 An unusual night in that the clock and my watch actually coincides. So since both are now in alignment, and it is officially 6.30 in Linnusky, Vermont, I would like to call this meeting of the Development Review Board to order. I'm Doug Johnson. I'm the Chair of the Development Review Board. To my left is Kevin Lumpkin, who is the Vice Chair. And to his left is Harlan Miller, who is the Secretary of the Board. On my right are other valued members of this committee, Aaron Goyal. Did I get it right this time? Guyette. Guyette. Sometimes I make it. Sometimes I do. Aaron Goyette, Matt Blazkowicz, Blazkowicz. I've never corrected it before because we're on TV, I will. Basowitz. Basowitz, OK. David Weissman. Very good. One out of three is not bad. If it was baseball, I'd be, you know, an all-star. So we have, in one sense, a short agenda. We have no changes to the agenda that I'm aware of. And we usually begin our meetings with a brief period of public comment. And I would invite anyone who wishes to speak on anything pertinent to life and times in Wienewski. That is a major concern to them. But I would urge it to be germane to the Development Review Board and the work that it does rather than aimless. And not related. Seeing no signs and hearing no sounds that would seem to indicate a deeply felt desire to speak on some issue related to the Development Review Board at my work, consider that segment of the agenda closed. We have one brief administrative task that we need to complete. And that is to approve the minutes of our previous meeting. Does anyone have any changes to the minutes of that meeting? Hearing and seeing no changes to the meeting being proposed, I'll accept the motion to approve the minutes. Motion to approve the minutes. Second. The meeting has been, the motion has been approved and seconded. All in favor of approving the motion? Aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries unanimously. We are now in the public hearing portion of our meeting. We have two items on the agenda under our public hearing. Both of these are appeals of the zoning administration's decision. The first one is a decision on administrative lot consolidation for the 101109 Main Street and 18 Mansion Project. The second is an appeal of the zoning administrator's decision with respect to zoning approval for that same project. We will hear the appeals in that order and we'll proceed with deliberation on those appeals collectively as a committee. So we'll not act on the side on the first one first and then go on to the second one, but we'll take one end to an order and then we will deliberate. So the appeal of the zoning administrator's decisions have been appealed by Joseph Kamash and David Carter. It would be appropriate for one or both of you, depending upon how you want to handle a presentation of the appeal to present yourself. I should also say that anybody in the room who has not signed in as an interested party on the sign up sheet for these questions is urged to do so now. That preserves your status as an interested party going forward and certifies the possibilities of speaking at this meeting. Yes, I should swear people in. Everybody who is planning to speak in this meeting, appellants, applicant or representatives of the project and so on, general public, raise your hand and do you swear to tell the truth and the whole truth to the best of your ability? Yes, I do. You are now all sworn in collectively. Who would like to speak first on this? I think the two of us should better go up because we've kind of split the responsibility. OK, that's fine. We assume that you would have split in some fashion, but we don't know how you plan to do that. Are we taking testimony on just the first one of the year? Yes, we won't talk about them interchangeably. We'll talk about the zoning administrator's decision on what consolidation. So if you will keep your remarks focused on that and then after we have handled all of that, then we will move on to talk about the zoning approval for which I think you have two particular issues that you are. Appeal of the zoning administrators. We want to consolidate those two into one. Thank you. My name is David Carter. I live 36 Main Street. I'm hoping that we've written our remarks, or at least I've written my remarks, that there's going to be overlap between the consolidation and the project itself. I think they're really inextricably linked. But for the most part, I think I can keep to that. As we discussed, there's the two parts of it, the law and consolidation. This project has been in works for quite some time. The zoning administrator and the developer and his agents have expended a considerable amount of time together, planning and working out the complexities of a project of this magnitude and how they could make the project work within the form-based code of the Winooski Gateway District. However, as part of that process, there isn't really any deeper look at the consequences of a project like this on the neighborhood. That's not really a consideration under the code for these preparatory meetings. From the beginning, the developer and his agents and the zoning administrator have worked under the premise that once the lot consolidation is completed, it will be one lot in the Gateway District, governed by the form-based code. Now, this is evident from several communications from the zoning administrator. March 12, Memorandum, you are receiving this notice because your property is adjacent to the properties noted above, which are located in the city of Winooski's Gateway Zoning District in the form-based code. We know now that there are, in fact, one residential commercial lot and two Gateway District lots. When this meeting came to the Project Review Committee on April 3, there was another notice to adjacent landholder residents of Winooski. And the ZM wrote, I can't remember if it's a zoning manager or zoning administrator is in the code, but zoning manager is in title on the other side, I guess. The three properties will be consolidated, resulting in a property that is approximately 0.9 acres in size. The property is located in the Gateway Zoning District and regulated by the form-based code. A third, again, in the agenda for that meeting, he cites the same type of language. These three properties are put in a slightly different way. These three properties are located in the urban general building form standard of the city's Gateway Zoning District. Call attention to these three properties. And the zoning administrator and his memo to this board characterized these statements with the comment, the appeal contends that the lot consolidation will expand the Gateway Zoning District, while several documents in the early stages of the project may have given that impression. And then he goes on to explain how he clarified that for me and Joe in the emails. I think that this has to be considered a little disingenuous. I've cited the three different pieces of communication that he sent out. At the meeting, we all were like me and at least one other resident of Mansion Street brought up the point of how can you combine a RC district a lot and make it all governed by the form-based code? And the zoning administrator was adamant that that was exactly what was going to happen and that under the form-based code, since they had met these other requirements, it was done with administrative approval. And the message was very clear at that meeting that there was really nothing that the residents of Mansion Street could do other than appeal his decision. We all were very upset about this. We worked very diligently on searching the code. I had to hire an attorney to try to guide me through the code a little bit at my own expense. And we finally realized that just maybe this isn't really correct. And we proposed that in a letter to the zoning administrator and that started the correction of it. Well, it's really the law consolidation isn't a residential zoning combination. And we discussed with the mayor. The mayor talked with the zoning administrator and I don't need to be just picking on him but other city officials. And really the answer that she got for that she relayed to us was it's not really anything you can do about this. It's all governed by the form-based code. You know, that's the way it is. Let me talk a minute here about the process. And again, you know, a project of this magnitude and we'll discuss the scale of that in a little bit. The developer and his agents worked very closely with the zoning administrator over a period of many months, I believe they started back last fall working on this project and discussing it. So by the time it gets to April 3rd, you know, they're pretty well vested in this one gateway zoning district lot and all that goes along with that. And now we've pointed out that, well, really it's still a residential commercial lot and two gateway district lots. And again, that repeated message of nothing can be done by the residents of Main Street. I'd like to point to the code that the zoning administrator cites as far as lot consolidation, section 6.4 C1B. And in that section, excuse me, that the items listed in section 6.4 C are eligible for review and administrative approval by the CA unless the CA determines that the request may not meet these criteria and should instead be referred to the DRP. So we're talking about the word may and eligible, there's a judgment call there made by the zoning administrator. And I think in this case, the zoning administrator could have taken the position that the consolidation of an RC lot and the 18 Manchester lot with the two gateway lots for the purpose may not meet the criteria as it's outlined in that code. So he's taking the tact that he has to approve this project administratively, the lock the solidation administratively. And I believe the code says he may, so he has a choice there. More to the point that I was concerned with is, why is the city official in charge of zoning stretching so hard to make this project fit within the form-based code and be able to be approved administratively? And I think that, it seems to me that the zoning administrator also works for me. I know he's there to facilitate things for developers. I believe in development, but it seems like the zoning administrator should be looking out for the citizens of Wanooski and the types of development that he's going to prove or turn over to the design review board. I should point out there is no design review board. Development review board, I'm sorry. I've been doing that for two and a half months, just to develop a review board, excuse me. And before I turn over things over to Joe, I'd like to call attention because there's been a lot of stress on the form-based code here. On the very first page of the form-based code, there's a heading, how to use this code. And there's a subheading, I wanna know what is allowed for my property. And it states, if your property in question is located within the gateway zoning district, if not, if this code applies, if it's located in the gateway zoning district, if not, the code is not applicable. And so from the very beginning, they're taking this code that they can merge it into the gateway district, thereby expanding the gateway district. And it will apply and it was only subsequently that they came to the decision that the RC-zoned lot could be used with to support the development on this gateway district line. Finally, our only requested relief is that the development review board have a chance to review the project. That's, for each one of the appeals that we've had, that's our release that we're asking for. We just think a project of this magnitude involving the split zone just should be reviewed by the development. Excuse me, I'm Joe Goumache. I live at 23 Mansion Street and I have for 66 years. First, just so you know how we're planning this, Dave is gonna do the first, the introduction and the consolidation of the lots. I'm going to do the second deal issue with regards to use of the lot as a parking lot, use of the RC lot as a parking lot. Dave is then gonna deal with the scope and density. And then I'd like to make just a few concluding remarks. So just to give you a heads up as to that, that's what our plan is. Okay, that's fine. I also want to take this opportunity to thank Eric for his memo of June 19. I will be the first to admit that I am not a zoning lawyer and every lawyer in this room knows that. I've tried my best, but I am not a zoning lawyer. So if I do make any glaring errors, I apologize. As it relates to the actual heading or language used for appeal issue two, as it was written in our Notice of Appeal, it is 18 Mansion Street and RC zone lot cannot be used for parking. That is not correct. That was a misstatement that I prepared that. What it should be, it was very poor choice of words. We're not saying that the RC Mansion Street lot can't have parking lot. What we're saying is it can't be used as an offsite parking lot in support of the gateway lot. It can have parking for what is allowed in the RC district which in this RC district is cut to a triplex or anything of lesser density with provision for six vehicles if you have a triplex. Eric also pointed out that we were incorrect in our claim that the parking requirements set forth in section 4.12C of the general land use regulations saying nothing about applying to the gateway district. That was incorrect. For 4.12B of the general standards, only section 4.12C of that standard shall apply to the gateway district. But I think it's extremely important that you keep in mind there are very specific restrictions in section 4.12C2C that prevent an offsite parking lot from being permitted in any of the residential zones. Now as a result of the lot consolidation, these three, the two main street gateway lots and the one RC lot on Mansion Street have been consolidated. The two gateway district lots are still governed by the form-based code. The RC lot, the Mansion Street lot is governed by the RC code. I don't know what I'm saying, so the two main street lots are governed by the form-based code. The RC lot is governed by the RC regulations. Now as Eric clearly stated in his memorandum to you of June 19th, the lynch pin for his decision that an RC lot can be used for offsite parking is based on his understanding that all development in this project will occur on the gateway district parcel where a structure is going to be built and that there is no development occurring on the RC lot because no structure is being built on that parcel. He even acknowledges and agrees the reference in the appeal in our notice of appeal that quote the parking standards as outlined in 4.12 are focused on development occurring in the residentially zoned areas of the cities. In these instances, the appellants are correct that offsite parking as described in section 4.12C2C applies to development in the residentially zoned districts, our A, our B, and our C, our lot is located in our C. It's extremely important to understand and have a working knowledge of section 4.12C2C which applies to this RC lot. That section of the code is entitled location and it deals where offsite parking is allowed in the city. It specifically states the offsite parking provision is not permitted for development proposals within the residential zoning districts. Simply put, there can be no offsite parking lots involving any development proposals within the residential districts. In order to build the new parking lot that is being proposed here, it will require the demolition, or as I prefer to call it, the structural alteration of the 18 Mansion Street building. It will require the removal of the existing foundation, excavation, landfill, grading, and paving of the new parking lot. The use of the RC lot is also being changed from an RC approved structure with two living units to an offsite parking lot. Eric further wrote in his memo because the new structure is being built in a gateway district, not the RC zoning district. The gateway development remains eligible for offsite parking options and parking for this new development is being included on both the area of the new lot that contains the gateway zoning and the RC zoning. When I read that, that got me thinking. What exactly does development mean under our zoning regulations? I looked it up and found three references to how development is defined under the regs. I first looked in the form-based code under section nine, page 61, under defined terms and found that development is not defined under that code. In that case, the code provides, terms not defined here may be defined elsewhere in the city of Lewinsky zoning ordinance. In such case, the definition contained in the zoning ordinance shall be used. I found the first reference to development in the general regulations, article nine, which defines land, excuse me, land development. Land development means deconstruction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration, relocation or enlargement of any building or other structure or of any mining operation, excavation or landfill and it also is defined as being any change in use of any building or other structure, land or extension of the use of land. That's how it's defined in the land use regulations. Continuing on, they refer, it says also see development as defined for purposes of flood hazard area management and regulation in appendix A. There's no structures involved in this particular section that we're looking for the definition of development. That specifically says development means any human-made change to improve or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials. Well, I'm looking for, by doing this, is how is the code looking to define development, which as we'll see will become very important in just a few minutes. The last place I found where there was a definition of development was in the specific use standard, section 5.3, filling or removing with earth products. Again, there's no structures involved here. But guess what, it's defined by using the term development. Any removal or filling, incidental two or in connection with the construction of a building on the same lot shall be considered development. For any of those standards or definitions of development that I've just given to you, it's clear that development is not restricted as Eric believes it should be to just the building of a new structure. Development includes all of the processes and phases of construction that I've outlined above that will be required for the development of this RC lot and construction of the new parking lot. There clearly will be development within the RC district, the Manchin Street lot for the building of this offsite parking lot, which as we know is strictly and specifically prohibited by section 4.12C2C. And again, what does that say? The offsite parking provision is not permitted for development proposals within the residential zoning districts. And when you think about it, it makes perfect sense, the total prohibition of allowing offsite parking in the residential district make perfect sense. It's totally consistent with the stated purpose of the RC zone, which is set forth and defined as sections 2.8. The purpose of the RC district is to accommodate safe, livable and pedestrian friendly, single and multi-residential housing units up to a triplex in the RC district. Infill developments will be balanced with privacy of surrounding homes, preservation of neighborhood character and safe housing conditions. The prohibition of offsite parking in the RC district also assures the residential neighborhoods can only be developed by what is allowed in the RC district, which again in that district is up to a triplex with six parking spaces. It brings a sense of predictability of calmness and order to the residential districts, which is needed where you're raising families. It makes sense. I think it's also very significant to note that while off street parking is not allowed in any of the residential districts, it is fully allowed in all of the other city zoning districts. The reasons for this, I believe, are because offsite parking is better fitted to those districts where there is more hustle bustle and in line with what's expected in those districts. The concerns the drafters of this code had for the effects, had for the effect of offsite parking in the residential zoning districts are alleviated because they're not allowed there. The increased noise, the vehicle and pedestrian traffic, congestion, et cetera are all better tolerated in these other zoning districts other than the residential districts. That's why they're prohibited in the residential districts. For all of the reasons that I've just said forth, to me, I'm not a zoning expert lawyer, I'm not, but to me it is absolutely crystal clear per the zoning regulations that are in play and that have been adopted by the city that this offsite parking lot proposal in the RC portion of this lot is simply not permitted under the code and should not be allowed. It is nothing more than an administrative attempt to usurp the zoning districts in our fair city. And that's even before we begin to start applying a common sense approach to what's being proposed here. Thank you. Right, done with the combination of the lots. What I have to talk about now has a little bit to do with the combination of lots. Well, if you restrict what you have to say to a combination of lots, that's fine. But I would like to separate those when you gentlemen have finished talking about telling us what you think should be the interpretation of the code. I think the committee members would like to ask you potentially some questions. And we will go on from there. So if I could maybe make a suggestion, it seems to me and maybe correct me if I'm wrong that the combination of the lots, if it were done not in connection with any development proposal would not be something that you would even challenge. It's why they're being combined and that they're being combined to put a parking lot in the RC district and this building in the gateway district. And it sounds like what your challenge is is you can't combine them and then kind of bootstrap the RC district into the... So it's not the combination that's the issue. It's the fact that it's combining at the same time as putting forth this proposal for the parking lot here and the building here. So it seems like they are inextricably linked and we've already kind of been hearing about both. So I kind of want to hear about the whole thing from these guys and then hear about the whole thing from all of you guys. How does the rest of the committee think? I agree. Okay, I consider myself. Sure, we'll deliberate on them separately though. Yeah. I mean, it's, I think kind of they're kind of like two keys we'd need to turn at the same time. Yes. It doesn't really matter. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to address appeal issue number three, which is the scale and density of this project. We've all seen, you know, there's a tremendous amount of development going on in Muskie right now, which is great. It needs a facelift in many areas and we need housing. But the largest, just to give you an idea about the scale, I included in our appeal a chart of the six projects that are either finished in process of construction or in the approval stage and compared some metrics for those to this project. And the largest of the other projects is the 138 East Allen Street with 66 units, slightly less, eight units less than what's being proposed here. And the footprints are almost identical at point four acres. However, the East Allen Street project lot up lot is on a lot that's more than double the size of the proposed lot here. I'd also do some other metrics that are in there like a number of units per acre. And you can see how much more dense this project is than any of the other projects that have been approved. We're about city lights, it's 127. But there's five floors there. Yeah, that's probably, you're right. I said not as, you know, that one's pretty dense, pretty small, but also. And Digest is close too at 109. I'm sorry. Can I just ask a question? Yes. Is density like a criterion in some section of the code that we should be looking at? Or is this more of like a feel of the neighborhood kind of thing? Well, yeah, I thought that, you know, I'm not a zoning person either. I thought there was sections in there that deal with scope and density as part of somebody should be reviewing scope and density. And it's not the zoning administrator. I don't know who would be. Probably those things come to the development review board. I don't know exactly where that, I guess I was just speaking more in general terms, probably in there somewhere. And this project is adjacent to a well-established neighborhood. The developer is asking for the maximum allowable number of units because the project qualifies as a PHP, I think I've got that right, but I may not. And the architects renderings show a beautiful building, but one that really consumes this entire block up here all the way back into the mansion street. And in my way of looking at it, and maybe that's just a subjective view, but it's huge and this is a small, everything else around the proposed site is also small. Is one street a neighborhood? Sure. But what? What about the other end where the Barlow street, Big Tower is, that's right, up on the street, right? Yeah, I know. That was there before zoning. Yeah. Yeah, sure. I'm, yeah, I'm throwing these questions out. What constitutes a neighborhood? Is it one block? Is it multiple streets in the block? I'm just double that. I would argue that it is what the residents of that area believe it is. Sure. Right? Yes. So we as residents of Grant Mansion Street believe that we are a neighborhood and that we collectively should have some say in what gets built in our neighborhood. And it's not a butting or hatching any other neighborhood street. It's simply a butting and attaching a mansion street. And it takes up at least 25% of the street from Main Street going east. It takes up a huge chunk of the land. Can you talk about the neighborhood manners setback? Yeah, yeah, that's exactly where I'm headed. Thank you. I appreciate it. Great segue. So neighborhood manners is defined as a set of rules in this code designed to ensure a positive and complementary relationship between the new and more intense redevelopment under this code, form-based code, and existing residential zoning districts abutting the urban storefront and or urban general frontages. Now, to achieve that sort of necessary positive and complementary relationship, the form-based code has these neighborhood manners setbacks. And these are provided. There's an illustration. I don't know if it's helpful at all, but this illustration is in the code. I've got copies if you guys want to have it to look at. But it's very clear that there's a 20-foot and a 50-foot. There's a 20-foot and a 50-foot setback. Both of these are showing on the site plan of the developer, except that they're measured from the 20 mansion street. It's hard to read these site plans when you've got it in an 8 1⁄2 by 11 PDF, but I did blow it up and I believe that the site plan shows that 50-foot setbacks and the 20-foot setbacks are measured from, not from the borderline with or the lot line with 18 mansion street, but from the borderline with the 20 mansion street. There's a requirement for a stone wall as well between the different districts. That is being proposed on the borderline with 20 mansion street. So you find that by combining the logs or whatever you want to call it, using 18 mansion street, they're using 18 mansion street for the setbacks that in the form-based code are required in the gateway district. So if you look at the setbacks on their drawing, the setbacks are not in the gateway district. Now they would be considered in the gateway district if the original premise is correct, that, oh, we combine these three logs into one lot that's governed by the form-based code. That would work, but we've come to the determination that that is not correct. And so the setbacks that are required have to be in the gateway zoning district. If those 50-foot setbacks were applied, the building would have to be much smaller. If they're not allowed to use off-site parking on 18 mansion street, the project will be considerably smaller. And now maybe everybody's happy, right? You've got a smaller project, maybe it's half the number of units, it's within scale, it works. So the form-based code, I attended a meeting of the, I think it was the, it wasn't the project review committee, it was the planning commission about the form-based code and addressing some of these issues with mixed site, mixed zone properties. And I said, in this case anyway, I think the form-based code would work, right? If you had the proper setbacks and you enforced that and you enforced the on-site parking, the project would have to be smaller. It would still cover the whole block on main street and give us that presentation that we're looking for in the Gateway District, but it wouldn't use up a residential commercial lot and it would have to be smaller because of the parking department. So if I can just understand this, is the building just too big? It does, there's not enough, so imagine there is no parking lot in the mansion stays there, that's not used for parking. There's some other parking solution figured out. Is the building just still too big? There's not enough room to separate the big building from the neighborhood? Is this a- At the size that it is, yeah, because it comes right to the, it really virtually comes to the boundary of the Gateway District on those two blocks. If you look at the diagram you're circling, the expectation, I think, was that what you're looking at is developments along two parallel streets, because the common lots, right? Yes. You have to imagine the street to the right of that, right? Here in this part of the diagram. Well, I- If you think- I looked at it like almost as a perfect description of this property. You've got main street here, you've got the RC lot back here with a house on it, and here's your building that you're built. That's what I- Well, I think you're looking at this figure in a scale that is different from what was envisaged when the form-based code was developed. I think you're thinking of this as a mid-block kind of lot. If you think Father North on the other side of Spring Street where Fodan used to be located, where Yankee Plumbing has their place, and all systems computer is, and so on, all the lots along and run back to the mid, middle of the block, and on the other side are another set of lots that run back to that point, right? Off of, is Franklin, would it be Franklin? That's too far. Leclerc, right, right, it's to Leclerc. So the notion was that a buffer would be created between the lots on the other side of the block and the development that was taking place on Main Street, as it were, in the Gateway District. And to be fair to the developer and to the lot owners on the other side, to be friendly, the notion was that you would measure how far the building fit in that larger space, and after 80 feet from the build line on the street, you would consider whether you would have a 20 foot buffer if it was, if the building was inside the 80 foot, was beyond the 80 foot line, and you would have a wider setback if it was contained within 80 feet. In other words, the size of the buffer is to some extent measured by distance from the lot line. The father backed the building and has to go, say on a wrap around street or something, you would adjust your lot size. The fundamental problem is the fear of, which was never considered when I was on the steering committee and went to all the charrettes and so on. There was never any thought that this kind of development would encroach on an existing neighborhood, but in fact, the whole idea was to try to protect neighborhoods from that sort of process. And I guess if it was thought about at all, it was the notion that those setbacks that were required, and we didn't even think about split zoning kinds of things where residential lots would be combined with gateway district lots. The expectation was that if something like that happened, it would be a lot on the edge and you would measure the setbacks from the boundary farthest from the main street. But nobody envisaged clearing out a whole neighborhood in order to... Right, right, and I think that maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but that's what I'm saying is that you should measure the setback from the boundary between the gateway district and the residential commercial district. That's where the buffer should be, right? The buffer should be between the gateway district and the residential commercial district and the gateway district. And I think to the extent that that was thought about, it was thought about thought that the no structures in whatever buffer was created was adequate protection for the residential area. Right, and the point I'm trying to make here is that if the 18 Mansion Street lot retains its character as a residential commercial lot, then the setbacks ought to be measured by that boundary and not the boundary of 20 Mansion Street. That's what I'm saying is that the lot of 18 Mansion Street is roughly 57 feet wide down the street level and that's the neighborhood manners right there. That's their setback. What does RBL stand for on this? Required building line, I believe. Yes, it's a required building line. I have a question. Did you and, was the court decision included in your filing, your appeal? Because it seems to me that's speaking directly to this issue and they seem to come to the opposite conclusion that you're saying this is a lot, two lots that were combined in two different zoning districts and the court said it didn't make any sense to apply that neighborhood manners at the old lot line that it could be applied to the new lot line. The more distant lot line. The further lot line. Well my understanding is that what they basically said is that they were appealing whether or not the buffer should still be there because the same person owned both parcels and the court came to the conclusion that whatever was in the downtown district was gonna be governed by those zoning principles and whatever was in the abiding neighborhood district was going to be incorporated into that. That's my understanding of that decision. That's not, I read it this. And there is a little difference between the Supreme Court decision and the environmental court decision. But the Supreme Court ended up upholding what was done in the environmental court. It's the Bose case. Yeah. So the part I was looking at, so they didn't wanna eliminate the buffer completely but I can't find it now but they said it would be illogical to put that setback at the old lot line and then the Supreme Court. Was it at the full lot line or was it at the zoning line? Because that gets back to a question that you had asked the plan that was submitted by these folks on May 1st specifically references a 50 foot setback. City required 50 foot setback but they had it running from the Easterly most line that abuts 20 Manchin Street as opposed to the Westerly most line which makes sense because that's where the zoning districts if you're applying neighborhood manners that's where the zoning districts separate and that's where you want your buffer. It's not doing you any good if you're starting way over on the Westerly side of a different lot line. I think they reject that. They say that setbacks are defined as coming from lot lines, not from zoning boundaries. And so now when there's a new lot your setback has to be from the, is that anyone else get that from there? So I'm just reading the conclusion paragraph. The merger of two lots does not act to eliminate the 15 foot district setback but that setback by the plain language of the CDO the comprehensive development ordinance is measured from the property line and not the district line. The new single lot must comply with all the other setback requirements for the district in which it's located that are applicable to adjacent lots. So it sounds like if you've got a kind of combined lot that stretches across two districts the setback still applies but you measure from, at least this decision seems to say you measure from the property line not the district line which is now in the middle of your combined lot. After the law is consolidated or before? After. After, right? Because the zoning didn't change you still have a zoning nitrate going out. So again, we come to the same combining the laws to allow the expansion of the gateway district. It's not expanded. It wouldn't be expanded. It would still be in the residential district. It could not have a structure built on it. If you use the gateway notion about manners and buffers. I'm just, I'm trying to understand. I'm very sympathetic to the neighborhood and the fear that someone could come along 10 years from now and want to expand the business operation on the ground floor and need more parking spaces and want to accumulate residential property in the district and move ahead. And isn't this project allowing that and supporting that? I don't. Like why couldn't they buy 20 mansion street and have even more outdoor parking and not have a parking garage or buy 36 mansion street the next one down through all three blocks behind and have all parking there instead of having an underground parking lot much less expensive. I think as set up in the code the 80 foot notion of primary influence that the gateway district has is a regulator against that. I think it should be interpreted in that way that it doesn't permit the acquisition of multiple properties but would permit the acquisition of a small property on the edge to round out a lot. So it sounds like what you're saying. I mean, we've got a case in the middle of two easier cases. The easier case would be if it's five lots down mansion street and that's the offsite parking. That would be, no, can't do that. It's well within the residential commercial district or residential C district. It would be like a truly offsite parking lot. It'd be building parking lot in the middle of the residential district. The other easy case is if it's all within the gateway district but we have something in the middle where we have a lot in the residential district but it's right next to the gateway district. And I think the question is, well, does it matter that it's right next to it or is it just, no, it's in the residential district. You can't put that parking lot there. You can't put off site parking in the residential district right next door or five lots down. Doesn't matter. Yeah, and I think you hit on the critical point because to my and I've gone around and around on this many times but I cannot see how allowing this project and the use of 18 mansion street the way that we are that we're not in effect increasing the size of the gateway district. Whether the parking lot's there or it's using that 18 mansion street law as buffers. It's using it as parking. It's using it to support the larger project that's in the gateway zone and wasn't the intention of the gateway zone to have the larger more as it says here the new and more intense redevelopment under this code is to happen in the gateway district. It's not to happen part of the gateway district and part in the RC zone district. I think that's our main issue here is that however maybe there's a technical way of doing it but we think that it's development and we think it doesn't qualify in the RC district and we also think that the setbacks are required as part of the gateway district project and you can't use RC zone property to be your buffers but right or wrong it just seems to me like you're de facto expanding the gateway district. I don't see how you can look at it any other way. It's a gateway project that doesn't have enough it's big enough so that it doesn't have enough parking. It has to have more parking and it's using an RC zone law for that. The trade off I suppose is that the owner of that property cannot do anything other than something that is at ground level. They cannot build a structure. They cannot extend their structure into that zone. They cannot build a structure in that residential zone. Build or have development in that zone because depending upon what definition of development you use. This gets us into the argument of what constitutes development and at what level. I tend personally, I have to do in this committee what the code says and my feelings don't interpret the code. I have to come to a decision about what I think the code intends. I tend to think of it as a building and it says no structures of any kind. I don't consider an impervious service however bad that might be for drainage issues and so on. A structure doesn't rise above the ground. It isn't intended for other kind of human use. Occupants as a factory or residential use or what have you. It says it has to be flat. You can't put a structure in this zone and it's a buffer then between if the owner bought houses and wanted to knock them down and put three unit houses in that residential district the code wouldn't allow that. I mean it's clear. Kevin's point is I think very well taken because there was no expectation that this kind of thing, that the kind of situation we're in right now wouldn't be solved by the setback zones that the form base code prescribes. And it does specifically say that parking is an allowable activity. Allowable use in that. Within that area. However, this is also within the buffer zone. See so properly screened properly screened. No, I know. But again, I mean, you know again and you know if you're beating a dead horse but I mean the question from our perspective is you've got a line that's drawn by I guess you folks of the planning commission or whatever and this is the border of the gateway district and this is the other side of it is residential commercial. And you're doing a project that would not be able to stand the way it is without using this residential commercial district. How is that not expanding the gateway district? Because it sets limits to what you can do in that zone that are based on the residential code as much as it is. Right, right. You cannot put a structure there. But aren't you also relaxing what is required in the gateway zone? I don't know, David. Mr. Carter, I'm not trying to advocate for one thing or another. I'm not advocating for the development project. I'm trying to understand myself how one deals with something that wasn't envisaged when the code was written as a promo. In the light of a proposal on the one hand and excited and upset neighbors. Well, don't you go back to what is allowed in each district? Just for clarification, this board does not typically hear anything having to do with form-based code. I believe this is the first time that we've talked about this. So this is new to us as well. We're still trying to kind of wrap our heads around. What is legal? There's this tremendous gray area that we need to figure out. And I'll let Joe have those concluding remarks. But I think this brings to front the complexities of this and it's just not something that can be approved administratively. You know, we've all sat here and discussed these complexities and what's right, what's wrong and how do you read this? It's something that I'm looking from a language there and 6.24 may not, the ZA determines this request, may not meet these criteria. Yeah, I mean, pretty, I think there's good arguments on both sides. To me, that's, it may or may not meet the criteria that's required for him to do it administratively. That's all we're asking is that you folks take a look at the project. The thing is, this is the first appeal that's come to the DRV, either from residents and citizens of Lewinsky or from, I should probably think about that, but very few developers have appealed zoning administrative decisions. Why? Because the form-based code gets held as a club over the developer's head. Developers don't want to come to boards like this. They like to deal with one person and they like to work it through. And as long as the zoning administrator holds the developer to the spirit and purpose and letter of the code, we don't see those things. Absolutely. And I agree with that. So we're kind of groping with how we fit things together and that's why your appeal is very important, both in its own right and in the larger structure because when you develop something and you think you've got an answer for every question that could possibly arise and then the first appeal you get falls into this gray zone that the code didn't really envisage when it was written. We have an issue. And it's potentially setting a precedent for other properties up along Main Street, along Malice Bay, along East Allen Street. So it's absolutely important and we're gonna grill Eric just as much as we're grilling you. So, yeah. I have a couple more questions. Yes, yes, you can have as much time for as many questions as you can. If we granted that the lots were consolidated, what's your understanding of off-site parking? If this parking is on the same lot as this building, is it not on-site parking? I don't know if it would be allowed. I haven't been able to find a definition in the code of what off-site parking is, but it seems to me that it would be located on the same lot or same land as the project. So it seems like if the lots were to be combined then it wouldn't be off-site parking. Okay, but again, you're still gonna be faced with what is allowed in the RC district going back to what I was talking about earlier, which precludes off-site parking lots in residential districts. Well, my point is that it would site, isn't it? It's not allowed. No, there you go, because then you are, then you're saying, oh, but that is all one gateway district. No. Then you're not distinguishing between the RC district, what's allowed and what's allowed in the gateway district? So my second question is related, and it's what about the issue that Eric brings up about the senior center and the church that have large parking lots in the RC district? Well, the church is only busy on Saturday evenings and on Sunday mornings. The, there are multiple entrances and exits to the high-rise. You can get out on the East Island Street. You can get down on the Barlow Street. That has, that hasn't been a problem. I mean, my question on that is, did they predate form-based code? I mean, the- They were in the RC district, though. Right, but, you know, you take a structure that predates the RC district. Doesn't matter that it's in the RC district because it was there before. So the real question I think is, is there an example that's gone through this process and can serve as, for lack of a better term, precedent? I don't know whether that's true, whether it's true or not, senior center. I don't know when the, when those categories are true. That was long, long before the form-based code. Right, but it wasn't long before zoning. I don't think. Right, but don't you think that's it? Yeah, I mean, I think the question to your point, Joe, is what's the site? It's off the site of the development, which is in a different district. So I think your argument would be, you can have parking in residential, the residential and commercial district, it has to be on site, and that site needs to also be in that same lot, like a house and a driveway. If it's serving a parcel in a different district, even if it's directly adjacent, it's by definition off-site because it's serving a parcel in a different district. It's basically the same as if it were a mile away in the RC district. I don't know the answer to that question, but am I getting the argument right? Yeah, I believe so. And your intent is that that is the case, even if it is one continuous lot line that just happens to have. Okay. Yes. Any further? I would just like to make a few concluding remarks. We've already hit on it, but I can't emphasize enough the precedent setting importance of decision that you folks are going to make and the effect that that will have on the future development of the Linovsky Gateway Districts Main Street, East Island Street, Miles Bay Avenue. Developers have all of these areas well in their sites and if you allow them to develop a budding residential zone district loss in support of a gateway project, the city zoning districts as they have been designed and adopted under our codes will be meaningless and neighborhoods as we know them today will be ruined. From just the Main Street Gateway perspective, anyone living on Maple, Mansion, Union, Platt, East and West Spring Street, Leclerc Street, Stephen Street, La Fountain and Weaver Streets that above Main Street lots had better get ready because it's just a matter of time before your streets come under the siege like Mansion Street is now. If this project is allowed to go forward as presented, the street that I've lived on for 66 years will be annihilated. You can't replace three existing buildings with a total of 12 apartments located toward the Main Street side with a gargantuan four-story 70,500 square foot building with 75 apartments and two commercial units and not know it will have a devastating effect on the Mansion Street neighborhood. Since this project was announced in early March, three Mansion Street homes have gone on the market and another one is going on the market next week. Prior to this project, Mansion Street homes rarely, rarely went on the market. They were kept in the family. They weren't sold. People weren't vacating, which is what they're doing now. All of the other gateway developments to date that received a total windfall of benefits by being fortunate enough to be located in the Gateway District had that intent to keep their development within the Gateway District for both the structure and parking, but not this project. That's not enough for them. They also want to grab an RC lot in the process to bolster the parking to get the number of spaces needed to support a 75-unit apartment complex, the absolute maximum that is allowed. This is the largest proposed development to date in any of our Gateway District. They're requesting almost twice the number of units that the next largest gateway development that has been built to date requested. All of the brochures and advertising with regards to the adoption of the city's master plan, form-based code, general land use regulation and main street revitalization, all talk about how important it is to the city to keep the integrity of our existing neighborhoods. Words on a page in a brochure are cheap. It's time for the city to step up to the plate through this citizen board and show in actions, just not words, that our neighborhoods are important and worthy of preservation. You folks, the Development Review Board are the first people other than the zoning administrator to get a look at this development proposal from the zoning perspective. You determine whether it should be allowed in total, in part, or be scrapped. You are citizens of Winooski just like we are, and we're appealing to you to bring some sense of fairness and common sense to the development process. Keep this development proposal within the Gateway District and leave Mansion Street alone. Hopefully looking at this proposal with fresh eyes will bring some common sense application of our zoning regulations and result in a decision that is fair to all concern. By bringing this appeal, we're not suggesting or saying that Eric is a bad person or a bad zoning administrator, but because of the way the form-based code and the way the development game is now required to be played, the zoning administrator is put in a very difficult position of having dealt with the developers, engineers, and architects for months prior to a formal application being filed, probably in this particular case since October and November, to discuss the project, review, and tweak the plans for these folks. I spoke with Mr. Mungen and he was telling me they were meeting every two weeks to do this before a formal application was made. The zoning administrator has helped the developer design the project to where he's basically telling the developer that their project is now okay to be submitted. It's been blessed. Relationships develop over those months when they're in contact with each other. And the developer is relying on the zoning administrator to get them over the finish line. The zoning administrator isn't very likely now to admit he's made a mistake or was wrong in his interpretation of the code. There's too much writing on it. This is where you commit as fellow citizens and for the first time get to oversee his decisions. Our agreement, excuse me, our argument against this proposal comes down to three major points. The proposed development of an offsite parking lot in an RC district in support of the gateway project as we discussed is not allowed under the code. The currently proposed size, scale, and density of the project is totally out of character and or compatible with a mansion street residential neighborhood. And with a correct application of what we feel the correct application is of the neighborhood manners provision, this development proposal as currently configured cannot be allowed to go forward under the code. Your agreement with any one of our arguments can require this project to be sent back to the drawing board with a directive that it be kept totally in the gateway district, leave mansion street alone, and be significantly scaled back to where it's fair for everyone, the developer and the mansion street residents. Thank you for listening to this. Mr. Chair, before we turn to the applicants, I have a set of exhibits that I think might be appropriate to put in the record now so that there is a complete record. If I could take a minute just to run through them so that everybody knows what is in the record. I should, I failed to point out at the beginning that Eric Vorwal, who normally staffs this committee because he's the zoning administrator, is not staffing the committee on this particular meeting. But instead we have the city lawyer Bob Capalma who is serving in that kind of role. So if I can just do this and I can get out of the way again. So I have a dozen or more exhibits. I'll run through the list quickly. And these will be marked and they can be made available to any interested party electronically after the hearing. So exhibit A is a zoning application with all of its attachments. Exhibit B is the form-based code certificate of conformity issued by the zoning administrator in this case. Exhibit C are the Z cards, photos of the Z cards of the administrative lock consolidation as posted on the properties. Exhibit D is the memorandum to adjacent property owners and interested persons on the administrative lock consolidation. Exhibit E is the list of persons who received that exhibit D. Exhibit F is the photos of the Z cards of the zoning permit approval posted on the property. Exhibit G is the notice of appeal filed by Mr. Gamash. Exhibit H is the public hearing notice of this hearing. Exhibit I is the Burlington Free Press proof of the notice of this public hearing. Exhibit J is the Burlington Free Press affidavit of publication of that notice. Exhibit K is the memorandum to adjacent property owners on the hearing notice publication. Exhibit L is the list of persons receiving that memorandum. Exhibit M is the photo of the cards posted on the property noticing this public hearing. Exhibit N is the agenda of this meeting. Exhibit O is the memorandum to this board identifying the documents from the application that are included with the agenda. Exhibit P is the memorandum from the zoning administrator to the board providing an overview of this of the appeal submission. Exhibit Q is an exhibit to that memo. It's a letter from Attorney Zalinger to the zoning administrator. Exhibit R is another memorandum from the zoning administrator to the board providing information on the administrative lot consolidation. Exhibit S is another memorandum from the zoning administrator to the board providing information on the zoning approval. Exhibit T is a letter from Sarah Gale Benjamin, a resident on Mansion Street. Exhibit U will be the sign-in sheet which is, I think, complete. Exhibit V is in Victor is the neighborhood manners exhibit that Mr. Carter submitted to the board just a couple of minutes ago. So that's a complete set so far. Okay. We normally ask the applicant in this situation if they have something they want to say but we thought it might be quicker if we ask any of the other non-applicant residents who have a brief comment that they want to make on the presentation and information that has been presented and then move on to the project. So this is what, for anybody noticing us whispering during that, it was because you were boring. Although you were. The idea is anyone who is not the applicant who wants to comment on the zoning administrator's decision, the appeal, essentially voice their thoughts on the application, positive or negative. The idea is to hear all of you now so that when the applicant comes and sits at the table they can take into account all of the comments from neighboring folks and other interested folks at the same time. So we don't have to keep going back and forth if that makes sense. So can we speak for the board if you want to? We can check the mic so we have an official record. Let's put you on the spot right there. That's fine. I'm Craig Killian of the Mansion Street. So I just want to clarify, we've all agreed on the principle that when lots are combined the zoning districts don't change. So the parcel of 18 Mansion Street, that physical plot, whether it's combined or not still has to comply with regulations governed by residential commercial zoning. Correct? If somebody not in this situation just owned a house in an RC district wanted to demolish their house and pave it, would that require a building permit, a zoning permit? I would assume that would require a Z card. You don't have to get a zoning permit. Okay. And because that's residential commercial that wouldn't fall under the form-based code, that would fall under the traditional RC. Right, so wouldn't the demolition of the building currently at 18 Mansion Street and the paving over of that parcel require a zoning permit separate from the form-based code ruling? And wouldn't the applicable law still have to apply to that piece of the development work? Yes, but it doesn't necessarily follow that we would see it. It could be a zoning, a administrative approval, right? I think so. Well, I think that if I'm hearing the point you're making is in an application to do something in the residential commercial district is either an approved use, a conditional use, or not a use. And in none of those cases does it go through form-based code. And I think the conclusion to this is this parking lot did seem to go through form-based code. And that's kind of part of the whole bootstrapping idea that John did. And I don't think there's any basis for that to have happened. I don't think a form-based code permit can be issued for anything other than the Gateway district that's covered by the form-based code. That's what we're trying to figure out right now. So here's another question. As I read the residential commercial regulations, the residential commercial property has to comply with a maximum coverage of 50%. That includes building, pavement, driveway, impermeable surfaces. As I look at the map, the schematic of the development, it looks to me like that rectangular piece of land that's currently 18 Mansion Street is gonna be completely paved over. And so I don't see how that can comply with the 50% coverage maximum in residential commercial. I did see something, I've been pouring over these papers for over a week now. I saw something somewhere that the plan for the parking lot was going to be permeable pavement, permeable asphalt that water would travel through it instead of off of it. I don't know exactly where that was. But in an Eric's response? Yeah. And I believe that there was the argument presented that that would suffice. There's something that's on this one. Not the lot consolidation with the other one. Impervious 3,810 square feet, 48%. The rest is pervious surface and grass or vegetation. So what percent is impervious? 48.4%. Can you look at that? I just don't understand where that. Yeah, so it sounds like the point you're making is the development in the 18, is it 18 mansions? 18 mansions. In the 18 mansion lot needs to comply with all requirements in the RC Districts. Exactly. Coverage and any number of other things that we may not have talked about. And I think what you're asking us to do is make sure that it does. Right, and the other point about residential commercial is if you look at section 2.8, definition of residential commercial says the purpose is to accommodate safe living and pedestrian friendly single and multi-use residential housing neighborhoods. There's not gonna be any residential aspect to that residential property. It's no longer a residence. It's no longer has a building on it. It's not, to me, doesn't comply with what's required of a residential commercial property. You couldn't have a wood lot. You couldn't have a dairy barn and a residential commercial, right? It's not a residential type of use. But every house on that street has parking. Sure, but it also, every house also has a house. This spot is serving the residences of this new building. But the property does not have a residential use. Just because I parked my car somewhere doesn't mean that has a residential aspect to it. I know we're gonna hear more from Eric about this in a little bit, but the swing, the pendulum that's happening right now is yeah, but with the combination of the lot lines does it, that's the question we're here to answer. But as we've said, it figure out. Yeah, there's no question that it has to comply with RC zoning, that piece of land. Yeah, but the question of the argument does, the parking lot to service the property is that now the case, now that the property is the combination of these two zones with one large building. So it's gonna be interpretation of what's broken. Meaning of what's a residential use. Correct, yeah. Yes, okay. So again, I think it's important to have somebody establish whether or not a permit is required for what happens on that residential commercial piece of land totally separate from the form-based code issuance. And to me, it's very obvious that it does. If you're holding true to that belief that you're not affecting the zoning map by combining properties. Those are the only points I wanted to make. Thanks. Thank you. Is anybody else desirous of making a comment? Okay, seeing nobody else wishing to make a comment, we'll hear from the applicant. I don't believe he will be testifying. I don't know whether- I had not intended. Yeah, I don't think that that was the intention. Yeah, I think our plan is not to, we're kind of stepping into the zoning administrator's shoes on the appeal. Essentially, we're doing a do-over. We're gonna sit essentially as the zoning administrator. We've got a lawyer here to advise us because it's Eric's decision that's being scrutinized. We're not gonna, he's not gonna help us one way or the other. We've got completely substitute advisor here in the city attorney who will guide us and tell us what's what. So, AJ LaRosa, MSK attorney's attorney for Mungin Properties LLC, the applicant in this project. And because of that, I appreciate clarifying the point of order. I don't wanna rehash the arguments that Mr. Varwald made in his memos and with all apologies to Mr. De Palma, I did not capture all of the exhibit numbers properly. So I will say the various memos introduced into the record from attorney Varwald, from the zoning administrator. We would adopt those arguments as if we were making them ourselves, but for the purposes of exigency, I'm not gonna repeat those arguments. We would just want the record to reflect that we are adopting them as if we are making them ourselves. Otherwise, I would sit here for the next hour and a half and make the same presentation that you already have in a number of memos. So let me just first introduce you to Jeff Mungin. Jeff Mungin is the developer of this project. And as Jeff will tell you later when I'm done, the very first thing he did when he first proposed, he first got the idea to develop this priority housing project, which will have how many affordable rate units? Twenty eight. So it's a number of affordable rate units, which I think the city of Winooski, like the city of Burlington, has said is really important to bring into the city. The first thing Eric did is he went to the ZA and he asked about the slot consolidation issue and has done literally every single thing that the ZA has asked. Literally numerous meetings, specifically making sure that every part of his project conformed with the regulations as the ZA understood them. There's not one thing he has done to mislead the neighbors or any of these things. What you have heard tonight is two things that I think you need to keep in perspective. First, it's a collateral attack on the foreign-based code gateway zoning district. I think that has been made very clear to you that the problem with this is the scale and density of the residential building, which meets every single foreign-based code requirement. It is within the height, it is within the scale, it is within the scope of what is allowed in the foreign-based code district. And this appeal, you've heard it tonight, is about the scale of the project. These other issues are brought in as a way to a collateral attack of what is allowed under the foreign-based code district. And I think that needs to be understood very clearly. So on point one, point one that the opponents to this project raise is that this is an impermissible expansion of the gateway zoning district. And that's just not the case. The, what is formally 18 Mansion Street lot will be governed and will always be governed by the RC residential C district zoning standards. Moreover, their point two sort of defeats their point one. If their point two addresses what parking, whether or not parking is allowed on 18 Mansion Street because it's in the RC zoning district, then there hasn't been an impermissible expansion of the gateway zoning district. So the two of them can't coexist. So point one, I think falls away because there's really, Mr. Varwald says it in his memos, but you've heard it tonight. We're not seeking to apply gateway zoning district to what was formerly 18 Mansion Street. Can I just ask one question? Of course. Is it the problem that at least the way I heard the Margaret and I wanna hear what the responses are telling me I'm wrong. If your client owned just the portion in the gateway district, it wouldn't meet form-based code because it wouldn't have enough parking. And if your client owned just the portion in the residential commercial district, you couldn't tear down the house and build a parking lot because you can't just have a parking lot in the residential commercial district just to serve something. So if we can accept those two premises is true, and I think they are. I disagree to some extent. Okay, we'll tell me why in a minute. Why if you just put them next to each other, do they cancel each other out? That's where I'm getting lost. So there's a couple of points and I may ask you to repeat that. So the first is the idea that if you put the project just in the gateway, it wouldn't have enough parking. That's not necessarily true. So under the gateway zoning district, you're allowed to have offsite parking within 1400 feet, within 1400 feet. Okay. So we haven't even gone down that road. So to your first point, that's not necessarily true. But you couldn't put that offsite parking like further down mansion street because you can't have a satellite parking lot in the middle of the residential commercial district. That's actually not what the code says. Code doesn't say that. The code says, I believe the intent of that section, I wrote it down 4.12C2C says the intent of that is residential RC developments can't be sending their cars to somewhere else. No, I get that. My point is you can't just have a lot that is just a parking lot. That's not a permitted use within the RC district, is it? Well, there are parking lots in the RC district already. First of all, 18 Mansion Street already has 20 parking spaces on it. But it also has a house on it. It does have a house on it, but it's got 20 parking spaces that serve other lots in the RC district. So for example, if that church wanted to use its parking spaces, if somebody needed some offsite parking, and that church was 1,394 feet away from something in the Gateway's only district, I think you could send cars to that church parking lot. Because it's an already existing parking lot. And this is already an existing parking lot as well. I need to mention. It seems to be all apps in the permitted uses table not to have parking in there. Like, how is the new parking garage being regulated in the downtown? Well, that's in the downtown. It's like a whole special thing. So that's a whole separate thing. Yeah, but it's an active 15. The fundamental thing that I understand is you take a lot in the middle of a residential district. You can have parking on it, but it has to be in service of some structure also on the lot. You can't, that's why we don't have like paid parking lots in the middle of residential neighborhoods. But where does it say that in the code that you can't have the parking lot? I feel like it says that somewhere in the code. I read that somewhere in these materials we've been reviewing for a week. But I might be wrong. I don't believe it says you can't have a parking lot. There are certain commercial residential uses that are allowed in the RC district. And I've read the code and there's no prohibition on saying you can't have a parking lot there. Now, on the second point though, it's not offsite. It's on the same site. It's on the same lot. This idea that it's offsite is a fallacy. It is literally on the same lot. The deed will reference the boundaries. Part of the project will be in the RC district. Part of that lot, call it, it'll have a new street address or whatever it will have. But part of that lot will be in the RC district. And I'm calling it the RC district. I think it's technically something else, but the RC district and part of it will be in the gateway zoning district. The building that form-based code regulates is in the gateway zoning district. The residential parking, which we all agree residential parking is allowed in the RC district. You can have a multi-family building with parking lots. We all, you can have a neighborhood commercial use in the RC district. You can have a dentist's office or doctor's office. It's in the code. Those come with parking. And so you can definitely have parking. You can definitely have residential parking. You can definitely have parking for a commercial business in the RC district. And that's all in the same lot now. There's nothing we're doing on our lot that is not permitted under the code in the RC district. There's nothing we're doing on our lot that is not permitted under the portions of applicable that is not allowed under the gateway zoning district. The applicants, the opponent's problem is the scale of the project. But unfortunately, that's not within the scope of the review, because the scale of the project is in the form-based code area and we meet the form-based code requirements. And I think it's also important to understand that there's already a parking lot there. It was a doctor's office for a very long time with commercial, you know, doctor's office has in and out traffic, commercial traffic, and those people all parked at that doctor's office. And that was after the RC district came into effect, as I understand it. But it remained that way. I think it became a house. The RC may have come in after us, but it stayed as a parking lot for commercial use. You have a doctor's office, you have a dentist's office, you have those sorts of things. And so again, I stress, you know, this is not an off-site lot. And I think when you think of off-site, it's about sending cars going that way. And I think the principle behind 4.12C2C is if you have a house in the RC district, you can't send your cars to somewhere else. So you can receive cars. I think that's correct. You can receive cars. If you've got an extra parking lot, why wouldn't you be able to receive cars? Right. And now I would agree that you really should be able to receive cars for residential uses or something that's otherwise allowable. And that's exactly what's happening here. These are spaces that are for the residents in the area. And, you know, they're not for other people. It's not a commercial parking lot. Y'all just can't show up there and pay to park. It's not what's going on. Can I kind of push back a little bit? Yeah, always. It seems like in the RC district, maybe dentists and doctors' offices are permissible as a home occupation, but offices are not permitted. Healthcare is not permitted. It seems to assume a home. Well, I'm reading the table of uses in table two. Right, would be... Table 2.4 and use table. All of the commercial uses... Retail sales and neighborhood commercial. Conditional use. But still otherwise allowable. They're not impermissible use. And if I read those, it would seem to constitute, what was there? I mean, it's allowed to have pharmacies, cafes, merchandise included, but not limited to. My point in that is that there's no prohibition against it, and what we're doing is creating a residential parking on a consolidated lot. That's not an offsite parking lot. And these lots are not, whether or not the zoning districts change, the lot boundaries change, and that matters. So offsite is something technical in terms of tax maps and plots. This is not offsite. So that argument doesn't technically apply after the consolidation. But the code itself doesn't seem to define offsite, that just taken to be self... Well, I think if offsite were to mean, I don't understand how offsite could mean, how parking on the same lot could mean that it's offsite. Literally then, every parking in existence would be offsite. Your driveway would be offsite. That is unrealistic. Also, when they previously mentioned offsite parking in the 4.12 section, they give a distance, 1,400 feet. So very few lots of 1,400 feet, you know. So I think that references that it's on a separate tax parcel. And just sorry to interrupt again, but the second thing is, can you clarify where the parking for the two small commercial shops will be? Is that on-street parking? Will they be able to use this as a shared parking that they'll be able to use during the day? No, there's gonna be two or three spots inside the parking garage, a little bit of there. And then there'll be street parking. Yeah, this is residence only. We could sign it or anything like that if that was a reference relevant issue. I'll also note that some of the parking lot is not in the RC district at all. It is in the Gateway District because the line when it was created, from the lot lines being what they were, they don't quite line up the right way. So a portion of the parking lot is in the Gateway something district. So point, I'm not belaboring point two. So point three was the scope scale and density. And again, I come back to what I started with is I think this is really asking you to apply conditional use review to the building. And that is not permitted under the zoning regulations as I understand them. The building is in the form-based code district. The form-based code district has a box fit inside this box, that's what we review. And I believe their perspective is that you have the authority under the code on the appeal. If you're stepping into the shoes of Mr. Vorwald, you're reviewing it, does it meet the box that form-based code prescribes and it does. And I think so when you talk about scope and scale and density, that's what form-based code is here to regulate. Scope, scale and density, I don't even think it's relevant and I think someone, maybe Mr. Lumpkin pointed that out. Can I ask you about the neighborhood manners setback? Yes. We had a discussion about this earlier. If your client didn't own 18 mansion, there would be this setback thing and I don't really get the 20 or 50 feet, apparently you get to choose or something. But there would be some requirement that the building footprint be setback from the boundary with 18 mansion. That's right. Fair to say? I think that's correct. So what I'm, and I read this Bogues case from Burlington, what I understand that to me is, well all you have to do is buy the lot behind your building and now you don't have to have a setback because now you own a lot that is like, is the setback? So, I'm not sure you're saying it the way I would say it. Okay. So I'm cautious to say that's correct. So I know the Bogues case fairly well. I was on the DRB when it came back to us and then it went back. So the issue in the Bogues case was it was a split lot and there was a setback, but there was two different zoning districts, one out of 15 or one out of two different setbacks. In the courts it looked, you have to have a setback at some point, but it doesn't make sense to apply the setback at the zoning district break because, and the gentleman at the end flagged this and I'm sorry, I don't know your name, flagged this and the court said, still makes sense to have a setback but it's not in the middle and in this case this was discussed with Mr. Vorwald and we still have a setback, we're still meeting setback regulations and to the extent that the 18 Mansion Street has developed them, right? It's not any further encroaching than what's already there and the manner setback was applied by the ZA in a manner consisting of the Bogues case to separate development from the, in a manner consistent with the scope and purpose of it. We can't have a structure as the chair pointed out in the setback area. They also seem to indicate that if someone were to attempt to buy all of Mansion Street and build a parking lot there that they might reconsider that decision, they might come to a different conclusion. Well, I think there's a lot of hypotheticals that would alter the scope of our discussion. I think if someone bought up 50 lots on bought an entire Mansion Street and was proposing something very different then we would be having a different discussion. I agree with that, but that's not the case here. I guess what I'm struggling with is the way that I heard the appellants articulated is right now the neighborhood starts at 18 Mansion Street. It's like the reason it's called that, the reason the street is called Mansion Street. And it doesn't seem fair to just be able to buy that lot, remove that house, and then that, where the house used to be as your setback, the point is supposed to be you setback from the neighborhood. And right now the neighborhood starts at 18 Mansion. It doesn't start at the next one. So it just, I'm struggling with the notion that you can just remove the start of the neighborhood. And that's your setback. Because that seems to be what is happening. And maybe that's the both case says you can do that. I think that's what it does say, A, and B, I think you have to understand that what's already there, yes, there's a house, but there's also a very large parking lot right there already. And we're basically maintaining that same existing use right there. It's not like it's a wooded park where everyone walks their dogs. It's a house with a big parking lot next to it. And so we're maintaining that. So yes, there's a theoretical point that you're making that, you know, I could see where that would be the issue. But here it is a house that used to be a doctor's office that has a big parking lot next to it. We're maintaining that. There's a parking lot, yeah, there's a parking lot. They've had their chance. All right. So as I'm trying to wrap my head around form-based code, which I have been largely ignoring up until a week ago because I didn't think I had. We have it in Burlington. I have ignored it, so. Okay, can, have you guys explored the difference between the building form standards for urban general and detached frontage? Because there are clear lines drawn and there's a map that I've been looking at. And I actually have little arrows put to it that. The lot lines that are on this map do not match the lot lines that are here, but I can match up where the detached frontage ends at Mr. Hilliard's property. And it seems to possibly hit a part of 18 Mansion. And if what I'm, and I'm probably reading it wrong because of, it seems as though there are different rules that apply once you get into the detached frontage than apply when you're in the urban general zone. Most prominently that I believe the building has to be built 10 feet off the property line in. It needs to be an offset by 10 feet in. I'm not sure exactly how that changes any of this discussion about 18, but it certainly changes the size and scope of the building a little bit if that is indeed the case, if that is what I have read. I think, Greg, do you have, that's Greg Dixon of Cribs and Lansing. Yeah. Those lines are shown all the way. Okay. And you're allowed to extend the building to 50 feet within an attached. And if you just pointed that out. Thank you so much. Yeah. Okay. So he did that work for you. Yeah. Okay. And those lines are shown on the planes. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Can I ask one more question about the point that the gentleman made after Mr. Tamash and Mr. Carter made their presentation about if the RC zoning regs apply to the 18 mansion lot, then shouldn't it either be a ZA approved use under the use table or a conditional use? How does it go through administrative review? Like, how did you get permission to take down the house and put a parking lot? Shouldn't that have to go through this table? Is that just like a weird quirk of this? I think that is a, I think if it was an independent standalone, this is what we want to do. I think you would need to segment it. But I think because of the consolidation, the review falls in that way. That's what the ZA has instructed us to do from the very beginning. That's where I think the rub of this whole appeal is, is if that's the case, if this were a standalone thing, you'd have to go through like the regular zoning process that we are actually familiar with. And the question is, is what is proposed for that lot? That former lot. Say it again? Former lot. Former lot. Well, that section of the new lot that is governed by the RCX, let's call it that, is that an approved use, a conditional use or not an approved use under this table that we're looking at? Right. And that's the question that I think is gonna make or break it for me. And I don't know the answer to that. You say you can put up a parking lot. There are no problem. I don't know if that's true or not. I guess we're gonna have to ask. I think that's the same. I think the perspective is it is a residential lot that serves a residential use on the same lot. And that residential use is a permitted use. And I'm allowed under the GAVA district. The RC setbacks, whatever is the height, scope, neighborhood manners, all that applies onto that lot. But that is a not a separate independent project. It is not a separate independent use. It is not a separate independent zoning project but an approval is part of the other scope. I think you have a very unique situation where you've now got a lot that has a split zoning and the pieces all sort of overlap. But it's like, but then to break that down, your review in that particular case would be limited to the portions of the parking lot that are in the RC district, which would cut about six spaces in half. Okay. So, but I'm not saying that it is, but that becomes now all of a sudden you end up having an unreasonable conclusion. So I can, you know, how then do I start splitting hairs on what's reviewable and what's not reviewable? All right. Those parts aren't going to change. The part of the lot that's going to change is the part with the house on it. And that's the one that's like totally within the RC district, right? Part, I mean, there are split spaces currently exist. Yes. Yeah. And there's spaces that currently exist in the RC district as well. That lot, there's currently spaces that's already there. And so, I mean, I think those have been there for a very long time. They were entitled to at the very least to maintain those too. Okay. I don't mean to monopolize that. No, no. You have a lot of questions and I know you wanted to speak. So, I'm going to shut up now. No, you're client. Jeff, do you have anything you want to share? No. You said he wanted to talk. No, I really don't. I know, I just, you know, just to, I'm an echo he says for the most part, but I will say, I've owned those properties for a long time, not 18 mentioned, but I lived, I should live them 46 mentioned. I lived three years at 101. I bought 109 in 2010. And when the zoning changed, I bought 18 mentioned. Before I bought 18 mentioned, I obviously had plans to look at doing something like this. And I will say, I think I've been very diligent and thorough in my relationship with the city and making sure that what I was doing was permittable and follow the rules. And, you know, from the governor now, you know, these priority housing projects are important to this area. There's a lack of housing. There's a lack of affordable housing. And this, this type of project along Main Street and the corridors that we did in Anowaduzki, it's exactly what the city needs. Neighbor screaming is not a new thing. It's, you know, I think in the end, you know, I appreciated everything that the city has done to guide us in the right direction. And my hope is that the development reward sees that and is, and appreciates that. Questions for? My good. Everybody's good. It's gonna be a long night. I think, yeah, it's already a long night. For those of us who thought it might end right here. Bedtime? I'm sure bed time. I would entertain a motion that we move into delivery. Session, I think. So, is the initial question, do we want to deliberate tonight or some other? I'm down to deliberate tonight. Yeah, well. I think especially while it's reasonably fresh for everybody. I think the notion that we would crash it through to a decision on these two things tonight at this hour is probably not a good one. The question is finding a time when we can need to have a thought about it and finalize what we thought about in a lot finalize a decision. I can crash it through. My suggestion would be to at least begin deliberate a session tonight. And if we feel like we're not done, come back. Can we do that? Sure. Sure, sure, he says. You can. We have to do is to be able to find a certain and close it back together. And I motion that we answer deliberate a session. Second. It's been moved and seconded, but we move into a deliberate session. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed? I vote on this one, I don't mind. Okay. We see unanimously into a deliberate session. This is an open, deliberate session. People may stay if they wish or they may stay, but they don't speak. So do we turn the camera off? I think we do, right? It's been so long since we've had a camera here, but I don't know about it. Bob, do we turn the camera off? Yeah, I would say that you do. We do turn the camera off. And I think that actually the open meeting law does not apply to this proceeding. Yeah. Because it's a quasi-judicial proceeding of the DRB. So it can be closed to the public. And I suggest that it should be to give you folks the opportunity to talk frankly, John. Thank you. And get some advice from our lawyer. The best way then might be to move from deliberate a session to executive session. I think that we do not need to move to the executive stage, deliberate. As a quasi-judicial body, you're not subject to the law. Okay, so we are closed. Do you even tell me to turn off the camera? Yeah, so what? Yeah, I tell you to turn off the camera. Yeah, so what just happened is, apparently, deliberative session is not a public session. We've kind of had a practice of doing it in public view in the past, but because it's likely going to involve getting some advice from the city's attorney, we are going to do a closed deliberative session, which means we'll come out with a decision one way or another, but you don't get to hear us think about it more than we already have. So I think that's what we're going to do. Can I just ask a question? Sure. So this is just involving you guys and Bob. It doesn't involve the zoning administrator, city manager, or anything like that. Yeah, Bob is our staff for tonight. Yeah, we're kicking Eric out, too. Bye. Are you going to make a decision tonight or are you going to? We will start with that as the end of view because I think we'll have a hard time and a reasonable amount of time getting our group back together, and we can't leave without having time certain to meet. So we will try. On the other hand, some of us, and I'll speak only for this some of us, is really kind of close to the end of his powers of endurance after a long day. So I don't know how long I'll be able to go on, but so we'll see. We'll see. So here to say we'll come out of deliberative session either to say we're deliberating more at a date certain or we're done and whatever decision it is, we'll probably do it in writing within 45 days or whatever it's supposed to be. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Should I turn it off now? Yes, please do. Okay, please. I've never seen anything like this before. Yeah. Are you doing it in Burlington all the time?