a motion that we approve the amended site plan at 366 Montpelier Road as presented in the application supporting materials subject to the conditions that this approval does not result in the issuance of a new permit and so any expiration dates of the original are not affected by this approval and additionally that all prior conditions of previous DRV approvals remain in full force and effect for the property motion by Ryan do I have a second second by Rob any further discussion hearing none all those in favor of the motion as stated please raise your right hand alright so there's approval and as I said before we'll write up a decision we have to do that within 45 days and no actually we don't because we've already voted to approve it no you still have there's actually some case law on that anyway we aim to please to get that out that then starts the clock ticking for the 30 day appeal period on any amendment but because we have to have our building in by September 15 so building will be substantially complete substantially complete thank you thank you there's a case law on that let's uh yeah alright I will simply note that our next very early schedule meeting is Monday March 4th 2019 back to the Mondays and we will be here because there is an application we will start at 7pm Mr. Chair I would like to know I will be absent from that meeting Julie noted so we will and I'll be sending out an email to the board just to remind everyone that if you are not going to be here let us know as soon as possible I think we have five out of seven and that's I think we are capable board but obviously we do better when we have seven uh I'll take a motion to adjourn so moved motion by Kevin second second by Kate all those in favor please raise your hand we are adjourned thank you all very much and good night good night so there is if you look under some of the when and I don't know the actual site but I do know that when a board votes to be it's so weird I have an explanation the fact that there is a guy outside of the 45 day window there is a lot of great action place in the two-story structure in fact the board has really seen a new situation and rise where the board is the board doesn't make sense to say that that can and it does not do close the record and just sort of enter the deliberations so there is one more town case on that but then if you look at the other dean group cases I think there is one other group and they've largely said that when the decision, the actual decision is made within the 45 days that stops