 Okay. So, I guess we'll get started. This is right. No reason not to. This is the development review board for Burlington or was it March 22nd. And we are zoom. Are we totally zoom at this point. It looks like we are. Yeah, we're fully zoom and that's on my to do the list to ask you guys tonight. About meeting going forward. If you want to go hybrid or fully in person or fully zoom. Most folks are doing hybrid, but let me know. Okay, so, so less dis are you in the office. Yeah, no, I'm home. I don't. Okay. In my basement. Okay, good. I will say that we take up items that they are on in the agenda. I'm assuming there's some public here watching this. And as we call each item, Scott will admit the applicant or whoever's going to speak on that project. And we will swear people in as needed. I guess we'll leave it at that. And Scott will ask for a mailing address for each person that speaks. Okay. Communications. I know we have minutes out there, but I don't think we have any other communications at this point. Okay. So we have. Boy. We're book ended. We have. Two houses and a whole bunch of bed and breakfast. To look at tonight. Okay. The first item is 189 191 South Champaign street. Is the applicant here for that one, Scott. Yeah. Buckley, I assume that's Israel. You can talk. Yep, I'm here. And. I don't know if that's a. Rockwell or. Or not. Should be. Okay. And I'll let you speak as well. If you want. And Brad Sharon busher has her hand up. Okay. So my first question is going to be whether we treat this as a consent item. So I, if Sharon. Is your hand up to speak on this item? So we would take it off of consent. I had a. Sorry, Brad. I had a question. About the lot and whether all the trees were removed. It's not really anything germane, except that question. If that could be answered without taking it off consent, I'd be happy. I guess that's sort of a. That's ethical question, but. Can we answer that question, Scott, without taking off the. Off the consent item. I don't think so, but you could have a short hearing and. Okay. Have a vote. On the fly. Anyhow. Okay. Well then. And, and, um, Israel and, um, Uh, Sharon, uh, if you three are going to be speaking to you three swear to tell the truth and hold truth on the pain of penalty perjury. I guess. Okay. So, uh, Israel and, and, um, since this, this is recommended for consent. Do you mind if I just have Sharon asked her question? Sure. Can you repeat the question? Sure. Well, Sharon will repeat it. Um, yes. Um, So I tried to get my question answered before the hearing. So I apologize. I was looking at what was submitted and I saw, um, the street tree that's going to be removed. And that's not my question. Then I was looking at the boundaries of the lot. And it's a small lot. And I couldn't discern from my computer. Um, whether or not you were removing. Or retent and retaining any trees of size. Can you answer that question? Israel. Well, it's, it's, um, there are some trees that. Will be removed. Um, there are also some trees that are staying. Um, the only tree that came up in the original review of this. Project was the, the one out on the street. As I recall. Um, And, and that one is being replaced. Um, The. It's, it's hard to tell what trees you're, you're, you're speaking of, there are a lot of trees right on the property line. And I'm aware of the city is actually. Uh, you know, the city has a park next door. And they're going to be installing a fence. I'm sure some trees will be coming down to put up a new fence. I would gather. There's, there's going to be a fair bit of tree work going on. Um, I, I couldn't tell you, you know, what trees are, are staying or going at this point. May I speak still, Brad? Just to clarify. Is that all right? Sure. What's your concern here, Sharon? I, I, I feel that, um, The city currently does not have an adequate tree ordinance in place. Just so the applicant knows. And I feel, and I have been looking at tree removal, which has been, we haven't really been focused on the importance of trees. And so as I look at things, I, I want to understand what's coming down and what's being retained because of the significance of trees. I understand those can be replaced, but when you replace the tree with a small caliber, it takes a long time for that tree to grow of size and really become like the lungs of, of for our planet, like mature trees do. So I was just trying to ascertain just how many trees were being retained. And so if the applicant can tell me how many trees he, they believe they're going to retain, that would be helpful. Cause I did see the tree line, um, along the property line and was unaware that the city was going to be doing some work also. Well, I would also suggest as you're correct me or wrong, but you're pretty much building this from setback to setback. Is that true? Yes. That's true. It's a very narrow lot. It's, it's, it's basically on the setbacks, uh, on the side, you know, at the rear yard, um, if you go to site plan 004, I mean, I was sort of indicating the, though some of the larger trees on the, uh, in the backyard there, the intent is to, is to retain, you know, larger trees back there, they're in good shape. Um, there's also a, you know, a big drop off at the back property line as well. So there's that to be looked at, uh, in terms of the, of, you know, trees that are right on the line there. Um, So the intent is to keep trees that are not being, you know, damaged or, you know, by the construction or otherwise in any way. Um, but as you see, there's also some that are right on the line there. So I think that, um, you know, it's going to be a, a dialogue with the city probably about, you know, the trees when, with regard to the fence that the city's putting in at the parkside. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate your, your candor and trying to explain that you will be retaining some trees in the back, um, that are mature and that won't be damaged with construction. So thank you. Sure. Yep. Okay. Um, since we've opened the hearing, uh, uh, I'm going to ask if there's any questions from the board for the applicant at this point. It seemed like a pretty thorough, um, application. We actually did review this previously. Um, Is there anything either and or Israel that you want to add at this point? No, we don't have anything to add. Um, we're excited to get going on this finally after, uh, you know, things sitting for a while, you know, for, for all the, all the standard reasons these days. Yeah. Okay. Good. Well, then at that, I will close public hearing. Um, thank you. I think we'll probably just deliberate at the end of the meeting when we deliberate on everything else. So go for that. Um, So the next item is, um, 44 Lakeside Avenue. Uh, It's actually, uh, It's just nice to say it's, it's a sauna in a parking lot. Such an unusual application. Um, Is the obligate. I see John collar. Are you here, John? I am. Okay. This is Jeff. I'm recused from this matter. Okay. So I'm going to, uh, John. This is recommended for consent. Do you have any issues with that? No. Okay. I believe I understand that there's a couple of outstanding, uh, permits. Mary, could you comment on, do you, do you have, you mentioned that they were listed. Um, I don't, I don't see them in the staff report, but. Um, John, they're attached to your open Gov account. Okay. I can provide them by email if that's easier for you. That'd be great. And then I'll just follow up with Charlene. Is that the idea? Yeah, you can work with Celeste to close those out. Oh, okay. Oh, great. Yeah. Hello, Celeste. We're here for you. So I've got to ask you if there's any members on the board that object to treating this as a consent item agenda. No, is anybody here on the public Scott to speak on this one? I'd like to speak to 44 lakeside, raise your hand. We just got their hand up Brad and I don't see anyone raising it now. Okay. So, uh, does somebody want to make a motion on 44 lakeside Avenue? I'll make the motion, Brad. I'll make the motion. I'll make the motion. I'll make the motion. I'll make sure that we approve the application and adopt staff findings and recommendations. The second on that. Chase. Great. Any discussion. Uh, All in favor. One, two, three, three, four. So we got four in favor. Okay. It's approved, John. Thank you very much. Have a good evening. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. The next item is, uh, 426 South Manuski Avenue application for a bed and breakfast within an existing ADU. Uh, it's Scott and Stephanie mates is, uh, somebody here. Yeah, Scott. Here. Scott. Scott, this is recommended for consent. Are you okay with that? I am. Okay. Anybody on the board object to treating this as a consent and item. No, but Brad, I'm also recused from this one. Well, okay. Bye, Jeff. Um, Is there anybody in the public here for this one, Scott? Um, no one's got their hand up. Okay. So does somebody want to make a motion on, uh, 426 South Manuski. I'll make another motion. Great work. I move that we adopt. I'm sorry that we approve the application adopt staff findings and recommendations. Second. Chase. Good teamwork. Uh, Any discussion. So all in favor. Yeah, we're bare bones there for nothing. Okay. Um, thank you. Yeah. And we have one more, um, bed and breakfast, and the next one is two 73 showburn street, Terry and Giovanna, your ranga is the applicant here for this one. Yes. I'm Giovanna. I don't know if you can. Giovanna. Um, have you seen the staff report and the recommendation for approval? Um, I have. And are you okay with that? Well, two things that I was not aware of. I was not aware that that permit was open until now. Um, I thought that Giovanna, this is, this is one of those things that happens because I think a lot of people. Turn out not to know that they have open permits. Right. Yeah. Yeah. One was from 2016. Yeah. From for the windows. That was done by CEDO. Uh, when I apply for help. And so I was not aware that that permit was open until now. Um, I was not aware that they have open permits. Right. And, um, this is a chance for the city to, uh, To have people close those permits. So. So I have started across the process. I received a notification earlier today to pay the closing fees. So I'm, um, I'm going to do that. Okay. Um, I think that was one, the other one was something regarding. Um, Um, Uh, Adequate water and sewer. Um, I believe that's a standard. Yes. So I submitted a letter from, um, Steve Roy, who certifies that, um, That there is definitely adequate water and sewage in the property. So we're going to have a, uh, Uh, I think, Um, I think we're going to have to make a copy of this. This is a long, long-term project. Uh, But for us to approve it, we can approve it with those conditions. So. That's okay. Does anybody on the board object to treating this one as a consent item? Anybody in the public here for this one, Scott. Raise your hand if you'd like to speak to this item. Going, going on. Nope. Okay. then you just have to finish up those items that are on that list. Like I said, I've already started the process for closing the firm. Sounds good. So can I have a motion on this application? I can make a motion on this. Okay. On ZP 2249, 273 Shelburne Street, I move to accept the recommendations and adopt staff findings. And a second on this one? I'll second. It's the same team. Good. Thank you. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. It's approved. So Giovanna, it's approved and you just have to follow up on those conditions and you'll be all set. Thank you very much. I will follow up with Celeste. I believe I've spoken with her about this before. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Okay, so we have a public hearing now for 911 Germaine Street. Bob Kiss and Jackson Majoris for a bed and breakfast with a one space parking waiver. Is the applicant here for that with this one? Yes, Jackie Majoris is here. Okay. Is there anybody else who's gonna speak on this one, Scott? Are you in the public? If anyone else wants to speak to this item, raise your hand please. And Jackie, is it just you for the applicant team? Yes. Okay. So I think it's just Jackie, Brad. Okay. So Jackie, I would swear you in. Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth on the pain and penalty or perjury? Yes. Okay. I'm having my own technical difficulties here. So you're requesting a one space parking waiver? I am. And can we put up the site plan, Scott? Sure. I got my thing working now. Good. So I'm gonna disadvantage because I can't open up my files here. The BNB requires one extra space for the two plus and the house plus one additional. Am I correct in this? Mary, is this your project? It's mine and it requires five spaces two for the owner's unit and three for the three bedrooms in the other unit. Okay. Just now being able to open my documents here. And so how many spaces are on the site now? We recognize three. The site plan suggests four, but the driveway to the right of the house is not that long. As evidenced in the street photo that's also loaded onto the DRB page. So you can't park outside of the front yard setback? Is that the issue? I'm not sure I followed, but the driveway on the right is long enough to accommodate one car. So technically the way I've seen it and reviewed it, I see three legit parking spaces on site. The duplex already triggers a four space requirement. So if it was a two bedroom short-term rental on the other unit, the same number of parking spaces would be required for that as is today for the duplex. By adding a third bedroom as a short-term rental on that unit, you have to up the parking count up to five. So that kind of creates the one space parking waiver. I guess I'm confused, Ryan. The note staff report say there are four parking spaces. The same as in the current use, but it sounds like you're saying there are only three spaces. I'd have to go back and check, but I hope that I hinted at that there was a credit of four because the parking requirement for the duplex today is four. Even if they didn't have three space, even though they have three physical spaces on site, the parking credit is four because the proposed change of use, if it were a two bedroom short-term rental would not up the existing parking demand. Whereas by having a third bedroom, it creates an additional parking space, if you can follow that. So Ryan, in the case of two tandem spaces plus, so they have four spaces and they need one more. Is that right? Yeah, by the members, yes. In the right driveway? By both driveways, but the driveway on the right of the house is not today per the evidence and the applicant's confirmation that's only supports one parking space. The site plan suggests that it would support two. Is it 30 feet deep Ryan? That's the issue. Is it 39 feet deep Ryan? Yeah, that's the way it reads, yes. Okay, so that's long enough for two under present parking standards. So they're shy of one space, it seems like. My point is the site plan isn't accurate. Oh, okay. Sorry, if you go to the street, sorry, if you go to the street view back up a page Scott, you go to the street view, you can see that the driveway on that side is one space deep. Let's go to the photos, yeah, it's that one. The next one down, you'll go down a page. There. It's hard to see it's black and white, but behind that scooter, is grass and a small walkway. So it's not paved all the way back there. So they can, and the applicants provided photos that they can park. Obviously you can put a car back there that's too deep, but it equates to what appears to be parking on grass, which is an legit parking space. Jackie, did you have a comment on that? I do. I mean, I think the whole discussion about the parking space has been pretty confusing throughout the process. And I might have added to the confusion, but just to sort of clarify on the nine germane side of the house, there's a driveway with a garage at the back of it. That driveway is 56.5 feet long. So in fact, it could accommodate three cars. We don't usually ever have three cars there. We have two cars. And so I sort of call it a parking space for two cars, but in fact, it could accommodate three cars. It's paved all the way back to the garage on the 11 germane street side. And I'm gonna take just a minute to give a little history. When we moved into the house, there was a carport in the backyard. The driveway and 11 germane extended beyond the house to the carport. That driveway was cinder, gravel, and dirt. And over time, we took down the carport, we brought in soil in the backyard so we could have grass. It took a really long time, but we left that back space of the driveway pretty much as it was. So it's marginally maintained, but it's always been sort of a parking space, but it's not used that often, but it is a functional parking space. There is no walkway there. The photo that was taken in 2014 shows the tenant's scooter. And behind it, I'm not even sure what the tenant put there, but it could have been either cardboard where he thought he was gonna store the scooter or a board, but that was nothing permanent. It hasn't been there for years. And there's really no grass there. There are some weeds there. And over time, we actually took some extra fieldstone and sort of tried, after this photo was taken and placed it randomly in that spot to sort of help define that parking space. So even though it's not used often, it is a functional parking space. It's not a grassy area. And we think that that driveway can accommodate two cars and always has been a driveway. We haven't really changed it. And it accommodates two cars and in fact, the driveway on the other side of the house could accommodate three cars because it's paved all the way down to the garage. Okay, thank you. And Ryan, I'm trying to understand what you had said before. Is what you said before that they have credit for four spaces because of the zoning changed and they would be credited for having four spaces whether they have them or not. Is that sort of what you said? Hard to explain, but the point is that if the applicant were requesting a two bedroom short-term rental in 11 Germain, the other unit, that two bedroom short-term rental would still trigger two space requirement, whereas the current duplex requires two spaces for that unit anyways. So there's no change or increase in demand for a two bedroom short-term rental, but by having a third bedroom, a three bedroom short-term rental in the other unit that brings up to five parking spaces requirement which is an increase to what normally would have been accepted as four spaces that currently serve the duplex or the demand for the existing duplex. Retention of non-conformity, Brad. Say that again. I think it's just about retention of non-conformity, right? Flex requires four spaces. This predates the four space requirement. It happens to have three, right? So it's the non-conformity can be retained but not expanded. But isn't that the issue that it has more than three spaces now? Oh, I'll defer to Ryan, but I think that's why the parking waiver is coming into play. Well, I mean, correspondence with the applicant, there's whatever history, there's nothing to prove that as far as old zoning permits and site plans, there's nothing that shows a two space deep parking or driveway on that side of the structure. To me, it looks like there's not driveway behind that scooter. That was my initial intake. I asked the applicant about it early on in the process. I mean, one response was that there was indeed three spaces. So it's, I don't know, it's not entirely clear. You know, if it's, yeah. Okay, so, and you didn't have any, there's no permits that define how many spaces they had. Correct. One parking space waiver, Ryan, you're assuming one space on the nine side and three cars on the 11 side. Is that what you're saying? The 11 side requires three spaces where you wanna put the waiver. I'm just, no, I'm looking at the site plan. I'm not, I'm looking at the site plan and saying on the driveway on the left has three cars, the driveway on the right has one car according to you and that's four spaces, right? That's the one space parking waiver. Right, yeah. We can only count two tandem spaces in one driveway in each driveway. So four existing, or? I still don't understand how you're getting to the four, Ryan. You're saying there's only one, there's only one on the right-hand side and we can only count two on the left-hand side because you can't park triple tandem. You can't park triple, exactly. So there's two, hard to explain. I mean, Scott said it's an existing non- It's an non, yeah, it's existing non-conformity. So it's existing duplex, non-conforming parking situation but it's existing. So therefore there's a four space credit, if you will, to say that you get four spaces to accommodate the existing duplex, albeit in a non-conforming parking manner. So there's the four credit. That's the one parking space waiver. That's the one parking space waiver. I guess I see it differently, it's a non-conformity, they required four, they only have three but it's a pre-existing non-conformity. So we can't enforce the four on them for the existing use. But they are asking for additional, they need at least four for this new use. And the city doesn't recognize four actual spaces. Like it seems like we are expanding a non-conformity even if we granted the waiver. Well, the applicant is presenting with a case that they actually have tandem on the right-hand side too. Fair enough. And the only picture we have of that is that one in the driver with a motor scooter in it, right? Yeah. Correct, yeah. Okay. Maybe Jackie could tell us a little bit more about how the rentals gonna occur when the parking plan is, our two spaces gonna be assigned to the Airbnb side. I guess a question that too, and that it sounds like from your letter that you've been, that's been used as a long and a short-term rental for about 30 years. How has parking worked out in that time? So generally everyone who both long and short-term they park in the driveway. We very rarely have, I don't think we've ever had a long-term guests, long-term guests in the last three years that have more than one car. People park in the driveway. Cars actually make complicated matters even more. The only time we've ever had three cars is right now. We have three travel nurses and they are parking two cars in the driveway, generally one car in the street and occasionally one car or one car in our driveway. But that's the only time in the past 30 plus years that we can remember ever having either short or long-term tenants with three cars. Most often it's just one car and they park in the driveway. It has not been an issue. And again, I think this whole issue has been pretty confusing and maybe Ryan and I didn't communicate as well as we could have with one another. But when I was talking about, when he was saying I said that we only use three spaces, that's really what I meant. Like in general, we're only using three spaces. I wasn't talking about capacity because I think we have the capacity to park more. We have capacity of our two cars on the 11th side and three cars on the nine terrain side. I was just talking about how most often now we use it. We use most often we're just using one space on the 11 and two spaces on nine. And the aerial photo I think is just misleading. As I said, it was 2014. I have no idea what was placed behind the motorcycle the area is hard packed. It's not grass. It's very hard to grow anything there except maybe some occasional weeds that we pull out or and we just always use it as a parking space when needed. And I did submit photos of people. Our guests now have been parking in the driveway during the winter. And I did add to the submission a photo of the driveway in the winter. It's in the winter. So it might not be that helpful but it shows the two cars, their two cars parked in the driveway and then the driveway with just one car parked way in the back. How many cars do you have Jackie? One, thank God. Well, it sounds like we're making a decision based on 2014 photograph. Has anybody gone over there to do a site visit to see if the right hand side will pick two cars? I did submit photos. I'm looking to find them. Are there more than just the two photos that we have? I see them. Yes, they are. I didn't, fortunately, I didn't get that a little bit. I tried to upload them into the OpenGov platform. I assumed they were there. When I looked at it, it looked like they were there. Do you have them, Ryan? Yeah. And I emailed them to Ryan. I'm going to take a moment but I can retrieve them in the permit system if you want to. Good password, Scott. I made sure that it was turned off. Yeah. 9 to 11, is that right? Yeah. Bottom one, Scott. So the question for me was you can certainly fit cars back there. It's just a matter of is it a legit parking space to have that space? Was it there previously? Has it been removed? If it's dirt? If it's not gravel or paved, it might not necessarily fit the bill as a parking space where it would lead me to believe that that's not a legit parking space. But certainly you can fit a car back there. Well, the applicants contention is that there used to be a carport back there. It was a carport on this side or the other side of the house, Jackie. It was on this side because the garage was on the other side of the house. So the driveway just went back to the carport. So there was really very little in the backyard other than a driveway and a carport and a shed attached to the garage. So out of curiosity, on the site plan that you submitted, there's a line that marks the end of the driveway on that right hand side. What determined that line? So that line is the end of the house and we had planted, if you look at the site plan and you see that little dotted circle kind of thing, that's like a very sort of free form, feel stone patio on the far right hand side, right behind that last little bloop of dotted line. We have a large porch swing and then behind that is a rhododendron bush. So basically, the driveway extends like as far as you can go and before the rhododendron bush, before we did anything to dig it up or improve the soil. So that's how we came to that line. We sort of stopped and then we sort of started landscaping the backyard. So the porch swing and the rhododendron happened between the house and the property line? Yes, they do. Past the end of that driveway. Past the end of the driveway just to allow a little more privacy in the backyard. So there's really no easy pathway to the from that 11-grain driveway to the backyard. So there's no, I think Ryan said there was a walkway. There's no walkway. You can't really get back there because we kind of planted plantings there. And if you look at the picture of the motorcycle you can see a piece of wood kind of protecting the rhododendron when it was small. That was 14, whatever, how many years ago, eight years ago. But anyway, that's the end of the driveway or the beginning of the driveway, the end of the yard. Okay. Okay. So I guess I'll ask you if there's, the board has any other questions for the applicant on this one? Because I think we probably want to deliberate and then decide if we're gonna make a decision if we want to try to get more information. No, no more questions. Jackie, anything? Because I said, I think we'll deliberate and then see where the deliberation takes us. Anything else you want to add at this point, Jackie? No, I guess I just want to add that that driveway has been there since we purchased the house in 77 and we've never really changed that. We eliminated the driveway in the backyard but not the driveway next to the house. We've maintained it marginally and it's always been a parking space. Okay. Great. Thank you. Well, at that, I will close the public hearing. And like I said, we're probably to deliberate in a little bit. Thank you. Okay. We have one other item on our agenda, which is a certificate of appropriateness on 48 sunset cliff is the applicant here. For that one, Scott. Yeah, I see some folks from the applicant team. Is anyone else looking to talk, Mike? I believe Jack Milbank and from CEA and possibly Nate Goldman and Jeff Komuda from Birdseye. All right, I see Birdseye. Yeah, this is, this is Jeff at Birdseye. Okay. So we have Jack, Mike, Nate and Jeff. Is that right? Yeah. Keep track. Is there anybody from the public to speak on this one, Scott? So raise your hand. Somebody's got their hand up. Steve or a, I'm not sure who that is, but we'll, we'll find out. Can we find out who that person is? Yeah. And so whomever has the username Steve or a you can speak to us. Oh, hi. I'm just, Anne Stiber, my mother, Ellen Cawthills is an adjacent homeowner. We just had a question about how the sea walls are going to be connected. Okay. So we'll, we'll swear you in with everybody else and you can ask your question then. Okay. Okay. So, is that Anne, Steve or? Stiber. Stiber. Okay. And Jack, Mike, Nate, Jeff, if you will all swear to tell the truth and hold truth on the pain of penalty of perjury. I do. I do. Okay. So this is an application to repair the seawall and take down the existing house. Right. And you're going to come back later with another application for, to build the house. So I am. I understand that correctly. Yes, that's correct, Brad. Okay. And maybe we could bring up that plan of the seawall, Scott, and have somebody from the applicant team sort of walk us through that. Okay. This is Mike Cotch from Civil Engineering Associates. Just want to give everyone an idea of where this property is located. I have an idea of where this property is in Burlington. If you're driving north on North Avenue and you make a left onto Star Farm Road and you continue driving in a westerly direction, you cross over the bike path and the road becomes a private road, which is called Sunset Cliff Road. You keep going and the house is going to be on your right. There is an existing single family house there with an existing seawall that has numerous failures. If Scott could bring up the existing condition photos, please and maybe scroll through those just to give the board an idea of the condition of the current seawall out there. So that is looking from the water back towards the house. You can see there's an access staircase that's actually owned by the Sunset Cliff HOA. They have a narrow strip of land that's their beach access and underneath those canoes or kayaks on the left of the photo, there's a silver one and a blue and yellow one. That's actually the neighboring seawall. So you could see that the adjoining property owner has an existing concrete seawall and then you have this existing seawall at 48 Sunset Cliff, which is in quite a state of disrepair and failure. And obviously the landowners don't want to see a complete failure. They want to protect their investment in this property. And then if you could scroll down to some of the other photos you'll see the existing house which we're applying for demolition. And then you can also see some more of the failing seawall and cracks. And if you scroll down some more you can see part of the seawall looks like it's actually toppled over. And then right around where that aluminum boat lift is is around the property line. And then all the way to the right of that photo you can see the neighbor's concrete seawall there that starts going up at quite an angle. Notice that the beach is mostly made up of ledge and broken up ledge. It's not a sand beach and I might circle back on that later. If we could just scroll down a little bit more you can really get a feel for the condition of this seawall and why it's really past due for replacement. We suspect that the existing seawall did not have adequate drainage and that's why it failed. And we are seeking to replace it with another seawall that's concrete replacing it in kind so to speak because the two adjoining properties have existing seawalls that are concrete. And we do believe that this one with some adequate drainage installed behind in this case that would be crushed stone and some piping. We'll add to the longevity of the future seawall as well as the stability of this part of shoreline in Burlington. So yeah, looking at these photos you get a real appreciation for what we're working with here right now. There's an existing wooden deck there. The elevation of that is 105.4 and that's also gonna be the elevation of the top of wall for a proposed seawall. So that gives you an idea of kind of the scale of it. So looking at those photos I think everyone has an understanding. That's a photo of the front of the house down there. And that we are applying to demolish. And we actually just this afternoon submitted a zoning permit application for the replacement house, which I'm sure staff will review when there's a moment and we'll meet before you again to permit the replacement single family residence. But right now, if you think of this as a two-phase project, phase one is right now, which is the removal of the existing failed seawall and the replacement of it and then the demo of the existing house. Phase two will be a proposed replacement single family residence there. We've been working on behalf of the landowners, the zactors with Bird's Eye in developing these plans and the proposed construction. And we have met with the conservation board and received their approval. And that is pretty much my introduction to the project and just wanted to see if anyone had any questions or if Scott perhaps had anything to add to that. I have a question for you that I'm trying to understand. Your concrete seawall on the right side I don't know if you call it the north side go slightly past your property line to that stare for the association to meet an existing concrete wall it looks like I'm reading the plans, right? On the left side or maybe the south side it stops short of your property line. And that's where the gabans are that you're cutting. And I'm not sure what the wall is behind that. It says NC, I don't know what that is. And so I'm trying to figure what happens the termination on the other side of your wall is there a wall that you're connecting to behind these gabans? Yes, there is an existing concrete seawall which does cross over onto our property line on the west side. Okay, that was everybody apparent in the photos. So what are the gabans doing there? See what we've got all the concrete behind it. They are lower down in elevation. I think we can take a look at that existing condition photo. I don't know how well it details that part of the property because there are quite a few cedars there. But I'll also wanted to see if Jack Milbank had any input on the existing gabans that are there in relation to the concrete seawall. The gabans were placed I'm sure when they were originally set to soften that corner of the wall for wave action they kind of absorbed some of the energy and in our proposed conditions plan those will get replaced in that corner. And really there'll be no change. I'm not sure what sheet I'm looking at here but it looks like they've been removed for, oh, that's on that plan. There's a note that they're gonna get replaced one section of the plan. But anyway, the two ends of the wall get tied into existing concrete with a reinforcement with some rebar and so we don't create voids between the properties. And we do have a permission. We did get the homeowners association has agreed to letting us tie in under their stairway. Is there any questions? Do any other members of the board have questions for the applicants on this one? Seeing everybody so I don't, I can't see everybody's hands. So if Sonya has questions speak up. No. I do, Brad. It looks like this new wall has a different feature in it, the ramp that maybe was not there in the original design. Is that considered a new encroachment or is you just tell us a little bit about that new feature? Yeah, you are correct that the ramp is a new feature. The old wall did have a set of stairs allowing beach access for the homeowners. And if we pull up the existing conditions site plan, you can see the footprint of the existing wall. And then I guess we could refer, revert back to the proposed conditions. And the thing that was important about the ramp is we're going to be removing the deck and those stairs, those that had to be taken up seasonally for high water and replacing it with a ramp. But it's we're not going lakeward. We're not actually going any further. We've reconfigured it with a ramp instead of steps. And but we're not encroaching lakeward. I guess the edge of your wall on the outside of the ramp, the lakeside of the ramp, is that no closer than the edge of the existing retaining wall? It's no closer. Any other questions? I have a, this is just a curiosity question for maybe for Jack, is there a lakeside property line that exists or where does one assume is that by elevation of the lake? It's by deed in almost not every situation, but on lakefront properties, property lines extend to a term, which is called low water. And low water can mean many, many things. It's really a legal interpretation. And, you know, it goes to case law and depending on what situation you're in, but the answer to your question is no, if certain practices is live, those till they converge on each other. That's your property. But we know the lake is subject to public trust. And that's why low water is so vague. Okay. As I said, it's more curious than anything else on it. Yeah. Okay. Any other. And the neighbor who was here. Did your question get answered in this process? She's still here. Yep. Sorry, I was on mute. Yes. Good. So you felt your question. Good. And can I get your mailing address? Sure. Three. Rosedale road. West Hartford, Connecticut. Oh, 6107. What was the zip? Oh, 6, 0, 6, 1, 0, 7. Okay. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So if there aren't any questions from the board, if the applicant has nothing else to add at this point. True. That's correct. Yes. Okay. We will close the public area and we will probably deliberate in a few minutes on this one. Great. And I think that is. All business we have. Is that right, Scott? That's all the business we have. That's right. Okay. I just want to talk briefly and deliberation about. Meeting format moving forward. Sure. You can do that. We do that. In the meeting too. Can't we? Absolutely. So, so your question is, do we have an opinion about. Zoom in person or hybrid? Or do you have a suggestion on that? So most boards are moving back towards the hybrid model. The legislation, as I understand it, enables fully remote through the end of the year. But with things seemingly calming down again, the math mandate is gone. As I say, a number of boards are moving back towards hybrid. So pine street. Physical location. And I know applicants in particular, like the remote option. I'm just out of here. How does staff feel about this? Because that's a fair question. You know, I, it's easier to be fully remote, but, you know, we're staff, right? We're here to support you guys to do what you want to do. Okay. And, uh, I mean. Well, Any opinions from the board. It's here today. I prefer fully remote. I prefer fully in person because I found some of the times the hybrid was. Confusing. So. I wouldn't be a proponent of the hybrid model. I, I guess my experience tends to agree with your books that, um, they found the hybrid. More challenging than, than this, even this time on my iPad today. Um, but. I go either way with it. People felt strongly one way or the other. Anybody else have an opinion on this? I, I didn't mind the hybrid so much. Um, or. I guess I would petition be the hybrid or, or remote. Um, In terms of just allowing flexibility for attendance. I've just found it to be. More convenient. I don't have a strong opinion. You like to have some people come in person. Or have that. Yeah. Yeah. More people came, I suppose a little easier, but. Jeff, did you. I don't have a strong opinion. Um, it does seem like hybrid was clunky the beginning. I felt like we got better at the end. Um, I think I'd go with the flow. Sean. I don't have a strong opinion on the hybrid, but I would prefer the remote. And what's going to determine this Scott. Let's just kind of say you guys are supposed to be decisive, right? You guys are quasi judicial. And I'm hearing a lot of, well, you know, whatever. I don't have a case in front of us. Yeah. Right. Well, look, let's stick with fully remote. I mean, we can do that. Uh, that seems to be the overlap between the comments I'm hearing. I mean, I don't have a strong opinion on the hybrid. Um, but I agree that, I mean, I, I like in person. I'm sort of willing to move in that direction. But if. You know, I'd rather wait a month or two and. See whether we're, whether that looks likely that we're going to be building up to actually in person meetings or. Right. We can always change, right? Down the line. Right. We've got until December to. Figure out a different way to do it. If you want. Okay. Well, continue on remote for a while. Okay. We're going to close our meeting. Record. Are you recused on this, Jeff? I'm not recused on this one. Okay. We'll go ahead. All right. Move that we approve the application adopt staff findings and recommendations. I second Jeff. Okay. Any discussion on this one. All in favor. I. Okay. I'll move on. I'm not recusing. Five 9 to 11 germane street. I moved that way. Approve the application adopts. That's findings and recommendations. And. And approve the one parking space waiver. On this site. Is there a second on that. Book seconds. And I actually wanted to go back and look at staff's recommendations. Yeah, so if they were recommending conditional use approval here. So any discussion on the motion. Would you be open to making clear that the parking for the BNB has to be provided on the BNB side. And the owner parking on the other side. So there's no confusion in the tandem parking. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's fine with me. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Any other discussions? Well, okay. All in favor. Well, passed. Okay. Well. Good. And then the last. Recording in progress. On ZP 22 dash 12. It's 48 sunset cliff road. I move that we approve the application and adopt snaps findings. Okay. Second on that. Okay. I don't look at one thing. Okay. I was just looking at the. So they have three years, it looks like. To. For the house replacement. Is that correct, Mary? I'll answer it. Yeah, they do is the short answer by the applicant representative submitted the new application. So they, they have that time. Otherwise they're going to lose the. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Any other discussion? All in favor. Post. We will see you all on. Stop. We'll see you all on the next slide. Thank you. Okay. And I'm in favor. Post. We will see you all on.