 20th to order the quorum and we'll be proceeding through the agenda in the order of items listed. There's three items on our agenda for hearing tonight. Scott, are there any changes to that I didn't see any request. And are there any new communications that weren't posted online. Everything's online Ryan posted something new was it yesterday. Yeah this morning. Okay, for 136 sunset quick. Okay, I see that. And we have a minute from the last meeting. To look at in deliberative. There's any changes. Let us know. There usually aren't. Let us know. So with that, let's call our first public hearing it is ZP 22386. 86 dash 88 North Winooski Avenue application for after the fact permit for the removal of the existing carriage barns garage portion and request to demolish the remaining carriage barn in real rebuild with a new duplex structure as a PUD. The applicant is three G LLC and Michael Alvarez are they here. I'm here. Yeah. Okay. So, just some context from staff since this is an after the fact permit application. If you don't mind Mr Alvarez, we have to swear you in as well. So let me do that first. And anyone else is going to testimony tonight. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury. I knew. Great. Thank you. Mr Alvarez. I wanted to just get staff to briefly explain the after the fact nature of this before we get into the application. Is that okay. Oh, yes, of course. So this is a who wrote the staff report on this one. That was me. Could you just explain to us the after the fact nature and give us some context. Sure. I think it was 2020 when it came to light the structure. The possible demolition by neglect, which means that no care is taken care of it and it's basically falling apart. So staff had learned of this and started the enforcement process back in about in the spring of 2020. And demolition by neglect requires. It's got correct me if I'm wrong. It requires a building inspector to go out and verify that it's unsafe to, you know, habitat, or keep on the property. That never happens. The building inspector never really got out there. So that was the first part within a few months. So that portion of the structure was demolished by the previous property owner. And at that point, the code enforcement staff issued a demolition, you know, notice of violation for demolition without a zoning permit. So that started and I think that was about August of 2020. And that lapsed a year with no action. So they, the city reissued a second notice of violation last year for the demo without a zoning permit. And now we're here. So they've new owners. They took over the property. And now they're applying to get approval for the. Unpermitted demolition and then to proceed with the rest of the carriage barn to demolition that as well. So I have a couple of questions just before we get into it for procedural reasons. I saw the NOVs. And the prior owner didn't appeal those notice of violations or challenge them. You got no response. Is that right? That's my understanding as the code enforcement talked to me the other day that the city attorney's office. She had a step or they had a step to do and I'm not, I can't, I can't really quantify what that step was, but they had to act within a year. And no action had taken place within the year of the first notice of violation. There were two pieces, if I can clarify. There's an initial NOV issued for demolition by neglect under the prior owner. That requires building inspector participation. The short story is he didn't timed out. The owner basically finished the job on that portion of the building without permits again. And so a second follow up notice of violation was issued. And this application before you tonight is an attempt to address and cure that with reconstruction. So the, so, but they didn't take it down. It was gone when they bought it. Right. Am I understanding that correctly? The current owners haven't done anything to it. Correct. And it was, there were violations on it. Yeah, at least notice of violations sent. Now we're not being asked to adjudicate the NOV propriety or not. Right. Correct. So I'm just, I'm just trying to work through it because the staff report says we're reviewing it as if the barn is there. Which is a bit challenging and I'm trying to understand what condition we're supposed to assume it's in the neglected condition, the taken down condition, the 2001 condition. I'm just trying to figure out how to evaluate that aspect of it. I'm just trying to find the barn is there still mostly year to review it as if that portion of the barn had not been removed yet. Are the pictures included in the application? Are those of the barn prior to its removal? That's the current condition, as I understand. Right. That whole, there was a wing that attached to that hole that you see in the bottom two photos. That's where that little garage portion was and you can see the foundation of the garage portion. We have any prior to demolition? Pardon. Do we have any photos of a prior to demolition? There was, you know, there was, I guess the best we came up with was just the aerial. I didn't post that, but there was an aerial photos, you know, dating back a number of years that you could see, you know, there's a hole in the roof, essentially, but I guess I didn't post that. I can take a look at what's associated with the NOV and post that in a moment, assuming I can find it. I think there may have been, sorry to interrupt guys, but I think there may have been a some type of small fire that happened inside the barn as well prior to the, prior to my applicant. So I don't know if that had anything to do with the partial reconstruction of the barn. Well, Scott, that helps. So I guess I'll turn to the applicant, unless anyone else on the board has questions for Scott on sort of that context. No, all right. So Mr. Alvarez, why don't you walk us through the project, explain to us what you want to do and take us through what you're intending here. I think it's pretty straightforward. You know, we looked over the, well, Scott's got a picture. Well, Scott gets that up. You know, my applicant was interested in, there you go, Scott. Pause for a second look over that. Okay. That's 2009. All right, that's helpful. Okay, so the, the, my, my, the owner of the property purchases property fully purchased it owned it as of I want to say January of this year. Submitted an application to originally put a three story duplex on this property on the back. I think an initial round of DAB and basically the, the consensus was it was a little bit that the height of the structure was not in keeping with with the existing surroundings. So we came back. We came back with a two story structure. You know, it's, it's a, it's essentially a side by side duplex that we're putting on property entrances on both sides on that, on the south side of the property, you know, we went with a, you know, pretty simple, some simple materials, you know, some, you know, metal and, you know, five percent board of large windows for the, for the units, just get as much natural light as we can inside of these units. I don't know if you want to go to the plants, Scott or whoever's running the show here but you know it's, it's a pretty straightforward design there's not, you know, we're within the zoning. We try to get as much within the zoning as we can. The property has been reduced a little bit, you know, to be able to make sure we can get people out of the building properly. You can see I've sort of shown where the existing structure is and where the demolished areas. So it was, that's my knowledge. You know, there's, there's a, there's a building in front of the property has two units in it. And I think the owner is actually very interested in trying to get that building up to, you know, up to good shape it's not in the best shape, as we speak and actually I think what, what's sort of holding up the whole project at this point is this violation that we're trying to get put to bed and I think the only way that we can really address it at this point is by, you know, trying to propose a new structure in the back. We had looked over the existing structure. It's in very, very bad shape. The structurally, it's, it's about ready to fall apart just we didn't even, we didn't even really we entered into it but those conditions are extremely unsafe. And the best course of action right now is to remove it, try to salvage as much of the materials we can, you know, try to donate as much as we can to, you know, someone who can use the existing, you know, any existing lumber that's there. Try to salvage as much as we can and then try to propose a new structure that I think isn't keeping with, with what the, the zoning allows. So that's, that's sort of the grand plan. You know, again, I think it's a pretty straightforward side by side duplex with, you know, you know, pretty simple building all together, happy to take questions or feel as much as I can. Yeah, I have a question for staff open on that. So, Ryan, this, I think there's something in your staff report that says there's a six month timeline for them to start construction. Am I right. That's accurate that that goes with the historic. And what is the month timeline start. I believe it's from when the actual deconstruction happens. So it's not the partial, it's the rest of the deconstruction. Right approval tonight fine but if you just deconstruct and, you know, April. Okay. Okay. And I'll just ask the applicant is that something that you're on board with. So just, just so I'm clear, you know, you're asking that if we deconstruct the barn next month from there we have six months to rebuild that we are six months to start construction. Right. Right. Yeah, I have no, I don't have, unless unless you know something I don't know what's about. No, I don't think I think my applicants really gone how I know my only question, kind of with regards to that is we were, we really would like to repair the building in the front as quickly as possible so I know that would be a different application to come in but I think my the owner has been interested in trying to just have some new doors and windows in the front building. So I think that was kind of the only, the only, the only phase out thing where he was interested in doing is, you know, getting the front building, you know, buttoned up as best he could for winter, and then start this start this project as soon as possible. Thank you. And so Brad, I need to clarify that. And so I'm glad you brought that up because we are considering this as if the building's already there but the building's not there. So I think, as a condition if we were to approve this, we'd want to note that the commencement of new construction runs from further demolition is that is that right. I would say so yeah, I am basically complete deconstruction demo starts the clock. Looks like there are two previous zoning permits on this. It knows that they were both requested demolish historic carriage find, both of which are expired with those ever approved or was just the request that expired. The prior request timed out. I don't know about to do Ryan. Yeah, one time timed out for this same application but I'm not sure about the other one. Let me look. Oh yeah they're both 20. Yeah there were just two separate applications the first one was to address the already demolished portion. That was the first one. And then, you know within two weeks they probably they've submitted to demolish the rest of the overall structure, so that fell into two different applications but we process them as one process. But they did time out so that's why they expired. And I'll add that in the conditions there is condition number. Five talks about replacement construction of the replacement duplex shall commence within six months from the time of carriage barn demolition. I don't know if that'll address your concern AJ. No, no, I, okay, I hadn't gone through that yet. So sorry. But well carriage barn demolition I think what I was trying to articulate is that we're being asked to consider it as if there's carriage barn there, when it's not there. And so it's, I don't want someone to show up and say well wait it's it's half of it's gone. It's been six months. You know the permits valid because we're pretending there's something there, even though there's not because it was taken down. And there's another part that's going to get taken down, which is really what we want the trigger to be right. That makes sense. Are there any other questions. Yeah, yeah, fire away. Great thanks. Michael I see the elevation comparison to the old barn can I didn't see anything that compares to the structure in the front can you just tell me sort of elevation wise. How it compares to that and then it wasn't really any assessment of the building's visibility from the street. The building you're proposing seems a little out of character with the other buildings on this street. Just interested in how visible it's going to be. I'll answer the second question first. You, there's no visibility to the reapportion is property. So, you know, the, the site is actually really tight the front, the building in the front. You know, is clearly takes precedent. It's an old, I want to say like Queen Anne style building in sort of a mustard color. You know, the two, the two sort of counterpoint one another. This was an attempt to try to build something more, you know, contemporary a little more modern standards, and sort of compare and contrast the two. But you really would only, you would really only see that if you were probably somebody who lived there. I will never see this building from the street. So as I drive by, I'll know it's there, and I'll smile, but you'll never see it so. So that's one thing you just don't get any vision, you don't get any sense of what this building is from the street, but the two are counterpoint, they're different, they're just different the only thing that they share is sort of that mustard color that that you're seeing. Thanks. And how about visibility from the back. There seems like there's a lot of existing vegetation back there does the owner have plans to remove substantial amount of that vegetation. Most of the vegetation. Scott, if you wouldn't mind just going to the site plan. The vegetation towards the rear this property primarily is on the on the, all the adjacent properties. So there's sort of an existing tree canopy that comes from 82 North from new ski the one to the south. You know that sort of covers a little bit of of our property but not not tremendously and then to the east, a lot of those properties are the backyards to the street on the other end and I think there's a number of trees that are that are sort of covering this area to and then the site directly to the north is a parking lot. So it doesn't have any vegetation. Then there's no, there's no land existing landscaping in the park. And then I think I think we're proposing to add, you know, right now, obviously it's, it's hard packed gravel. It's primarily used as a, you know, the area that is directly in front of the carriage barn today if you want to walk there is just hard packed gravel. And I think all around it there's some existing concrete they used to be like a concrete driveway, and our proposal is to reintroduce landscaping, you know, grass and very shrubs. Okay, thanks. So is the proposed structure, the new structure, just looking at the plan here. It looks like it's, is it within the side yard setback and if so is it in. Is there an increasing. Yeah, the staff report mentioned there was no, if anything the non conformity was decreasing with this new structure. But just wondering if the, the length of that new structure along the northern property, if the length of that non conformity is increasing. Yeah, my understanding question, and that's a what if the length of the existing barn or existing carriage house. We tried to match that or we match that length down to the inch. So what you see is a little sort of kick, you know, and then the new sort of this. Can I annotate on here. No, I can't. The barn, it is within the side yard setback, we're using that to our advantage, or the new building is within the same side yard setback as the existing carriage house, but there is a portion of the building that now heads farther south and sort of dog legs out. And that is because the portion of that building has to conform with the zoning by the zoning ordinance. That's why we didn't, that's why you see a little dog legs or happen there. Someone's going to draw. Yeah. That's basically. So that area that portion that has been highlighted is now, you know, comes into conformity, and there where it cuts where it cuts back is where the existing carriage barn sits. And I think you can see here too this is a good illustration of, you know, the, the building in the front really takes, you know, it's very, very difficult to see this building in the back, you know, the way it's positioned. You know, you'd have to literally be walking by and, and be directly in front of the driveway to see that structure. So I think the only, the only people that would actually see as people are walking by. I don't think if you're in a car, and I think North movies is only one way and so as you're heading south on north movies ski. You know, you basically basically get maybe maybe a glimpse of it. Anybody else, anybody else questions. I mean, I will say that. I think this board has heard a lot of demolition by neglect or are similar losses of historic properties. And, you know, I understand why the Novs might not have been vigorously enforced. I don't think we love seeing demolition by neglect. It's not this applicant that did I understand that. I don't think we particularly like it I think it's something that we struggled with in the past. And, you know, perhaps if that 2020 Nov had been more attic, you know, more stringently enforced we might have been able to save a historic structure or at least save more portions of it. That's, I don't think part of the discussion tonight. I just it's just something that we've seen time again with these demolition by neglects and you know we do need to work to save historic properties in the city. So that's my two cents that's not necessarily relevant to this discussion tonight but do we have people in the audience who want to speak on this application. Sharon Buescher. Okay. I see Sharon with her hand up so Sharon by all means floors yours. Yes, can you hear me. Yes. Okay, I wasn't sure if I was muted on your end. Thank you for listening to my comments. AJ stated, basically, my, my concern of these older structures, carriage barns or carriage houses or historic little sheds that are neglected. And then the property owner says I have no choice. I have to demolish it because it would cost too much it's unsafe. I think the time that presents itself, or by the time the city has a chance to notice it and, and I'm not faulting the city for trying to be a watchdog for all of these I think it takes the community, and the neighbors to kind of alert people that there's something you know that might be unsafe a structure that's being neglected but my concern is that, you know, I, I attend a lot of these and I have lost track of the number of times an applicant has come before you to ask for the demolition of a carriage barn. And I know that this owner is a new owner, and he inherited a history. So the fact that demolition after the fact is something that is just something you just have to act upon. The structure that currently still stands. You know, I haven't gone to the property so shame on me but I've looked at those pictures from all angles, and you know tried to figure out if indeed there was a way to remedy. And I, I've come to the conclusion that most likely, sadly, most likely I think it would be cost prohibitive for most people to restore that, or maybe impossible. I don't like letting go of something like this, because I feel that at some point if I live long enough, you're, we're going to be at a juncture where you're going to be dealing with the last carriage barn. And you're going to be faced with the fact that there will no longer be these structures in Burlington to recall. And I'm saying that, you know, maybe that won't come to pass but I have a fear that it will come to that before somebody will say, we've got to do something we've got to take more serious action. You know, this is historic and speaking of historic the house in front, as I understand is historic also. And I heard the new owner say that, rightly so, wanted to start getting better doors and windows. If it truly is a historic structure. I know that's not before you but window replacement really needs to be done in a manner that is consistent with materials that can be used or windows that are appropriate for historic structures. I'm just offering that out there, because I've been following this topic for quite a while. And it's before I mean the design advisory board has dealt with some of these issues. The other factor is I guess beauty is in the eye of the creator. I really don't like mixing and Matt matching. So I'm not. I don't love the new structure that is being proposed. I applaud the new owner for creating more housing. I don't know if it's going to be affordable. I hope it would be but I don't know that. But I know we need more housing. But I just wanted to weigh in on on the fact of the importance of what the chair of the the DRB said about trying to act on these structures earlier. This is for the city so that we're not at this point where you you feel like you're backed in a corner and you really have no choice but to approve demolition. So thank you very much for listening. I think with that, unless anybody has any other questions, we'll close the public hearing on this item. I suspect we'll deliberate on this tonight based on this length of our agenda. So the next item we have on our agenda is 35 Loomis Street, which is the application of Caitlin Halpert to install two exterior compressors for Douglas heating and cooling, including one within the side yard setback. As the staff report notes, this would be normally handled administratively but because this is a corner lot and I suspect existing non conformity of encroachment into the side yard setback. We need to review this. Do I have that right staff. That is correct about the encroachment. It's not really driven by being a corner lot. It's all about adding a little bit of stuff within a setback. Okay. Oh, Caitlin you're recused from this obviously. Yeah, I will say I am recused I am the applicant. I didn't think I swore you in during the beginning so I guess I have to do that. And to use where to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury. I do. So just briefly tell us we got to do it as a hearing so briefly tell us what you want to install here. Yeah, definitely. So, I think where the corner lot is relevant it's just because the placement of the house on the lot. The house it's against the two side yard setbacks. So there is not really any very many options for where to place compressors to add energy efficient heating and cooling. So that is the entire goal here is to add energy efficient heating and cooling. That will serve for zones within the home through to outdoor units. So if you go to the site plan. I can give you idea of the house sitting basically all the way against those side yard setbacks on on the west side and that's outside of the house. Due to a few other considerations there's kind of nowhere else to put a unit other than these two locations. I think these are challenging. It seems relatively small project is anyone else on the board have any questions. I've got a question. Caitlin, did you consider putting the both on the same side on the west side of the house where the other one is. The issue is with the zones that are being served by it and the amount of construction that would be required to bring the the lines through to the other side of the house so the one smaller unit that is on the east side of the house or plan to be on the east side of the house is serving a room that has exterior walls on that side so it's really the easiest way to install it. Is that really intended to be skewed that way. Yes, what's not pictured in this is this is like a bay window layout. So against the angled wall which you can't tell from the Eve layout. It looks like you have to repair some of the landscaping when these go in. There's going to be almost no change to the landscaping there is one deciduous bush where that east side unit is going. That's depending on how much clearance I have I might replace with something else, but otherwise what's pictured on this diagram will all be that's all currently there and will be staying there. It's a tight, it's a tight lot there. We have anybody I don't see anybody in our chat wants to speak on this. Now we just have a couple applicants for the next item. Anybody from the board of any other questions for Caitlin. Alright, with that I'll close the hearing on this item. Thank you. So, just lost my agenda. Sorry about that. The last item on our agenda for tonight is 136 sunset cliff road ZP 22-403 a request for tree removal. The applicants are 136 sunset cliff camp and William the boss. The applicants are here I imagine someone for them. And we've got Tom the buff and I think it's Brad steel, the builder and owner don't see the harvest. So we have these two folks. Um, so Scott, before we have Tom and Brad, were you here when I swore everybody in. I was not. I was not. I don't know if you can see me or not, but that's okay. Do you, do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury. I do. Okay. So, before we go on, I just again want to have Scott run through this because there's some newer members who might not have dealt with this Scott. It's not something we often see, but they've come up a few times. So this has two pieces. One is the city. The zoning code has a general tree cutting standard under article five. I forget the numbers off my head, but basically a smaller number of big trees triggers DRB review. And then there's a number of smaller trees. So enough trees are being cut here that you see it. This went to the conservation board because it's also in the lakeshore buffer. Which establishes an upper limit of 25%. They're obviously well below that, but it's in the lake shore buffer conservation board looked at it did a site visit. And then the approval but suggested I think it was a group of trees in the southwest corner, be retained. But the short answer is they're cutting out trees that the zoning code says DRB review that approval is needed. And it was marked for consent agenda. So, we just didn't have one or what was the suggestion to move it off of the fruit of Ryan. Sorry. And that was, yeah, it was changed to non consent per the conservation boards request to have a site visit. So some more review they wanted to do I figured that would trigger the need for more discussion tonight, if needed. Um, but they have heard it, and they did make their recommendation, correct. Correct. Yeah, so this is Tom LeBuff talking. Bill DeVos sent that letter, I believe this morning, or last night. I mean, obviously the recommendation of saving the three south cedars. He was just commenting on that. One of them is appears to be almost dead at the bottom of it, there's a chunk of the trunk that, and it's only probably a two or three inch caliper tree and there's a section of the trunk that's sort of worn away and the other one is sort of leaning and bent over at the top. So I think he was just commenting on that his recommendation is that those two are in, you know, poor condition and and don't have any real benefit to save those on that. section of the property we can certainly cut them at the, at the base and leave the roots intact so that erosion is prevented. But I think he was just commenting on those three trees. Can I ask you to follow up on that. Yeah, yeah, I'm still trying to line that up. Tom, there's a photograph that was submitted, and it shows the face of the house and the construction, and there's two, it looks like two, maybe three cedars on the right hand side of that photograph. Are those the cedars that we're talking about. I'd have to look at the photo Brad, I'm not. No, not those. No. Those were those were approved to come down because they're leaning right up against the house essentially. So it's none of those. The site plan has some blue marks on it. But it doesn't seem like the trees are on the site plan either. Not from the original site plan that was approved through zoning. No, they weren't located, although, I think that bill alongside Jack Milbank sent along revised version that may have those three trees on there. Scott, do you recall that. Are you Ryan? No, no, I'm not aware of it. If you look at the site plan, yeah, those blue marks, I assume those are the trees being taken down. We don't know. Those are. However, that's not the location of the three that we're talking about. Which are close to the existing slate walkway to remain. They're right in that. In that area where that arrow is pointing to underneath the square box around install sill fence down gradient of all disturbed areas. Essentially right in that spot. I think two of the three are, you know, I guess we were just, you know, hoping to, to at least get those two out of a three, there's a larger diameter, which I think they'd be, you know, the owner would be happy to do, you know, just to trim that tree. To maintain its healthy nature. But the other, there's certainly one that, you know, even my inexperience it's, there's some dead limbs on it and the base of it doesn't seem like it's in very good shape and then the second one, about halfway up, it bends over 90 degrees towards the lake and I think it was doing that to, I guess to get to some, some light, you know. So those two are I think are the, the main ask that Bill wrote about last night. This is Brad steel to the owner. I would add that the conservation board had recommended adding a few animal anchors in the back area, which we're happy to do. We're planning to plant four or five juniper eastern cedars in the what blue point junipers in the front so they are trying to replace a number of trees, you know, for some of the trees we're taking down that are just, you know, too close or diseased, too close to the house and weaning in some cases uprooted partially, or, you know, as Tom indicated in the back disease. I'll just ask. What are the marks then on the site plan. Yeah, I don't try to figure that out. The marks of the trees I'm hearing that it hasn't been updated though to show all of them, and it should be, you know, actually now that when we had that meeting Scott I remember Bill saying that he forgot to put those, even though they were tagged with orange ribbon that I believe he did forget to put these on this application, on this site plan as a blue dot. I remember we talked about that now. During that site visit the conservation board came and anyway, I remember that being a topic. The trees look the blue dots look accurate except that they're to the southwest corner of the property or the house you see that one blue dot. I remember the other, the three cedars are. That's one of the three and there are two others there. The other things look accurate. I see. Was that one seed or you're planning to keep. It could be I don't know, you know, it's it's where the one cedar is, you know, along with the other two that are not in this good shape. We just forgot about those two not, not all three. Well we need a second. That's accurate. We have any other questions. I suppose, you know, you know, those, if those two smaller disease trees that we were mentioning next to that lonely blue dot that is circled in yellow. I suppose those, you know, we could. I mean, obviously, I don't want to delay this approval tonight, because it would have significant impact on my fall schedule if I don't. And if I'm not able to get bill in to remove what, you know, you're actually seeing on this site plan and this site plan is certain is certainly accurate. It's just the, you know, a simple fact that two of those were forgotten. But I suppose that, you know, we could come back for a second, you know, zoning permit for those other two at a later date. What is worth conservation board was out there in person and saw in person all the trees debris be removed, including the three in the Southwest made the recommendation based on that. But agreed, we should really have an accurate site plan. What, what about this site plan is inaccurate. I think we're missing the blue dots are supposed to represent. I believe it was I understand that the trees that are getting cut. That's correct. And I thought the discussion was that we're missing some blue dots. Also hearing that there are additional tree replacement plantings that are not recorded on this either. Right. So the two dots that are that are not here. Blue dot that circled in yellow are the of the three that the conservation board recommended stay. All of the other dots are accurate. So, if, if the decision is that, you know, we have to, you know, follow the concert conservation boards. We have to keep those three cedars and so be it. And then we could try to, you know, apply for another permit later on to cut those. And the, the, the amulet the amulet anchors were forwarded. I think I forwarded the planting list to Scott, which was in addition to this site plan that shows the existing trees that are on the line and also the additional trees that are to be planted from the original zoning application request. The governor was mentioning the conservation court recommended some additional replacements are those reflected on this site plan currently or not. Those are, I think in reflection to the Norway maples that are further along on the southern side of the property. If the Norway maples come down that that they're replaced with service berry trees. The amulet interest were part of the conservation board recommendation so this plan preceded that. So we were just saying we're more than comfortable we have already planted three animal interest in that back area and we're happy to add a couple more for the conservation boards recommendation. There's a large oak there and so we're, you know, understory trees make sense Norway maples do not make sense and or as you probably realize, incredibly invasive. I think I've got my questions answered. I appreciate it. Anybody else otherwise I'd close the hearing on this one. I'll close the hearing on that item. So we've three items to deliberate on. We have nothing else on our agenda. And so I will close the agenda. I will close our hearing for the night. And that wraps up our recording stopped. I'm assuming the board's okay with deliberating on these three items tonight. Nobody. Otherwise. Do we have Sean here tonight. We need him for 245 Loomis, but not for the other ones. So let's start with Caitlyn's application Caitlyn ear muffs. I think it's a pretty simple request seems like a good place for these doesn't seem like there's any other any other options. You know, we're going to see more of this as people start installing heat pumps. I think this is a good example of how to do it. So, I'm fine with it and we have any other issues. I'll make a motion. Oh, go ahead. I was just going to comment. I understand Caitlyn's rationale for putting the second one on the side. You know, and it's less expensive to do it that way. But, you know, it could go on the backside with a little bit more expense. I mean, if it wasn't screened, I think it's going to be screened. I think that would be something to consider but I do think it's going to be pretty screened so it is important to know though that that we're not just doing this without it. I think it's going to stick it in the middle of your yard and the setback is seemingly going to be screened and not have an impact on show show off the mechanical. I'm not increasing the encroachment to the setback anymore. True. True. So Jeff, you were going to make a motion. Yeah, I recording in progress. Move on to 45 Loomis Street. The application number in front of me is. I don't have it going to 40, 488. Thank you, AJ. That we approve the application and adopt staff's findings and recommendations. Second, chase. Further discussion. All those in favor. Hi. So that's it. That's everybody. Thank you. Recording stopped. Next is the 8688 North Moosky Avenue project. After the factor removal of the carriage. I don't understand how these properties change hands with these like unresolved issues. That's a good question, isn't it. The same thought today. I had a similar concern that Jeff voiced and. I suppose it isn't really our purview. That's really more for the design advisory board to think more about design, but it seems. But it seems odd that that. They could make something a little bit more similar, but I don't think that we have the jurisdiction rule on that. So. I'll pipe up on that. I think we actually do have the jurisdiction rule on that. With the advice design advisory board is an advisory board to us. And so we don't have to agree with them. I will say, though, I have no issue with the modern design and back here. There's a number of projects. Probably more visible than this one would be along. The The Willard Street and I'm trying to do other ones around town. And they quietly sit there speaking of a different time that these things were built in. I don't think they offended the other things. They don't. They don't impact the streetscape, which a lot of places, a lot of cities would impact the streetscape a lot more. But I don't really have an issue with that. I think it. There's no rule that we have to build everything as if it was built in 1888. Yeah. Well, people strive for that a lot of them. Yeah, but they use modern tools and technology to do it. Yeah, I was less concerned because I really don't think the building is going to be visible. I, you know, I understand the balance between trying to make something new look new and not match it. I think they could have given a little more credence to the barn back there, but we've approved similar projects and I wouldn't be inclined to vote against it. Frankly, it feels like a space where even though the DAB didn't think so, they could have done more housing. Yeah. True. Okay. Anybody want to make a motion on this? I do think your point about demolition running six months from the further construction. We need to note that further demolition. Just just thinking for just one more second about the issue of properties changing hands and demolition by neglect. Well, I was going to say that maybe there's there's some way we can we can think about future projects but, but, but actually, I don't know what to do about it, Leo, like it's they only come to you when they're so neglected that they're the only obvious choices to demolish them. And I haven't seen a situation and I'm not entirely sure how the city would just say to a landowner you have to repair that. Maybe they have to put a stake in the ground earlier to say, we're giving you notice that, we're not going to allow this to prove it as a demolition because it's being neglected, but it's really, it's really challenging. Yeah. It's frustrating to see because I Jeff I don't remember which one we had that was very frustrating to see because I think we both came way thinking boy this could have been saved. Yeah. I don't remember it was a carrot barn, but I think it was the one over on pine street. Yeah. Yeah, that seems great. Yeah, north of the mall. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, look, the reality though is I'm a big proponent of historic preservation at the same time. These are largely empty buildings at the backs of lots at a time when we need lots of housing in this area so as I've always approached these historic preservation issues. And I think they can meet the standard of showing the public benefit of removing that kind of structure. We have the authority to approve it. It's just, it's really hard to deal with that when it gets to this point of collect. Yeah. So with that, I'll make a motion. Go for it. Good. Recording in progress. Okay. So 68. Through 88 North Windows. Yeah, which is ZP 22 dash three. Eight, six. I move that we approve the application adopt staff findings and conditions with the noted. I think that's a point of further demolition of the remaining barn. I'll second that. Any other discussion. All those in favor. Okay. Recording stopped. So lastly, ZP 22403 136 sunset cliff road. I'm not the only one, but. I'm still unsure as to exactly what's getting cut and whether or not they agree. With the conditions of the. Conservation board or not. Good. I don't think they do. I mean, I think that. I didn't instill a lot of confidence in me and their ability to answer questions, but yeah, I got the sense they want to cut down all of the trees. I don't want to take the recommendation. Even when they said, oh, if you're, if it allows us to approve something this time and you disapprove those three will apply to cut them down later. Was kind of how I read their answer. I do not feel a comment with what we have in front of us for how would we have any accountability on what they're cutting down and not the fact that there's already dramatic changes to the planting schedule and aspect of the site plan. Without having that documented. I would like a real new site plan. What is our next meeting or Mary or Ryan or anybody who happens to know. October for as small items. That's historic preservation training. Could we go forward and approve it consistent with the conservation board recommendations they did the site visit. And then require the applicant to file a conforming plan that just shows what is being cut down consistent with that recommendation because I'm okay with that. Yeah, I need to go forward now with what everyone agrees can be removed. I think the conservation board went out there and saw the trees tag. They knew exactly what they were looking at the follow up documentation that we're looking at, which is just jumbled. I'm no, there's no identification with the blue marks are and all that. My tendency to say, approve exactly with the conservation board recommended period and then if they want to deal with those other cedars they can come back. I'm okay with that. I don't have a problem with that. It's a good idea. Yeah, I'll make a motion recording in progress on ZP 22403 136 sunset cliff road. I move that we approve the application adopt staffs finding their recommendations, and also the recommendation of the conservation board that the, what they labeled as the street three cedar trees of the southwest corner. I also believe they should submit a revised landscape plan and site plan, because it's not really clear. They gave a long planting list but they didn't really clarify where that is. Any second. I love. Sorry, Brad just just the wording of that last part I think you said they should submit a site plan. Yeah, they should. They should submit a revised site plan they print they supply provide this big plant list, but no indicate I mean that may be in the file someplace else but it's, I think it's just really this application just as inconsistent documentation I think really more than even I don't think there's any bad intent with it. I just think we should have better documentation in the file. Okay. I'm okay with that. And we have a second. Yes. Right. So, all those in favor, wraps it up. Recording stopped. So I'll see everybody on October 4. See you next time. Good night.