 Good evening. Welcome to the City of Montpelier Development Review Board for Monday August 20th 2018. My name is Daniel Richardson. I am the chair and the other members of the board for my right are Rob Goodwin, Kevin O'Connell, Meredith Crandall staff, Kate McCarthy, Tom Kester, Claire Rock. All right the first order of business is approval of the agenda. Do I have either a motion to approve the agenda or a motion to amend? So moved. Motion by Kevin. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Tom. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor of the agenda is printed please raise your right hand. We have an agenda. All right there are no comments from the chair. I will discuss this is a somewhat unique application before us and some of the members on the board now are new to this so we'll have a discussion at that point. The next item is approval of the minutes of August 6th. Myself, Kevin, Kate, Tom and Rob were in attendance. I would make two suggested edits to this. One is I believe that in my comments from the chair I also welcomed the new members to the board which would have been Rob, Deb and Tom at the time. Do you want to name them? Yes. Just add them as a welcome. And I don't think I voted for myself as chair but if I had I would have voted for myself but I think it was another 6-0 vote. Sorry about that. That's okay. But other than those changes any other changes or a motion to approve the minutes? So moved. Motion by Kevin as amended right? As amended. Thank you. Motion by Kevin. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Rob. All those in favor of the minutes that are eligible to vote for them please raise your right hand. We have minutes and welcome to Brian. All right we have only one piece of business before us tonight and that is the Murray Hill final plan review for the one lot subdivision and I'll just simply note for those who have we're not here at the last meeting a couple of key points that we decided or that were decided as a result of the application. First of all this is an amendment to a 1983 subdivision so a lot of the substantive rules that we're going to be applying tonight go back to the 1983 or actually 1973 zoning and subdivision regulations and so if you have any questions I know that the packet itself and the memo had a lot of that but we'll refer to Meredith as well as taking testimony from some of the original developers who are here tonight. The other point is that at our last meeting there was a vote taken not to apply the Stoke Club Highlands test analysis for this application. It was determined by the board at that initial meeting based on the testimony that this was not a condition of the having the lot as common area was not a condition of the original approval therefore we're really looking at this as a subdivision amendment. I think that's a really important distinction to make because we're not looking to meet the Stoke Club Highland criteria which is a fairly high threshold although there was testimony that they may have been able to make it but for tonight we just simply are looking at the application as it stands. Any questions as a preliminary matter? If not, I'll invite the applicant to come forward. Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. May I ask a clarification on Stoke Club Highlands? It has to do we've made our decision about it so I'm not asking that we change that but it has to do with the condition not being an essential condition right. So we can still acknowledge that it may have been a condition at the time of approval but it was deemed not so so integral to the operation of the building of the P plan unit development. I just want to make that distinction in case anyone in the audience was confused that it was not a condition at all. It was a condition but it was deemed not a difficult word but under Stoke. It's a little bit of a gray area. I don't mean to add confusion. It was a condition in the sense that the applicant asked for it to be put on but it wasn't a condition in the sense that the it was determined that the permit was not conditioned upon its issuance. It may be the important distinction to be made here that the board found last time. Great. Thank you. I wanted to get that nuance out there as to what it is and what it isn't that we're working with. Thank you. Sorry. So here we are again. For those of you who weren't here last meeting, my name is Eric Bigelstone. I'm the president of Murray Hills Homers Association. We have asked Ken and Joan Seneca here to represent us in our organization while they are the original developers of Murray Hill. It is not their personal interest tonight to get the permits that we're asking for. They're acting on behalf of Murray Hill Homers Association because they have great amount of knowledge and we ask them as a board to represent us today. Thank you. Good evening. If you'll state your names for the record please and then I'm going to swear people in. John Seneca may want to move that microphone just okay. So I'll ask you and I'll ask anyone who's considering giving testimony at this time on this matter whether it's in the form of testimony and support or comments that you wish the board to consider beyond the scope of the application. If you'll raise your right hand just to be sworn in. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the evidence or testimony you're about to give for the matter under consideration shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under a pain some penalties of perjury. Thank you very much. So Meredith I tried to give us sort of overall procedural background for the board but if you could dive in a little bit more and give us a little bit greater detail and focus us particularly on the issues that we have before us tonight. We'll do. You actually took away a whole bunch of my preliminary stuff so that's great. So for especially for members who weren't here last time this is the final plan review for this removal of a condition from the plan unit development plat as well as a boundary line adjustment because the PUDs and the subdivisions both have to go through subdivision process. There was a sketch plan review earlier. So this is the final plan review. You can actually make a determination on the entire application tonight. So this application is for two things. One that the condition reserved for common land no longer be included on the Murray Hill lot one plat for the PUD and that's something that administratively I cannot do on my own. It's a decision that the board has to make. The second item is a boundary line adjustment to make this lot one larger so it can be developed for a single family home. And normally that would be something that the administrative officer can do without board approval but there are conditions on here. The reserve for common land as well as determining if any other permit conditions are going to be violated by that boundary line adjustment that I can't make. So it's a multi step process. So one point to note is to see the final outcome in the big picture and what they're hoping to do with lot one. About halfway through your packet is the site plan. That's a good reference point. You're going to be referencing that multiple times throughout this hearing. For reserving removing the reserve for common land designation. This requires review under the zoning regulations from 1973. And the key item based on my analysis of those regulations. The key item is that the board is going to need to decide whether the density and open spaces allotment and how everything has worked out. Whether to do that, you're going to have to consider the choice and types of environment or living units available to the public and several different items. The key ones that I think you're going to need to focus on are open space or recreation areas. The pattern of development that preserves trees, outstanding natural typography and geologic features and an environment in harmony with surrounding development. This analysis is on page six through nine of your staff report. And given comments from sketch plan review, I think that's where we're going to have the most likely to have public comments and people wanting to focus on those areas. The second item, once you've resolved this first reserve for common land issue, the second item is the boundary line adjustment. And the key items there are, the only way you can do the boundary line adjustment is for the board to confirm approval of the removal of that plaque condition, as well as confirming my analysis, which is in the memo at the end of the packet, that the planned unit development is allowed another dwelling unit. Those are the big items that you're going to need to focus on. There were some wastewater and stormwater issues that were brought up during sketch plan review. I think those items have been addressed by the updated application. And if you need references to where in the staff report that's discussed, ask me when we get there. So the floor is yours. If you want to bring us up to date and focus us on some of these issues. All right. I'm kind of cynical. And through this last time, but I thought with new members, I'll do a very quick pass through just three of a lot one. This plan that I'm showing you now you have it in your packet is the original master plan for the first 75 units in Murray Hill. Lot one was included. Not one at conditional use, which is what those days was the second stage of the process was approved, received conditional approval. When we went in for final approval, we only applied for 48 units. Thank you. We only applied for 48 units and showed the other area. But one has originally configured this beer and instead the entire area which is now made up of not one and common land was designated as reserved not no one. So that's the second stage of this plan was approved in October of 1983. And we Yeah, that was 1983. Did I say 84? Oh, good. Okay. And then the third incarnation of lot one appears on a plan that was the subject of the City Planning Commission holding a hearing to determine whether the development has been built according to the plans and permits that that were in place. And lot one is shown on that plan in a new shape. It's no longer common land plus one is not one in a triangular shape out a quarter of an acre inside. So that's the status of lot one as we stand here this evening is it's a triangle a lot of roughly a quarter of an acre inside. We're asking that it boundary be adjusted. So that it will look like this. This is a new plan. If you have in your packets a plan that labels lot one blow off. Not as in bang bang bigger. If you follow along with that, I this plan, I've got some colors on it so that it'll be easier to see from where you're sitting. But this plan will track with a smaller version that you have if you don't have it, I have extra copies here for you. So if anyone is unable to find one blow off just way to hand looks like you all have it. Okay, so I'll run through this very quickly. I don't know with new members whether I'm short changing you but I'm sure you'll tell me. So this is a blow off of that small plan. And I've added some colors and blue line represents the new configuration of lot one. A dotted line cross here in black divides the triangular lot which currently exists from the land that we're adding to lot number one. Within the blue area, there is a yellow area that has a label on it that says building envelope. This is the area on the lot where structures can be placed. It can be placed no, no other location. You can have a driveway with structures have to be within the way where the association is selling structures have to be within that building envelope. On the plan, there's the an outline of a building. I do not expect that building to look like that when a zoning, a building permit is sought from the city. I expect the buyer will design their own house. There'll be limited building within the yellow area. And I think that's why I want to say on that. I have highlighted because there were two issues brought up by Don Barney was joining property. Ordering lives here. Next to lot one was he mentioned that he has a driveway easement across the part of block one. And I wanted to be able to put that in context. It's a 25 foot easement to the east, 45 foot easement to the south and line connecting them together. So the driveway easement that he was referring to is here and building is here. So there's no interaction between where we want to build where he has a driveway. About water, please. The other issue, I'm not sure he brought it up. It was the drainage system. I guess Tom was public works wanted clarification. He had given us three options on how to handle an existing stormwater swale. And the city culvert on the Murray Hill Drive. And he said we could either take the stormwater down all the way to Main Street, and then go into the existing culvert down there. We could bring leave the culvert under and that would mean eliminating the culvert under Murray Hill Drive feeds the water into the drainage soil. Or he said you could come across Murray Hill Drive and take the water down this side of Murray Hill Drive and then into the Main Street kids or you could just leave it alone. From my point of view, the existence of the drainage swale is a real asset to lot one. The constructed area on the dime verney lot is uphill grades are pretty gentle here. But still it's uphill from where a house would be located on lot one. This drainage swale will intercept all of the surface water that moves towards that building area. So the water that if the drainage swale weren't there, would head this way. And whatever's built here would have to make provision for diverting that water. Or we can leave the drainage swale here, unless any water moving from the paving in the roots on the verney property simply flows into this swale heads down this way and goes south of the location where the house would be built. It can not to interrupt you but that swales as that exists today, that drainage swale was built in 1984. It's functioned to perfection. The road comes down. Once I had a Murray Hill drive goes through a culvert under Murray Hill Drive. And then it enters this is a fairly flat. The reason I call it a swale is because I distinguish between a swale and a ditch as a swale is something that is made for the purpose of causing water to spread out instead of running in a tight constricted channel where it can have more erosive power and move faster. So this is built intentionally on a much gentler grade than if the water were just running down the slope. And it's the bottom of this swale is five feet wide. And then the top edge is about 30 inches deep total from bank to bank. And it's about 12 feet wide at the top of the bank. So it's a really deep way of picking up the water, diverting it and then out letting it into the open metal and where it was originally intended to go. So I don't know if that's the background I wanted to give. If there's anything more I'd like to answer your questions. I'm sure we'll have a couple of questions. I'll bet you will. So Meredith, I just wanted to I think it may be helpful to start at the density. And you've included the memorandum in our packet from August 1983 that Michael Jones, your predecessor by several, included as far as the density is concerned. If you could just walk us through that calculation. And this is this is under the old PUD as far as the their density allowed and in part because of the differences and how it was built out, but also in part how the PUD has acquired land over the last three years. Correct. So the initial analysis by Michael Jones, which is the second attachment to this memo on the density was based on the PUD's original size, which was I have it, sorry, I have to jump right a little bit. Sorry, it's February 7, 1993. Right, but they didn't put the full amount there. Did they? I have it in my memo, but I can't find it right now. It's got 85 units on the back. Yeah, has a great. I'm looking for the actual acreage. Sorry, 57 plus acres. And they allowed a total of 85 units. Because the area of the Marine Hill PUD at that point was a mix of low density and medium density allowances. But so the total under the low density, you could have total of 48 units. And under medium density, you could have Oh, sorry, 24, 48 units and then 37 for multifamily under medium density. But but ultimately, where those units were located on this 57 acres was up to the board and the planners, they could put them anywhere, as long as they considered certain criteria. Now, at this point, the Marine Hill PUD is now 70.7 acres. They've added, you know, several acres to the total over 13. And under my analysis, it doesn't really make sense to say you've added all this acreage, you still can only have 85 units. Now, exactly how many units they would be allowed under the old regulations. I haven't gone through to look all of that up. At this point, they're only asking to add one unit. And how many should be allowed to have it? It seems like under those old density requirements, if they've added 13 acres, adding one more unit to the total doesn't, it seems to make sense when they've only built 85 housing units, total with that added acreage. Is it 85 or 81? It's 85. 81 are connected to the water system. That may be where you heard that number. Okay. Well, they have 85 is the total number of units. Right. So they have 85 units total in the entire planned unit development. And here I have a reference to 81. That's in the areas one and two right area three that was added in that you can see in the maps D and E at the back of that memorandum. That new area has only three single family condominium units in it and one single family home. Right. So for purposes of the calculation as to how many new dwelling units they can put in this area one that they're working on. It looks like they have 81 in there. That was trying to try to focus our analysis as close as we can to the original 57 acres. Right. So sorry to restate area one is the 57 acres of the original application. Yes. And area one in the original application was allowed 85 units but built 81. The additional four units are in area three. Well, they've they've they adjusted where area two was. Oh, they've adjusted there's 81 units in one and two one and two. So some of this land in yellow was originally part of area one but things got rearranged based on the conditions that you found on the sites. And so trying to parse out what in here was area one what was area two. It was hard to come up with. So but I areas one and two have 81 units. Your general analysis is that one more unit isn't going to impinge upon the PUD density. Correct. Even if we go back to the 1973 numbers, even the 1973 numbers, it's not going to impinge on that. So I don't know if anyone had any questions about that. I actually have a visual that may help because it shows exactly what Meredith just went through. So the original all you just get the right word of it. So the 57 acres that Meredith is talking about is this tract of land here. And that's where the 81 units are today. And that is. Yes. Mostly mostly mostly with a couple of adjustments. Yeah, I'll show you very, very quickly. So this was the tract of land 57 acres and the city rule that we could put 85 units on the 57 acres. Over the years, we have added 13.7 acres. And what we call area three. So this is the new acreage that's been added to the 57. And you'll see that you'll actually probably can't see it. Area three is shown here, single family house, and three single family condominium buildings. So that's four of them. But then the uncertainty about how many are on the original land in this area, right? Because we actually built four buildings with a total of at least five units in them, right on the 13.7 acres that we added. So we ended up with significantly less units on the original 57 acres than was originally approved. And I think we testified that the last meeting that we added some of that land so we could spread those last condominiums out further, they wouldn't be jammed up. Right. And I think I just wanted to maybe start with this because I felt it was an easy question that we're below the density level. And I think the testimony is fairly clear on that. And I'm only speaking for myself, but I'm seeing nods of agreement that having one more unit isn't going to be offensive to the original density limits or the calculations that were done. Given the additional land and no matter which way we sort of shake out the allocation of these units, whether they be for Area one, two or three, we seem to be below that threshold. So so I think that's that's that's an important place to start. And what we're really talking about then is the condition that this be common land. And what I'd like to hear is a little bit of the description of the remaining common land that's being held by the Association. Okay, so the common land at Murray Hill consists of roughly 12 and a half acres of Meadowland, all the trees that were planted. The land is also where the drilled wells that supply the water are located. So this land, as far as the state of red water supply regulations is off limit for any future development, because it's within what's called the well head protection area for the wells. So this is 12 and a half acre parcel. There are four acres roughly of common land right now plus plot one. In plot one, if you approve the boundary adjustment, then the total acreage will be just under four acres, 3.9 something. So 12 and a half year, 3.9 year of all open land. And then there's 1.6 acres of common land. What a bit is open land. But it also contains a swimming pool, a pool house and two tennis courts. There's also an improvement, a legal one by the area one garages that also perturbed into that area. So there's a total after if you approve the boundary adjustment, we'll have a total of about 17.95 acres of common land. And right now there's a total if you include lot one, which is common land, it's home in town. There's a total of 18.5 roughly and it will be reduced to 17.95 with the boundary adjustment. Out of curiosity, I looked at your new zoning ordinance to try to determine, because that does have square footage requirements of common land in a PUD. And I used the number at the sketch plan hearing that I think is accurate, but it just sounds like an exaggeration. But I think the requirement is that there's 400 square feet of open land to be set aside permanently in your ordinance for each unit. And when I applied that to the common land we have here, that means meant that if you could build solely based on the amount of common land you had to have, you could build something like 1500 units on the mario property. And the point of saying this isn't to make it sound like we have a lot of common land, but it's to demonstrate that even under your new ordinance, this development has far more common land than would have been required. Or if we were under the new ordinance, the old ordinance that we're under for this part of your review had no standard for the amount of common land. I guess I have a question which is how much common land was added to the overall development in the additional land acquisitions for the expanded phase two, area two and area three? Is there other common land in that 13 acres? No, there's not owned in by all of the owners. There is common land within each of the three common minimum areas, but it's limited to it's owned by the people in the individual area. So we did not add what we did was this common land, the 18.5 acres of common land, including lock one was determined to be adequate for putting aside standards. It was it was found by the Planning Commission to be adequate for the 85 units that we were proposing to put on 57 acres. But we didn't put 85 units on 57 acres. We put 85 units on 71 acres. So in those units, at least, at least four, without getting into whether how many of these condominium units that would have been built on the 57 acres, which we actually built on the 13 that we added, just putting aside, we're looking only at new units that were added exclusively outside of the original 57 acres, or of the five units are those new units on new land. So you do not have the same. If you divide that out, you do not have any reduction, like we have more common land for the units that were originally approved. So I'd like to build on Ryan's question, which is a question I appreciate. So it sounds like based on where there is currently common land owned by the whole homeowners association, not just one condo group or another condo group. It sounds like there is no common land up in area three, where we could be having this conversation again in 20 years. So the land that's up there that's owned in common by the condo owners has more to do with driveways or garages or here go ball courts, those kinds of things. Okay. Thank you. So I want to draw your attention to the existing features of lot one. How would you characterize the features of lot one? Is it heavily wooded? Is it open meadow? What's the elevation? Where does it sit from? You know, if you're driving up Main Street, will you be able to see this development from Main Street or will you only be able to see it once you turn on to Murray Hill Drive? Let's start with the the lay of the land. So this land has somewhere between varies from six to nine percent slopes or I've used eight and I've used 10 but it's about six to nine percent slope in the area where lot one is located. It's all there's one tree on it, a planted oak, a gorgeous tree that it's now 35 years old, and it should let to be a couple hundred at least and more. So it's open land, just one planted tree on it. The we talked about the drainage on the land, that feature of it, maximum square footage of structures on that lot under your ordinances, 2500 square feet. The state water stormwater division has exempted us this development from review of up to 5000 square feet. So we'll be building on, we'll have a driveway. So I'm not sure what the total will be, but it'll be well under the 5000 square feet that the state exempted. I think there was another point you had that I didn't respond to. That's okay. I'll add I sort of threw a bunch out at you. But I'm curious as far as what your testimony is as to the view that will be seen of this house from Main Street. Yeah, as as you approach the turn into Murray Hill Drive going north on upper Main Street or the county road, whichever you think of the name for it, you will see this house. If you look to your left as you're driving north, you can see five or six of the existing homes, probably just five on your left. If you're driving south, you can probably see seven houses from Main Street. This will be closer to Main Street than any of the other houses. So it will be somewhat more noticeable from Main Street. But it's, it's located as part of a small neighborhood, which will be eight houses. And this, when I think you've seen the aerial photos that we've included, it's a very logical fit with the homes that are in the neighborhood. So I think the impression visually as you go north or south is going to be that you're looking at a small cluster of houses in the background of open meadowland. Will this impede anybody's view of the meadow of the large circular 12 acre meadow? I think the we've gone around and talked to each of the neighbors who can see the property and who can see where lot one it would be. And the only property owner who's expressed any concern about that spoke at the last meeting. That's Mr. Han. And I have a handout. I gave him a copy before the hearing. I don't know if you want me handing out exhibits now or do you want me to find you can have. Yeah, you can certainly hand out and okay, if it illustrates your point, I can just I spring my knees. So he's trying to say don't keep trying to get up. I have a question. I think it would have been helpful to see Topo lines on one of these maps to get a better understanding of the lay of the land. And I was kind of curious about the regulations that were really applying to this because I was wondering if there was a setback requirement from Upper Main Street. As far as what building could be setback or if there was any indication of a requirement of a view shed. I think as you had mentioned, you will see it from Main Street and it will be a more prominent building in the view as you're coming up Main Street. So I wasn't sure if the past regulations included any setback requirements from Upper Main Street. No, there is no setback requirement. There's an important point that I'd like to go back to and that is that the plan for there to be a house on lot one was in the original plan that the city approved. So lot one was shown the variation we're doing is slightly more closer. Do you have this in your packet? So the planning commission at the time took into consideration the impacts of a house being on a lot one. It was only Joan, I should blame it all on her, but it was our foolishness and deciding we did not want to build on lot one. We want to give it to the association and let the association be the one that made the decision at some whatever point in time it chose, whether it would actually build something on lot one. And that's what we did. The association got lot one as a gift. But lot one was reviewed and was its impact was considered in the original approvals of Maria. And it's on the asphalt. Right. It's also on the asphalt plan. But I just wanted to make make that point that you know, it isn't that this is the first time I've stood here and said we're going to build a house on lot one. I said that in 1983. And it was only later that we decided to give that lot to the association and not build on ourselves. Go ahead. I was just gonna say that with the setbacks it's a little confusing as to what's old regulations, what's the new regulations for the actual setbacks. This is all under the new regulations. It's like their water setbacks have to meet the new regulations. Because otherwise, you know, just about anybody could be grandfathered for a zillion things. So the setbacks have to meet the new ones. I think the setbacks, the 20 yard side yard setback would be what's applicable to the property line. Exactly. From Murray Hill Road. We're looking that as the front setback. That's the front yard is irrelevant. Right. Because it'd be just in the subdivision, it would be cut off. You may also want to look at the lot one because it has some topo lines on there. It's also on the site plan. There's some topo lines on the site plan as well. Yeah. So while we're on the topic of setbacks, and we have this diagram up and you told us that the yellow area is the building envelope. And I just wanted to I was looking at the numbers on the diagram we have and comparing them to the actual setbacks. The front yard setback on that is 40 feet. Only 20 feet is required. The side yard setback on that is 20 feet. Only 15 is required. And I think the rear is 30. The reason I point that out is that technically, unless there's a different set of setbacks in the homeowners association, technically someone who bought this lot would be able to build in slightly more area than is currently colored in yellow. So as we're reviewing, it's only five feet this side, five feet this side, but it's 20 feet here. That will give us an idea of the pieces of the lot that could be eligible to be constructed on. And I would ask the board to make it a condition of the approval that the setbacks we've shown on this plan be adhered to. That's the intent is that the association is going to sell this land subject to construction structures being located within that building envelope area. We do not want the home to be closer to any of the property lines than would be allowed by the building envelope. Okay, thank you. Thank you for making us aware of that request. I would be interested in knowing from the chair and our zoning administrator whether that is something we have the power to do or whether that would be incumbent upon the homeowners association to implement its own restrictions based on its goals. Or if that's our role to implement your goals, we can always we can always approve if the applicant asked for a more restrictive condition such as this, we can always approve it. That's what I'm curious is there is this is this to keep the uniformity of development? It is. Okay, it's to what when I look at Murray Hill and drive through or I'm on Main Street. The fact that the buildings are clustered, but there's always in there in the presence of significant amounts of open land. If we allow under the is it 15 feet in the newest ordinance 15 foot side, 15 side setbacks and 20 feet for the front. I would hope that that would not be allowed in this development. I think that I know the goals. Some of the goals that were considered in creating your new ordinance were to allow infill development and to allow some more compact design. I would not want to see a development that I think works really well visually to be affected by having structures on adjoining lots being only 30 feet apart. So it'd be 15 feet set back on each side. When we did the design for this section where the lot one and its neighbor eight seven units are located. We really wrestled with how we would make it feel as you drove through there that you were seeing lots of greenery and open space in the buildings. And so our reliance was on 20 foot setbacks minimum for a side yard. So that meant 40 feet space between structures on adjoining lots. And I would I think it would be a shame if that were reduced. How about distance from the road from other existing houses even within there looks like some of these including the lot of the next lot up. The structure might be closer than 40 feet to the road and it seems like you know if they wanted to have a home owner wanted a shorter driveway and actually move the house further out of what's now that field. That wouldn't be a bad thing to me. What are your thoughts on that 40 yard front yard setback. When the regulations right now require regulations right now only require a 20 foot setback in the front. It's drawn as 40 on the plan. Yeah. Well there are a couple of things about that for the PUD permit adopted the medium density setback requirement. So we're operating under its 20 foot side yard setbacks. It's 30 foot front and back setbacks. So and our view of that is that that's locked in stone or concrete as far as because every property owner who bought in has the right to enforce the standards that were current at the time they purchased the property. So I'm wondering if someone wanted to put a shed 15 feet from their property line. If it would now be allowed under the new zoning or if they would be stuck with the old. I think it would be allowed under the new zoning accessory structures. But that's only in the side yard. Sheds can't go in the front. Okay. So that it's now it's now 15 yards or 15 feet. I don't remember. I mean this. I don't remember exactly what the allowance is for here. But yes, you can bump into that for accessory structures. I guess my point is that even if these were approved as lots with 20 foot side setbacks they now all exist in the new under the new zoning regime. And so could conceivably put their accessory structures or have their building envelope with 15 foot side yard setbacks. If unless we condition the approval of the lot to I mean the existing lots not this one. Right existing existing ones could come to us as long as it's not a violation of the Pudu rules or if they're if they're restrictive covenants contained. I think that's what that's a good suggestion. I mean, so I just I'm just trying to create a realistic sense of what can actually happen now amongst those even though that is your goal for the existing lots that can be affected unless you impose that through the homeowners association as a value you wish to maintain in which case maybe you would want to do that for this too. I'm just thinking out loud a little can be dangerous. But and I don't I don't think I need to get into that issue very far because we're proposing with this lot to exceed that standard. But I take your point of maybe other lots within Murray Hill could build closer to the side yard or to all sides from back and side then. But it's my understanding of Pudu. You know, I'm not an attorney. I'm just somebody who has heard things for a long time and repeating them maybe unwittingly. But my understanding that in under Vermont law that when a Pudu permit is granted and the setbacks are established that those run with the land and that the change by the municipality to create a new setback does not apply in a Pudu. We had two cases at Murray Hill where that issue came up. And in one version of the zoning ordinance at one point, they were allowing 10 foot setback in the ordinance. And Joan decided to challenge that when people wanted to build with a 10 foot setback. And she ultimately got the director of planning title exactly for the city. Look at the issue and he agreed with her that in a Pudu, you cannot, the setbacks are not changed by a change in the ordinance. It can only be changed by the agreement of 100% of the owners. As everyone relies on that at the time they buy into the property. The same is true in other neighborhoods. Yeah, I think we're getting a little far field into the weeds. But I think the board's point is that, you know, this may be just something that we're going to revisit, but certainly, you know, if you want the more restrictive, and if that's the request, we can certainly grant a subdivision or we can grant as part of the approval here to have these more restrictive setbacks as part of that. I don't see a legal problem with that. And I think the points that you're making are simply that it is consistent with the other lots, generally, and your understanding. And that, obviously, if that comes down the line and somebody buys lot one, and just because their neighbors are able to build a shed closer to the boundary line, if they should be able to do that, that's not really what we're looking at tonight. So let's look, let's move forward. So I just so I understand. So there aren't any trees apart from a large sort of specimen oak. And is that within the building envelope that oak? So that would be preserved, even if there's construction, right? Okay. And otherwise, there's no trees. It's open to meadow right now. And the only the only real view of the meadow that's going to block is is a neighbor on Main Street that might right now have an unobstructed view. Mr. Varney is raising his hand. I'll let you see blocks me as well. Well, I mean, that's that's the question is, you know, if we're looking at the at the map, you have a straight view right out of your driveway, Mr. If you want to come up, Mr. Varney, or if you're just responding. Okay. I'm speaking at some point. Okay. So noted. So let's any other questions about the view? I don't want to have your phone passed around because I'd have to hate to take it into evidence. Let's start if I could add a comment to the view shed question. Part of my reason for asking about if there was an original setback requirement from Upper Main Street, when the PUD was created, if that had any impact on building a house within what could be perceived as a view shed from Upper Main Street, because it appears that the land slopes up and away and Mr. Varney's house is kind of set back a bit further. And this house obviously will be more in the view and potentially blocking aspects of that further meadow from a person traveling up Upper Main Street. And I wasn't sure if there were any prior conditions or criteria in which would have led to kind of any rationale behind why that swath of land was preserved originally. I asked the same question the first time we heard it. There wasn't a very clear point as to why that little piece in particular, the purpose of naming it common land, if I recall testimony correctly, was less than clear and was not explicit for that purpose. That's a good question though. So let's talk about utilities. I understand you've gotten wastewater permits. And I'd like to take a little testimony on the on the utilities that are going to be servicing this a lot. So the water supply will be drilled well and located on the site plan. Again, I'm using the blow up map, but it's also on the survey and not survey, but the site plan prepared by Grenier Engineering. But this is a blow off of that right here drawing. So the well would be between the house and Marisone Drive. The house would connect to the city sewer system with a six inch pipe coming from the new house or wherever it's located to an existing six inch pipe that's owned by the association. And that pipe goes to a connection at this location, which is a city man hall. So connect into the city sewer system. And we have the approval for sewer allocation. Right. I saw one of the documents in your packet was the wastewater system and potable water supply permit that was dated, I think July 11th, 2018 for this lot. So it's going to tie into the common water system for the Murray Hill Association and then into the city sewer. And it'll have its own drilled well. Oh, it's own drilled well. Yeah. Okay. All right. And then the utilities are, as I understand, underground. They're all at the site and they're all underground. Just to point out that they were installed in 1983 in anticipation at that time that Joan and I were going to build a house on law one, but they were not utilized because we didn't want to build on it. Is it fair to understand that part of the reason why you're asking for this boundary line adjustment is that you want to make this very particular type of building envelope a sort of very, well, I better word suburban with a house in the middle surrounded by a fairly broad setback? Um, it would be difficult to build a house that wanted a good solar orientation on the existing law as a triangular law and meet the setback requirements. So we're, the association is looking to make this lot appealing and take advantage of its natural solar orientation by changing the shape of that lot so that the owner would have more flexibility in orienting the structure. Okay. Murray Hills, is that a private drive or public road? Murray Hill Drive is a city. So does it have a curb cut or will that need to be obtained? It would need to a curb cut approval from the city of Montpelier and a decision on whether a culvert will be needed for the driveway in the city. I'm skipping around on some of these, but if anyone has any questions, particularly on the amendment to the PUD final plat review, some of the criteria talks about choice of types in the environment or living units available public and open space recreation areas. I think we've gotten a fair amount of testimony talks about pattern of development which preserves trees, outstanding natural topographic features and geologic features and prevents oil erosion and then D and efficient use of land resulting in smaller network of utilities and streets and E in environment and harmony with surrounding development. Are there design requirements for any of the buildings that are built in this neighborhood? Yes, there are the requirements in our declaration and bylaws that have to be met. So it goes through our board of directors that acts as the design review board now. So they have to approve the colors. They have to approve the style of the building. They have to approve the materials that are used on the building. They have to approve the landscaping. Thank you. Great. At this time, if there are any other neighbors that wish to speak or present, I think this would be a good time to adjust. We might have a few more questions, but we're sort of narrowing into the point. Mr. Varney, I think you had indicated you wish to speak. If you wouldn't mind just coming up to a microphone and just stating your name and address, that way we have a record of it. I'm Don Varney, I live in 70 Mobile Hill Drive, which is block two, next to that one. Have a good week. I would like to see you, if I could. Don't have the bad for surveyors or engineers, just me and Google and paint shop pro, but I ask you not to peek at the second page. Thank you. That's what I use too. That's what I use too, Google and Gribble. So, now remember, you're not looking at the second page. I'm looking at the second page. Okay, so this is an aerial from... You have a copy for the applicants as well. Thanks. Just as a reference, now I'm gonna let you look at the second page. I hope you want to see it. This is a shot from Google Maps. And incidentally, it happens to be from year 2012, when just right after I bought the property, and I kind of drawn in some of the pertinent points. And you can see how the property was landscaped when I bought it, and what I thought I was buying. That's, we're not talking about that, but that red line that's crossing that gray car and intersecting with the yellow line and the point, that's the boundary point, it's in the middle of the driveway. The little yellow triangle is the easement, so to speak. So, when you look at it from top down, it doesn't seem very exciting, but when you look at it this way, you can probably see why I'm a little exercised about having lot one in the middle of my driveway. That's, this is the point. This is what I'm here for. Is that the lot being in the middle of the driveway? Now I should tell you that over the years, I've been on the board of directors of Murray Hill, and probably about a year after I was there, I discovered I was going to put it in the shed, and I wanted to know where the boundary was. And I had to go on a quest and finally found kind of where the boundary was, and I was shocked to discover it was in the middle of the driveway. So I've been trying for a number of years to find a solution to this, buy the land, swap the land, and so far nothing has ever happened. So I've kind of given up on that happen. But now going back to the first page, if you look at that, I could probably argue that I'm the one that originally proposed expanding lot one, because I thought at the time that we talked about being able to do it, a swap of land, and you could just do it as a quick administrative thing. So if we expanded this lot, I thought we could take a piece off of mine and give you a piece in the front and get rid of the easement on the driveway at the same time. Give it, leave the swale out of the picture, so this white dotted thing is kind of what I proposed. Mostly I just, I don't know, I don't know a legal way to say it, but it seems to me to create a lot with an easement in it, and the blue line is the drainage swale, roughly, and have that right in the driveway. No matter what you say or do, that piece is gonna be right there. Now, I think that seems so absurd to me is that right now all the boundaries are fungible. You can move those boundaries anywhere you want. That's what we're gonna do, move around. And I'm not necessarily objecting to lot one. Yeah, I don't like the idea that it's gonna spoil my view on that side, but that's not really, I mean, you live in development, you can't really help that. But it seems to me that you could just slide that boundary over and make that lot in a nice clear line, not give the next guy that buys that lot an easement and a ditch. You could simply move that lot over a little bit and make a nice, clean lot. And leave this little triangle as what? As some common land. We've got lots of common land. We'll let the drainage ditch run in there, let the easement go there. Maybe any of the next guy will actually be able to do something about their boundary and get that property line out of the middle of their driveway. That's all I'd like you to consider is can't you just swing that whole lot over a little bit and take that headache away from everybody? Well, thank you very much. I have to say. Okay, well, thank you very much, Mr. Varney. I'm just, as a note, we're restricted as a board. We don't get to redesign these plans. And it's certainly not a commentary either way we vote on whether or not a proposal like that is reasonable. It's just that we don't have the power to say, we have a power to say yes or no. We can put conditions on an application, but we really don't have the power to say, move this lot over. We can say this doesn't make sense the way it's drawn. And I guess you- Do you, does the board think it makes sense to have a property line in the middle of a driveway? I mean, this easement was granted because the original builder of the house could not build a driveway yet. They had to give them an easement so that they could do it. So this kind of thing does happen. If we were talking about the expansion going into your driveway, we might have different questions. Part of it is that's the existing lot is where your driveway is. And some of them make the argument that actually an easement's better because you don't pay property taxes on it. I thought about it, but as you see from the second page, it's what was a nice landscape area is how a field needs right against my driveway. I would much prefer a field than not to make it with my skin like it used to, but I'd forbid them to do it. One thing to consider, and I don't mean this as anything other than just simply a spitball take from where I sit, but certainly if this lot is sold to somebody, it's not uncommon for neighbors to do boundary line adjustments. And what the representation of the homeowners association is, is that that land, this area that you're focused on is not going to be developed. So if down the road, you wanted to take sort of full ownership of that and we're able to work something out with a neighbor to adjust the boundary line, that would seem to be, would fall into something that you and a neighbor could work out as opposed to you and a homeowners association. Simply, like I said, a spitball take from where I'm sitting, not actual legal advice. I just heard that you could maybe put a shed 10 feet from the boundary line, so the new neighbor wants to put a shed right in the side of my driveway. Right. No, because that would be in a front yard setback and that's actually what the applicant, and this is unusual. I think this is why it took us aback is that it's unusual for the applicant to say, please make us more restrictive, give us less than what we're entitled to. And so that's what they're saying is, is that we want those as setbacks, meaning your neighbor down the line can't build anything except for that little square in the middle. So if they do want to put a shed, they're restricted by the permit that we're issuing tonight. So it's just, again, I think it's just something to consider. And like I said, it's, we're kind of handcuffed here a little bit in that if we were in a different situation, it's certainly, your arguments are grounded in reason. And, but not necessarily what we have the power to or authority to deal with. Was there another? Yes, Mr. Hahn, you want to come on up to Mike? Introduce yourself, state your address. If I may, before, before Charlie, hold, tone, right? Hold, yeah. Sorry. That's all right. Before Charlie speaks, I just wanted to disclose that Charlie and I had a brief exchange about this application, though we made a point of not getting into the substance of it. Instead, I directed Charlie to speak with the zoning administrator. And I pointed him toward the parts of the zoning that I believed we would be walking through. So I just want to be fair about that and let everyone know that exchange took place. If I'm not supposed to do that, I apologize. Like I'm on the conservation commission and it's a little, A little different. Formal. Not that it's, you know, it's a little different, so I didn't really. Oh, Charlie, it's no problem. I'm disclosing it for the benefit of everybody, not to pick on you in any way. No. No. I've known Charlie well. I'm Charlie Hohn. I live at 282 Main Street. That's a lot negative, except it's not on Murray Hill land. And as this map was passed out, it's right here. And I have a bunch of things to say, so I'll try not to blabber on too long about any single one of them, but I also wrote something to submit so you can read, sorry, I only have one. Hopefully that's helpful. So first of all, I, in addition to being a defending lander, I also work in the conservation field for what it's worth. I work for the wetlands program and it's good that there's, I don't have to worry about conflicts of interest because there's no wetland issues with this plot. However, I do, having done a lot of work with different conservation and land management related things, both here and in Vermont, I'm kind of, you know, I know I'm not a legal expert, I don't know what a Stowe Highlands test is. I've been at Mount Hunger, I don't know if that counts, but like basically my understanding of the PUD is that it was an agreement made when the neighbors all got together. I'm sure when they first built Murray Hill, people bickered and fought over everything because it's Vermont and a change was happening. I wasn't here, so I didn't comment on that, but this agreement was worked out with the community and there's a tag on there that says common land. Then it might not say it has to be forest or it has to say meadow, but this says common land. And you know, I've been around a lot of developers in California who are pretty aggressive and to be honest there, they pretty much always win despite what they might call you, but I've never had actually, and I appreciate New England honesty, but honestly like saying that we should undo a community agreement for any reason because the landlord wants to make money off of it. And this is not picking on the Senate bill, but I know they're just representatives and that don't even necessarily want to do this, but like to have a conservation agreement or a planning agreement or whatever with the community is kind of a front almost to me to hear that like, well, you know, all you have to do is say you want to make money by changing the rules and rules go out the window because I've certainly talked to my friends who live in the neighborhood and most people there thought the common land was actually part of an agreement. I mean, obviously the neighbors aren't all lawyers and they don't control that, but I actually think it's a really concerning precedent because I know there's not that many PUDs here but there's sounds like there's PUDs all over Vermont and, you know, we come out and Montpelier comes out and says, all right, well, a PUD is used to plan how our development works unless someone wants to make money and then they can take their land and develop it, you know, and not have common land anymore. I mean, that's that goes far beyond like my view of getting ugly or something. This is like a big, it could be a big precedent. I don't, you know, I don't really know, but it's something that really concerns me, especially as in a butter of this large four acre parcel and, you know, the cynical's probably, I take them at their word, they don't want to develop it. I, you know, I believe the HOA now doesn't want to develop but we know HOAs have representatives that come and go, you know, in five years and we want to be there for the long run and, you know, I don't see any reason based on my experience with HOAs else we're not to believe that that whole field by the time I'm old will just, and, you know, my daughter has grown up will just be concrete, you know, and maybe at some point a line will be drawn but the line isn't being drawn now, it won't be drawn in the next house and won't be drawn in the next house, you know, so I mean, I think that's really concerning and I, you know, especially that you're not just, it's not just an existing line, you can argue whether or not lot one was really a thing, maybe it was, but like, and you could even argue that it's triangle, that's a dumb shape, making a better shape, that's cool, but like to say that it has to be 0.6, 0.7 acres, I mean, like how many of you live on a lot bigger than that, I mean, to be fair I do, but most of Montpelier is on smaller lots than that and the idea that it has to be 0.6 acres that's taken out of the existing common line to be put into this is, you know, I don't really understand why that has to be the case. So moving on, yeah, I read over the document that was written about this and a couple, I just want to make a couple comments to that. First of all, the idea that there was no change in neighborhood character, it appeared that the, they were talking about the Murray Hill neighborhood and I agree, it probably won't have much change in the character Murray Hill, but in terms of Main Street, it has a very big effect because this is not in the Murray Hill land that is extending way out into next to Main Street and most of you probably have been up there, most of the Main Street houses are not that wonderful suburban feel, they're like more, I don't know, I'm gonna call it traditional Vermont, small little houses along the road with maybe big areas of land behind them, a stream, tiny lawns, you know, our house is a little different but it's kind of the same. We've been shrinking our lawn, we've got, you know, one house, it's, you know, I don't think you can actually say that it's not gonna change the character of the neighborhood to build a house, a Murray Hill style house on Main Street. This is not just Slander Murray Hill, you know, to each their own, but like, it is very different from what the neighborhood is down here and I think that it would make a lot more sense to have that house put within the core of the Murray Hill community instead of dangling down and I think, you know, I invite, and yeah, and following disclosure, it will make our view a lot, a lot uglier because our house faces in that direction, our giant picture window is in that direction, the whole house was built around that field and so yeah, it'll make me really sad. I understand that's not really a concern of, you know, anyone else other than me and my kid, you know, while she doesn't care, she'll probably be like, ooh, bulldozers, you know, cool. But you know, and so I'll disclose that, yeah, I do care about that, but that's not even like the main thing I'm talking about here. It will have a big effect on the neighborhood and especially I don't think there's anything that can convince me if you approve this that other stuff would not get approved over the next 10 to 20 years because, you know, as he said, maybe the law is now less than build a thousand houses, maybe he doesn't want to build a thousand houses, but who knows, you know, maybe in 10 years, the new HOA will want to build a thousand houses and then I'm like in, you know, whatever, South Burlington or something, that's not really what we were expecting. About the hydric soils and the runoff, it's not a wetland, but it still has hydric soils. Water isn't necessarily going to absorb very well in those hydric soils. Typically if someone is doing, you know, worried about storm water and this is an impaired brook in the watershed, I realize the house is set a little ways away from the brook, which is good. You can poke around our field and I've done a lot of that because I'm a wetland ecologist in some places, you dig a hole, water just disappears. Other places, it won't, you know, after in terrain there's just water flowing down our hill because it's not very deep to the water table or the bedrock. And so, you know, I would hope that someone has done like some percolation test, at least digging a hole, seeing what the water soaks in. Before you assume that that storm water won't impact the brook, because if you don't know otherwise, I'd assume it probably will because there's just not a lot of infiltration there. But, you know, it's underground, it's really hard to say. Same with the well, I know one of the reasons that this plot wasn't pushed farther up Murray Hill is because the well issues. Well, Murray Hill's well has this big, fat well protection area, which is awesome. You know, water protection is great. Then you look at our well, it's got nothing. And I realize this is a few hundred feet away from our well, but a disclosure, I'm not, you know, a geologist, but bedrock in this part of Vermont runs from north to south, and since north is higher up hill, you know, our well is not just drawing from our field. Our well is drawing from the north. And that you can see that in the Murray Hill well area, which goes way north. And you know, I kind of would hope someone could tell me why my family's water was less important to protect than Murray Hill's water. And if that's not the case, I would hope someone has at least done the research to determine that this wouldn't harm our well both in terms of them taking out water, too, or in terms of whatever fertilizer or pesticides or whatever they apply on their lawn. You know, I think it's important. And I think there's other people on Upper Main Street who are closer to it than me. So I, you know, I hope, and I looked at that in our resource atlas, and I saw several wells within, you know, a couple hundred feet of that well. And I don't know. I mean, maybe that's all been considered, but I think it's something that needs to be documented and everything. In terms of special natural features or whatever, you know, like I said last time in my great common, it's not victory base in your Yellowstone, it's a field that I've documented over 360 species using our field. And you actually, you know, looking at the overall shape of the fields, you couldn't choose a worse place to put a house in terms of affecting the habitat. It actually, because if you go and look, that technically the common land goes by this out, but there's a big fat mowed lawn with the Murray Hill sign around it. But you know, again, that's fine, but you will stagger across from that. You will literally just cut that field off. And then there's another land owner who has a big block of forest around the back, all the way back to the cemetery. That's no longer accessible to any of the animals as easily as it was before. And I'm not gonna lie, you know, the deer are still gonna get in and eat my vegetables. I mean, if we're just the deer, I'd be happy to have them like not come to our land. But, you know, we're gonna, we've spent the whole four, five years we lived there restoring our, you know, trying to build a pollinator ecosystem and a native plant ecosystem. And you know, it is, it's gonna affect that. I have no doubt of that, you know, as an ecologist. Yeah, I just, I just, I think this is all stuff you consider. I don't think that we should be removing conditions from our agreements that has been made with the community. I realize a lot of people have just moved away or died. But you know, I hope when I die that the agreements we make in our community, the community we build remains longer than myself. So that my daughter and her kids, if she has kids, can come and say, well, you know, like this is something my dad helped build. And you know, I think it's kind of sad that the community, maybe it's too sappy, but the community got together and made this agreement. And then, you know, we're just gonna float it away. And you know, it's nothing against anyone else. It's just, it doesn't, I don't, it's not the way I think other people would. It just doesn't, it doesn't seem right. And it doesn't make me feel good about living in this community of our agreements aren't being held, you know, and maybe, maybe the law supersedes, maybe money supersedes our agreements, you know? Maybe that's the only limit, but not really what I was hoping to hear. And you know, I really would hope you'd consider moving a lot somewhere else that is a little, you'd still lose common land, but trying to make it a little more centralized. This is not walkable, this is not infill. This is kind of sprawl out into some of the open space. They're definitely, it would be worth considering other places to build it if you could find something. I definitely think it's a mistake to build this big, giant lot. And honestly, I think, you know, if we want to talk about compromise, you know, maybe don't push the house back away from the road towards the field in our house. At least say, well, if you're gonna build, keep the level smaller, push it up against the road so that the impact is more centralized towards the people who benefit from it, which is the HOA we're selling it, you know? Because it seems fair to me, you know? And yeah, you know, I'd like to see, and I know, you know, I can't specifically speak for other landowners, but all the people I've talked to, you know, all field at that field is something that's been conserved. And if that's not conserved, I think we're owed, you know, some communication. I know they said, they went out and talked to the landowners. And again, I'm not, not picking on you two at all. But like, the only communication they got is we are building this house. We are building it this way, just deal with it. There's been no attempt to be like, hey, can we try to adjust this somehow? Can we consider other sites? Can we talk about it? It's just, this is what we're doing. And like it, or leave it, you know? And so, you know, I mean, maybe that's not the business of the planning commission. But I'm, you know, I'm open to talk to my neighbors, but I'm just, yeah. I'm hoping that we can get some clarity and that it's not gonna be the next Walmart because right now I'm feeling like, you know, I can hear the McDonald's bells ringing or the Taco Bell bells. I don't think there's any commercial development proposed in this application. It's not in this one, but if you decide that PUD can be denied because someone wants to make money, then I don't, I don't think we can look at those future applications based on this. You can't look at it on precedent. Well, no, I mean, it's, it's not related. I mean, I think one of the problems in the argument that you're making is that there's distinctions to be made between applications. And so I was just simply noting that, you know, this is a one unit boundary line adjustment and clarification on the common area designation. I don't think it makes sense to say that the sky is falling. Can we talk about the sky not falling or do we just have to have this same meeting every five years until I'm 80? Until you what? It feels like a precedent is being set. We're deciding that every time that each way wants to make somebody that can sell off potentially part of their comment. Can I comment, Dan? Just a second, Mr. Hone, do you have any other comments? No. Okay. Sure, Mr. Bigelstone, if you wouldn't mind going up to microphone. So, obviously, Charlie has- Oh, sorry, if you introduce yourself. Eric Bigelstone, I'm a resident of Murray Hill as well as president of the Homeowners Association. Obviously, Charlie has his feelings. He's throwing lots of accusations out there that don't seem to have substance. He's even said so. He's not a geologist, whatever it may be. I want to make it clear that this is not a money grab. We didn't suddenly say, hey, let's make a new lot so we can make money. This is a lot that has been approved. How many ever years ago, it exists. We are just looking at the best interest of Murray Hill. If we have the ability to develop one more lot, we should have the right to look at that. We're not carving out new land. We're not gonna add 10 more lots down the road. Even if I'm not sitting on the board or anybody here is not sitting on the board, it's impossible for us to create more lots at Murray Hill. Number one, our water capacity can't handle it. We're not allowed, well, it could handle it, but we're not allowed to build any more based on the water capacity that we have now. That's why we have to drill a new well. And there's no other place to place this lot. It is a lot that was approved. Again, I'm gonna reiterate myself when this development first came about. So I just want to make that clear that this is not, we suddenly need money. Let's sell a lot. Let's get as much money as possible before without any consideration. We might not even put it up for sale. We just, we feel that the best interest of Murray Hill at this time is to explore the option. We have the Sennicles, we have their knowledge, so we have asked them to apply on our behalf. I'd just like to make that clear. Thank you. Give it to Meredith, she can, and I just note that as with, as I said before, it's not really the job of the DRB to redesign applications. We have to take them as they are. And so to the extent that there's an idea that there might be a better place for this, that's not really before us. The question is, is this fit within the regulations and laws that govern our zoning board? Can we approve this or not? Or can we approve it with some conditions and it will suffice? And so it's not, it's often beguiling to think, well, what could be better? And that's great conversation to often have between neighbors, between different groups. It's just not anything that we as a DRB can necessarily entertain. So it's, we have, we're limited to this. Just as if you were coming before us with an application, any of you, and I don't mean any one person, you would have hopefully put some thought into it and to have us sort of sit here and speculate, well, what if you did this? It would be a very frustrating process. It would also, I think, go contrary to what our job is, which is a bit more like an umpire in a baseball game to call the balls and strikes. So I just wanna keep us focused on what that necessarily is. Kate, did you have a point? Thank you, Dan. If I may just add to that, I just, I wanna acknowledge, I heard concern about the impacts of incremental development bit by bit. In general, in Vermont, I didn't hear that as an accusation, but as an issue in general, I totally hear you. And that is a question we've faced on the DRB is if one lot is done in this spot and another is done on how do we anticipate the others that are done? But as Dan said, we are, we're bound by what the law allows us to glance at and evaluate at any one time. Though certainly those questions of well, what's next and how does that, how do those puzzle pieces fit together are valid questions. They aren't questions we can answer with the pieces of paper in front of us, but I just do wanna acknowledge your concern about incremental development. Do you have any, so who would I talk to if I had concerns about the PUD on being followed? Well, what do you mean by not being followed? I mean, so the decision that we're gonna make is whether or not to allow an amendment of the boundary line for lot one. We've already determined the law one exists as a separate lot and we already determined at a prior meeting that the language reserved for common land on lot one was not a critical condition to the issuance of the subdivision permit such that lot one could not be developed. So now the question is we're gonna answer the question of whether or not a boundary line adjustment is allowed. That will then be part of the PUD. Well, first of all, it wasn't allowed to give a comment during the first meeting even though I sat here for two hours. I said something but I wasn't allowed to give an official comment on whether or not. So I'm trying to address that now because I was- Sure, if you have anything more to add, please add it. Charlie, can you go up to the microphone? I came to the other meeting and that whole thing was passed through and as a landowner or as a citizen or as a person concerned about conservation, I wasn't given the chance to comment on commenting now because I wanted at least to be heard and you know, even if I ignored. This is meant as a personal accusation against Murray Hill. Murray Hill is probably the best H away I've encountered of all the stuff in California and stuff. And just the fact is that if one H away doesn't have to follow the PUD that they set out then it does matter and if not you, then who do I turn to if I feel like a community agreement that has been set in a legal document or whatever it is, is it being followed? Well, one thing that I think it's important to keep in mind is that we're not saying that the PUD conditions don't have weight. It's just that there are different conditions in different ways. For example, if a person applies for a restaurant and says, I want as a condition that I can be open for lunch. So we say, okay, they can be open for lunch and they wanna come back and they wanna change that and they say, oh, I do lunch and dinner. Now, if there is a reason for having that lunch condition in there, there may be a good reason to deny that dinner. But if it was just simply in there to clarify when they were open in the first place, then adding dinner is not causing any harm and that's what we did at the first meeting was really a determination of, was this essential common land that when they approved this in 1983, this was an essential part of this PUD, an essential part of the contract and the determination that we made at the end after the comments were taken was that it was not and that's what the Stoke Hub Highlands test is about is to say that there are certain essential conditions that are the basis for granting approval by an Act 250 commission, by a Development Review Board that are essential, that if to change them, you have to meet a high threshold and the determination last time was that wasn't what was going on here. What was going on here was a little bit more of they offered it as the applicants themselves imposed it really not intended to create reliance in the town or in the community, but just simply to clarify that for the time being, this was a common use lot because they didn't intend to develop it and so it's hard and that's why I want to take your, I take your comments seriously and that's why I'm trying to respond is to say this isn't, I don't see this at least and the Board voted last time that it didn't see this as an essential condition. Now other conditions on here, as part of the PUD that was granted back in 1983 can't be revisited and that's why we took seriously the analysis about density because there was a density calculation that was done and we wanted to make sure that we weren't allowing creeping development that just because the infill that was created since then has changed that we weren't somehow short changing the intent of this community and part of this is that this is a suburban like community. It has a certain quality to its lots in the way in which the driveway's flow that as you point out is different from your neighborhood on Main Street. So part of that is what it is and we're trying to balance these various factors and as I understand the Homeowners Association wants this existing lot to be developed to add and the question that's before us is is there anything in the PUD that requires this condition and it's a two step process. The last step that we took was, was it an essential condition and we ruled as a board? No, it was not an essential condition requiring elevated but part of what we've been taking evidence on tonight is whether or not even if we did lift this condition would it create a negative impact and I think your testimony has gone to that certainly for your house there is a negative impact. You've also talked now about the wildlife. I actually had a follow up question on the wildlife. You said the deer probably won't be affected because they don't seem to be affected by much of anything but what kind of wildlife are we talking about that your purporting may be affected by this development? I'm a bonnist and so you can actually go on and I will get into these literal leads but you can go on iNaturalist and you can see a list of all the species I've documented if you're interested in asking later I'll talk first, I mean, but... Well, we can't take evidence outside of the hearing so that's why I'm asking now. Everything from like species of moths to plants that have come in on their own through the, because they are dispersed by birds or by other animals to, we had a rare orchid pop up at one point in our tiny little wetland which is another one, like if another well is drilled with a wetland dry up I don't know. And it's not federally, it doesn't have special status, it's just cool and uncommon. There's probably like five species of goldenrod or something like that. There's, you know, there's a lot of stuff. None of it is like an endangered species but I value it, I think other residents are more familiar value it. Well, and you know, I mean, I think a lot of these points are certainly something that the homeowners association should be considering for the remaining common land because, you know, as they testified before they have a big well area that they have to protect and those type of species. Does my well get any protection off our land? Well, that's a good question and that's an ongoing issue which is the well is, we don't rule on well protection areas as a zoning matter. We're charged with looking at, you know, making sure that a property isn't created that doesn't have access to water but the well shields are something that goes through the agency natural resources and in a case like this, you know, the answer is probably no. That there's, the well protection is, you know, there's a number of different issues and I can tell you that the Murray Hill people have had issues with their well protection area and their secondary well protection area with the compost company up hill. Nor why, but, you know, I mean these are the constants kind of push and pull because if you have a well shield area that goes beyond your boundaries, you know, there may be issues about protection of that well when your neighbors seek to develop but if your neighbors have a right to develop, you know, we're not here to, we're not well experts and we're not well shield experts. The development rights superseded in water? We just, it's not something that we can consider. It's not something we can do. It's not something this board can consider. It's not with the Department of Environmental Conservation and it's not this board, so it doesn't. And lastly, in terms of the PUD, is there, is there something that other than the preferences of the HOA that would protect that land from being further developed by any sort? So what I would probably recommend is if you're really serious about this, you can certainly have a conversation with Meredith and review the PUD permit that was granted in 1983 and go through the various details because there are certain things that are in there that do protect it. But you, you know, ultimately, you may wanna seek legal counsel as an abutting neighbor to figure out what exactly the status of such things as the common area that abuts your backyard is entitled to, either through the various declarations of the, of the Homeowners Association through the subdivision and PUD permits that were granted back in 1983 or any other types of environmental permit. And it's not something we can necessarily answer with any definitive nature here because, you know, we haven't been asked to look at the larger common area. What they've testified to is that these common areas were labeled as such, these, these other common areas outside of lot one were labeled as such and that they find them important, particularly the 12 acre one because of the well, you know, and they're in common ownership. So it does, you know, it does raise those issues, but I can't give you a definitive answer tonight. So this isn't the group that keeps the HOA following the PUD. We don't enforce. No, we are the group that keep, well, the zoning administrator is the one who does enforcement. If they're violating their permit, the zoning administrator does the first notice of violation and then it might come before us if there's a notice of violation that we have to enforce. But there is no actual mechanism that protects my well or, you know, the land of that land that keeps that land is. Let me see if I wanna check with Meredith. I think that usually the way that that would be implemented is if the zoning bylaw had a standard in it that said something like shall not, the development or subdivision shall not have an undue adverse impact on the access to water for surrounding properties. And I don't think we have a drinking water access to a drinking water provision or standard in our zoning. And so it would be the DEC permit that either the well drilling or that would probably look into that. I'm afraid we don't have, we don't have even a standard against which to evaluate that question. Though it's not a, it's a reasonable question. Okay, thanks. Was there any further testimony you wish to add? I do want very briefly to speak about the issue of the impact neighborhood water supplies. Murray Hill has a total of four drilled wells that it utilizes. So this is the large matter. There are four drilled wells here. We only draw water out of two of those wells. We checked the standard water levels in all four wells twice a year. We have a hydrogeologist that we then feed that information to our hydrogeologist. And he then does a report. His last one was in 2016. And the wells are arranged so that between the well that we're talking about drilling down here and the wells up here, we have one of the wells that isn't, we don't pump water from. So the data that we give him on static water level changes that well, which we call well number one, enables him to assess whether we're having any drawdown impact, and if we are, what the extent of that drawdown impact is on the general aqua curve, not immediately adjacent to a well, but some distance away, such as where well number one is located. His report in 2016 stated that there was, you could discern drawdown in immediate proximity to the wells that are being pumped, but that they recover when the pumps go on. That well one, which would be kind of the barometer on whether we're water supply a significant distance from where we're pumping would be affected, is that there is no evidence at all of any change in the groundwater aqua curve by the time you get from where we pump to where well number one is located. And I say that for the point that we're talking about a well that would be utilizing somewhere between three and 400 gallons a day peak gays during the year that we're drawing. We're talking about wells at Murray Hill that are drawing 10,500 gallons a day on average and around 14,000 gallons a day on peak gays. And yet we're having no effect on a well just south of that location. So it's not a simple statement of saying, well, my well is, well, my well. And a well is going to be affected because someone is going to build a house and drill a well at it when the evidence in the immediate neighborhood. The house. Good catch. I hope you're not paying him by the hour to catch the success. So I wanted to make that point. And as far as the protection of the homeowner's association or the compliance with the PUD standards, I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. Compliance with the PUD standards. So the rules of the road were established in 1983. The association adopted a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions and a set of bylaws. And based on legal advice, it was structured so that to make a change in the PUD, it takes 67% of all of the owners at Murray Hill voting in agreement with the change before it could be, before we could even seek permits. So we went through that process this time and we had 60 votes cast, 61 votes cast and one voted no, the other 60 voted yes, they wanted to make this change in law one. If there were to be a proposal to add an additional law, what we're talking about using an existing law for changing its shape, there would be a proposal to add an existing law. I cannot imagine people at Murray Hill ever agree that they would request, but the new, the common interest ownership statute that was enacted a few years back by the Vermont legislature now has a standard that to add an additional law to an existing PUD, it takes 100% of the owners agreeing to it. I have spoken to the board of directors about this, I am a big fan of that, but Murray Hill is under the statute that allowed 67% to be the determining thing. So I'm lobbying my board of directors at Murray Hill again, but this is a great idea to the board has the authority to amend its governing documents to make it, make Murray Hill's PUD subject to the new common ownership statute, which would mean it would take 100% of the people to change the PUD, and I'm a big fan of that. Okay, thank you very much, Ken. Any further questions from the board? I mean, I'll simply note that common land going forward, there was a reason why this was granted with common land, such excessive common land, and I'll just simply say that we're not being asked to judge the greater common land. We're very much focused on this specific application. So, that doesn't carry, at least in my view, any presidential value as far as what happens in the future. But unless anybody has any further, yes. I just have one quick question. The status of the Mike Patterson survey plot, we weren't given a complete copy of that in the application. So I just didn't know if you had a complete copy with you that we could look at or just glance at real quickly. I may have copies of everything except the full survey. That's which is fun. I just would ask that it be. I know Meredith has one. Survey of the entire, no, just the survey of a lot. Mike, what he's asking for, because it says it's an excerpt, he was wondering if Mike Patterson is a survey of the entire PUD. No, no, I'm just asking for, he did a survey here to create a new lot line for the adjustment and there's a whole sheet with the notes in addition to, not another sheet, but the same sheet. We just didn't have it. I'd be glad to give that to Meredith for the files. I believe we transmitted it to her, but maybe not. Well, not only that, I think we'll have to have a mylar. Yeah, we'll have to have all the mylar. With the boundary line adjustment. Right, so that would be the site plan. Mylar of this, not necessarily, it depends on different aspects of this. So it could be a mylar of this. One, we can say what you want. When the lot is approved, then Mike Patterson finishes his work and then we do a mylar and then it gets recorded. I guess my question is, are we doing final plot review on this or just site plan? No, we're doing, I mean, we're doing a final plan. Final plan. The kind of. So I think there's, if there's something specific that you want to see, we don't always have a requirement that the full survey be shown. Obviously, if there's a specific issue that would you're looking for? No, no, I just, you know, I guess in my profession, I'm always required to do so, but I have not done any work in Montpelier. But I think a survey includes the title block, the notes, the stamp. And I don't know, I would be comfortable with if we're doing an adjustment and there's a final plot that it be submitted with the entire application, maybe not now, but. I see, so making sure it has the legend on it, the survey or stamp and all that. Right, so the final plot has to have all of those things on it. But we don't necessarily see an exact copy of that during this part of the application process. In part because oftentimes that's generated as a result of what we were put on as far as conditions are concerned. So we're not approving final plot tonight? Well, we may be talking about two different things. We're not approving the final map plot, but we're approving the zoning application which is entitled, pull out my notes. I can't find them. But we're approving, which is called final plan. Final plan. Final plan, sorry. It's final plan. Once this aspect is dealt with and you've approved a final plan, then they will submit a final plot to our office. I'll then look at that and see if it's met all the conditions that everybody has agreed upon. And I don't do the final approval. Actually, Dan has to literally sign that plot and look at it as well. And if there's issues where it doesn't comport, there's something, a legend missing, something like that, it doesn't get approved. But this board doesn't approve the actual plot, just the chair signs at the end. We are approving the new lot and then as long as the new lot is depicted on the plot, just this board chair signs it. As far as this board's role, this is all we will do. So if there's information that you think is important that's not on what we have, then we need to make sure that it's noted so that it is included on a final plot. I think it's always reasonable to ask applicants to submit documents with titles and dates and legends and things like that. So if you're requesting in part to ensure that we don't just get a zoomed in part of a survey, but instead see the context, I would agree with that. Yeah, that's my request. Yeah, I mean, okay. All right, so Kevin. Mr. Chair, would you want the board to entertain a motion to close the public hearing and to enter a deliberative session? I would enjoy such a motion if that's what you have just made. It's motion by Kevin. Second by King. No. No, do you have a? I have some additional questions. Okay, for the applicant? Yes, for something that we went through pretty quickly but I want to make sure that I fully understand it in light of additional evidence that's been given and that has to do with a swale. Good description at the beginning. Thank you for the dimensions. We've since learned from Mr. Hohn that they are hydric soils. So it relates to some questions I jotted down when you were first talking. I'll try and keep it brief. You said that the swale because of its dimensions spreads out the water instead of creating an erosive channel. And so you suggested, that suggested to me that the water flows away from the site but I also wondered if because it's hydric soils and because it is pretty broad, doesn't the water infiltrate and is there a risk of being pretty soggy soils around where the house is going to be built? No, the swale actually intercepts any water that is flowing towards the building site. Oh, I understand that. But does it not absorb the water and kind of put it into the ground all around? Well, it's been there for 34 years and except after rainstorm, you can walk on it pretty readily. And I don't know, Don Barney would know more than I do about it, he lives next to it. But this year, we've had a lot of hot weather but this year I've been, I've walked it several times. It has never shown any indication of moisture at all. Yeah, I guess that suggests to me that the water is absorbed into the ground and I just, as we're approving our job is to make sure we approve a buildable site. I wanna make sure that the water interacting with that site does not render it unbuildable. And there wasn't a chance to introduce this earlier. I don't mean to be, I'm not intending to throw out any sort of curveball. I just wanna understand what's, how the water's behaving on the site. Right. The swale is intercepting water, the land below it where I believe Don was, excuse me, Mr. Hone was referring to hydric soils. But we had the wetlands biologists out there. She did several auger testings and said, "'This is really great soil. "'Are you sure you don't wanna build an on-site sewer "'sist?' So I'm not sure how, I believe Mr. Hone works in the same division that Shannon Morrison, who did the site inspection work. So maybe they can have a conversation between her saying that the soils are good enough to put in a non-site sewer system and his indication that the soils are, might be moist or have a moisture problem. Mr. Varney, if you have a... I could elaborate. If you wouldn't mind going to, Mike, sorry. For the folks playing along at home. I could elaborate on that swale, fire and the fact it is dry most of the time. When we have a heavy rain, it comes down, goes under the road, that's as well. In times I've stood up to my ankles in the water rolling through, but when I cross into my land cover, first build of my land cover pipe in, so it's collected in that pipe goes under my land and comes out of the back of my land and goes into the meadow way down there. So in that respect, there would be no impact on that house. All that water does flow down and goes out into the field far below. Might be what would concern him is way down in the back of the field. Okay. Any other questions? That helps me wrap my head around the water issues, not having been to the site. It's just the sort of thing that was a little bit of a yellow flag I wanted to make sure it was not gonna cause problems in the future. Mr. Hahn, you had a comment? I just wanted to say for the record that I'm in no way questioning anything that Shannon found at the site. She has my full confidence. All I was trying to say was that on our land I've observed which is on the same map soil complex I've observed that a lot of times the water doesn't readily soak in. I haven't pooped around a lot of times in my business. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we have a motion by Kevin. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Kate. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion to close the evidence and to take the matter under deliberation in a deliberative session, please raise your right hand. You know, passed. Thank you all very much for your time, for your comments, for your very thorough analysis from all sides of this. We will issue a written decision following a deliberative session in a few days. It usually takes our process to vet that around at least a week or two. Our other business, our next regularly scheduled meeting is Tuesday, September 4th, 2018, 7 p.m. Same time, same channel here in the city council chambers. Thank you all very much. Do we have a motion to adjourn into a deliberative session? I just have one question before we go under our other business. The last meeting, we entered a deliberative session for 27th School Street, if I recall. Yes. Decision was going to be drafted. I'm just looking for a status of that. It was circulated. It did not arrive. We've been having issues with their email. Now that you mentioned that, I probably should have checked spam mail or something like that, but no, I never saw it. Okay, so check your folder. Okay, I didn't see it either. Okay, so this is a major issue. Yeah, because we had some bounced back and I got messages on that, but then others' emails didn't bounce back. So... I'm glad I raised the issue. Thank you, Kevin. I'm gonna talk to Seth. Thanks. Yeah, we did that last week. Yeah, okay. I received it under an email that said like test and then had it copied. And then I should have sent a new you and because you and Dan were the only ones it bounced back from that I got messages on. So I re-sent it to both of you, but I didn't get messages from anybody else. Interesting. Because I will tell you just as a matter of habit, I will always respond, even if just to say, looks great. Okay, great. Thank you. Yeah, big meeting with Seth tomorrow morning. Okay, so let's have a motion to adjourn. I'll make a motion that we adjourn into a deliberative session. They have a motion by Ryan. Second. Second by Tom. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please raise your right hand. We are adjourned. Thank you all very much.