 Well good evening everybody and thank you for joining us seven o'clock so we'll get started. My name is Kate McCarthy I'm the chair of Montpelier Development Review Board tonight is June 7 and this is a hearing of City of Montpelier DRB. Thank you all for being here I appreciate it. I hope it's cool wherever you are sitting. Though, regardless of that we will try to make this a comfortable experience and efficient one that also gives people a chance to be heard. So, what I would like to do is introduce the other DRB members and others who are here helping us this evening. And then we'll, we'll move on to the move through the agenda so I introduce myself. Next I'd like to introduce Abby White. Thanks Abby and Rob Goodwin is a DRB member. Oh, Rob, and Jean Leon is also a DRB member. Hello. Hi, Jean. And then Michael Lizorchak is the other member of the DRB hearing applications and appeals this evening. Good evening and Kate I apologize for missing the last meeting without telling you. What happened? I was not present either, but we, we collectively appreciate you're mentioning it. It's good to have you here. And we're staffed this evening by Meredith Crandall our zoning administrator, who many of you know. As well as Mike Miller says planning director. Hey there Mike. We're being recorded or comedians recording this evening. Good night in TV. Good evening out there in TV land. And we have our minutes taken by our recording secretary Tammy. So with that, welcome. And I will turn it over next to Meredith to review our procedures in this remote environment. All right, so first things first, if it's noisy and there's weird background noise, let me know because we do have the AC is all that put in in the building so I can turn it off if I need to. All right, I'm going to share screen. So this is a run through largely for people who are viewing or go from home but we do have some people who I think are fairly new to the zoom board hearing procedures. So I'm going to go through in a little more detail on some of those procedures then I have been lately when we haven't really had members of the public present. All right, so for those of you in this meeting via Orca media, you can participate in the DRB meeting via the zoom platform. You can use this link here and I'll leave this up on the screen for a little bit. Sorry, got somebody email me about China kid in which goes to the if you're having problems accessing the meeting email me here. You can also call this number here. If I send you a Steve's email, can you email him the link. I'll get to it in just a minute. All right, so there's that. If anybody's in the meeting is having difficulty accessing the video conferencing features then please chat use the chat function and zoom to talk to me about that. It's being recorded as well as streamed live via Orca media, of course, turning on your video is optional, all public testimony will be taken verbally. Please reserve the chat function for just those troubleshooting or logistics problems, although the chat will be added to the public record if it's used. Please keep your microphone on mute when you're not speaking this reduces background noise. If anyone is participating by phone we don't tonight have anybody doing that but if anybody does and calls in, you can use star six to let you mute or unmute everybody on zoom see that as well. If there's anybody attending who's interested in speaking on a particular matter. And right now I know who those people are but you can do this separately. When you're ready to speak please raise your hand, you can do that physically if you're using the video function, or you can use the raise hand button on your toolbar. You can use call who calls in on the phone, you can press star nine and this will do a little raise hand in our zoom feature so that we can see that for some reason none of those options are working for you. Feel free to unmute yourself during a pause in the discussion and state your name. When you do are recognized by the chair, please unmute your microphone confirm that you can be heard and make sure to provide your full name and address for the record. If you're interested in those people who are commenting as interested parties, not necessarily applicants, as we know who you are and what your addresses are. If you do make comments on a matter we're going to ask that you please keep those comments to two minutes board members will then have the opportunity to respond to your comments or ask questions of you, and the applicant may also have an additional time for speakers who have follow up questions or comments. And when you're done speaking we ask that everybody need their microphones again. You know you can, if you speak and you have comments and then later you have further comments on something that you didn't know about or is just something later in the agenda. You will have the opportunity to speak again but please wait until the chair recognizes you. In the event the public is unable to access this meeting, it will be continued to a time and place certain. If anyone is having connectivity issues try turning off your video or closing other applications on your phone or computer. And for anybody who is trying to hold on. You can get to the meeting packet materials. You can download them using this link this is both for those at home and anybody who did not pull the meeting packet prior to the meeting. Or is having problems seeing the share screen, you can get everything that we're looking at that was submitted prior to tonight's hearing on the city website. Please note that all votes taken during this meeting will be done by roll call vote. And I will now hand the meeting back over to the chair. Very good. Thank you, Meredith. All right, what we will do next. Our next item on our agenda is the approval of the agenda. Is there a motion to approve the agenda as printed. So moved. Motion by Abby is there a second. Second motion. Second by Jean. Thank you. I'll call the roll. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. And I vote yes as well. We have approved the agenda. Thank you. Comments from the chair. I'll just say briefly, this applies to all applications and I will say it again, but just to be just to say up front. We've done all of our deliberations in a closed session. It's helped us reach better decisions. It's helped us interact more effectively given the sometimes awkwardness of the zoom environment. And I want to confirm and assure people that we've been doing this for all applications, whether simple or complex. So when you see your application voted into deliberative session, it's not a reflection on your application. It's the process that we have been using. So we have a discussion that is not a reflection of the agenda. So that's a good issue or a written decision as soon as possible after the hearing concludes to keep things moving along. So I wanted to share that so that people are not surprised. The next item on the agenda is our minutes. We do not have enough people here who were in attendance at the May 17th meeting to vote on those minutes. So I'd like to move those to our next meeting, please. So the next item of business, which is 393 Gould Hill Road review construction of a new barn on steep slopes. So the way that we're going to do this, just to get a little more specific about the overview that Meredith provided is I will swear in the witnesses who anyone who wants to talk on the application. I'll turn to the applicant Justin McCabe for an overview, a brief overview and anything that he wants to add. And then typically what we do is we walk through the staff report, which highlights items for discussion and we focus especially on those items where that merit more discussion and less on those that don't. So that's where we're headed. So with that, in addition to the applicant is anyone here to be heard on this application. Okay. Justin, what I will have you do please is raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury. I do. Thank you very much. So I'll turn to Meredith for a brief overview of the application. Thank you, Kate. As you said, this application is for construction of a barn on steep slopes. That's the reason this is here for the board. There's really for the board's determination, it's really focused on the steep slopes. And how that interacts with the original control and stormwater provisions. That's really the main issue here before the board. And there were some specific comments on the EPSC and site plan from the department of public works that I flagged for the board. And it really that the crux of it would be on page eight of the staff report where there are some potential conditions of approval for the board to take a look at where we just want to make sure in that all the erosion controls that need to be in place are in place. And that stormwater isn't being directed off the parcel. But the good thing is, here in this situation, we're dealing with slopes that go towards the back of the parcel itself. We're not worried about stormwater going into the street or anything like that. But those they are some things to take a look at. Thanks Meredith. So the next I'll turn to Justin welcome. Would you like to give us a tell us a little bit about your project. Yeah, thank you so much and thank you all for your service. I really appreciate being here tonight. I'm going to try a little screen share here and see if I can make that work. I'm a visual person. So he makes a little bit easier. Can folks see my screen. Yes. So, so this is the barn is a rendering of the barn that I'm envisioning having built on my property. You can see this dark gray line right here is the is the my driveway representation of my driveway. The barn itself is about 28 by 35 in total to timber frame barn built by timber homes of Vermont just on the road on Elm Street. And the slope we're dealing with is right on the front. So this is a called a three story structure. In essence, so there is a drive in portion on the bottom check and rotate this around to see. So that's a drive in portion where I hope to put tractor for a property. The main level here is actually where cars will park our cars and the top will be a workshop for myself. So we're using the natural topography of the land as it sort of sit as it sits right now to do the structure and to get these three levels out of it. This slope here is not representative of the actual slope on the property is actually a little bit steeper in this again it's just a representation sort of what we're dealing with. But this is the primary reason we're here before the board today. Because it's naturally today. So we're using that natural contour as part of the barn design. The two, there were two issues that were brought up by the DPW when they have reviewed the plants. One was the location of the silk barrier. Don Marsh and Grenier. I don't know if they're rest their name but had done these plans for me the erosion control plans, the initial severe. Can you see the silk barrier drawings now. I can can others. Yes, I didn't know if it's switched or if I had locked it onto that Google Google Sketchup. The original silk barriers are very close to the back edge of the barn. He moved them out at DPW request and then noted that the construction contractor will have to move these periodically as they're getting in and out of that area and doing the foundation work so this was the first first piece of their request. The second part of their request was the the drains the drainage around the barn. The initial drainage had two outlet pipes. One sitting where the present one is, and then another coming along this side of property which has been closer to Steve and arena golds property to the south area. Now we've circled it around at DPW request such that it's further away from the boundary line from Steve and arena, and there is actually a mound septic system here as well. So there's actually a there will be a pretty good diversion for any stormwater coming out or drainage coming off of the barn in that back area. The other thing I wanted to note, as far as the disclosure is, we initially submitted a set of engineering plans foundation plans with this and stamp plans on talking with our contract our concrete contractor, Scott Hutchins. And hammered with how they were set up. So he and the engineer are working together to, there's a lot of structural steel in it, and they, they're redesigning it so there will be a new set of engineer plans stamp engineer plans as part of the final package. But that's currently under under review right now as part of this project. So, okay, with that I'm happy to sort of answer any questions that folks have. Thanks, Justin. Maybe we can get back to seeing each other when you're done sharing your screen. There we go. Thanks. I would ask just one quick question off the bat. When the foundation plans are we do the two different foundation plans have any different impacts on the way the slope is modified. No, they will not it has to deal with whether the, the, they're doing different types of footers at the front of the barn to hold the bank back on the driveway. So the original one used a lot of structural steel. I, this is what I've been told, this is a little third hand here but used a lot of structural steel which made it very hard for Scott's team to get in there and work. So this is going to use more of a step foundation, which I guess is also another traditional method to retaining the bank and making sure that nothing happens on the driveway and to the barn itself. But otherwise all the excavation, the amount of excavation everything else to be exact. Okay, thank you. Well, typically what we'll do is just head through the staff report but before we do do any any DRB members have, have questions about the presentation so far. Right, so let's move on to the staff report. I'm just going to walk through it so we start by looking at the general standards and the steep slopes are one portion of the general standard but before we get to those there some kind of basics that we want to confirm our, our met. And those are the use standards, the single family dwelling and the accessory structure are allowed uses in this district. And those uses meet the dimensional stand the requirements for the dimensions setbacks size of the lot, the accessory structures meet those two. There are no changes. Yes, so those are all met. So we're going to look at the riparian areas, something that we look at and in this case there is a stream on the parcel amount stream, and you can see that on page five of staff report. The barn proposed structure is outside the 50 foot setback that is required so that stream is avoided and meets the regulations. And in wetlands and vernal pools it's not applicable they're not present on the site. So I'll pause there. Those are the basic general standards. Do DRB members have any questions about those. Great. So that will bring us into section 3007 which is the steep slopes that bring us here this evening. It sounds like this impacts 509 square feet of steep slopes that are over that 30%. Right. All right, okay. So just a reminder to folks we do this to protect public safety and property including neighboring properties, make sure that runoff and flooding and water quality are not exacerbated or damaged. So we have this hearing requirement and then we also have the plans we reviewed as part of the requirement and the standards that we need to go through to make sure they're met. So, as Meredith noted, an applicant noted we received comments from DPW the Department of Public Works. And so maybe we just we've talked about the Silt location we've talked about the drain line. So it's noted that there isn't a grading plan submitted or a before and after slopes before slopes after. Could could you tell us a little bit about just describe how the slope is going to change. So where the barn is actually going to be constructed it will be basically impounded with a with the concrete foundation on the outside of the barn will actually be using the natural topography again. So it should look very similar to the original slope on the periphery. Great, we often do require a before and after with topos and I think there's kind of a before in the in the slope and part of in the slopes plan, or we might ask if you would consider a condition to include a before and after slopes plan as as a condition of the of the permit. Okay, thank you. And this is fresh week we asked the same of another applicant, four weeks ago. Like I said, I don't expect it to change and I don't know the distance that from the drive top of the driveway to the bottom of the slope really only talking about a 20 foot travel. Yeah, total so it's, it's, it's, I don't know where you will actually tell another on the plan but we'll do it for sure. Thanks. Okay, so that kind of covers the recommendations or comments from DPW. So, if it pleases the board I think we should move through the standards for sleep, steep slopes. Okay, and I just like to go through these in some detail. So forgive the reading but I think it's important to be thorough. So, the first standard is to limit the amount of disturbance, the clearing of existing natural vegetation and impervious surface in order to minimize the potential for erosion storm water runoff flooding and water quality impairment. And what we received in our materials is that this will actually improve erosion control and how is that going to do that. So it is a fairly steep slope. And so my driveway actually comes off good Gould Hill Road, a significant amount. So the current water travel actually comes across my driveway and down the slope and washes. The vegetation that is there and then there since you know we moved in is not sufficient really to control what's happening on the edge of my driveway. As it stands and so this will actually buttress where the water is currently going to actually give it a direction, because the water will flow basically into the front of the barn, then into the drainage and then around and down through on the backside so that should improve erosion or on the side of the, on the side of that property. Trying to picture that. Originally I thought if we put a barn where the water usually goes the water might go faster in other directions and create deeper channels say on either side of the barn but what I'm hearing you say is that the water is the barn is designed to take on water and drain it out. Right, it's going to come right to the front and then the whole barn is the support is going to be supported with gravel underneath, as well as the concrete foundation and it will come in to the front grab the drainage pipes and then go around the side, whereas currently right now it comes around the switchback, because it's about an 8% and my 8% grade going up to the school to a road. And so it comes down pretty quick and carbs out. So it's good to throw more fill on and trying to redirect it into different channels because it's, it gets going pretty quick. Thanks. Any questions about that. Don't let me do all the talking everybody. So the first of preserve distinctive natural features the general topography of the site and the existing natural vegetation. And the testimony is that that will be maintained including a nearby red maple, and you describe to how the, how the barn will maintain the topography in terms of the hill to either side of it that it's built into. Maintain or reduce the pre existing rate and retain the pattern of stormwater runoff leaving the property. And this is where DPW comment comes in. And the redirection is the redesign is such that less stormwater would be leaving the property than in the original design. It's going to be about the same as it is today and as you said it would be, it will not necessarily retain the pattern but it will maybe even improve the pattern. Right. There should be less flowing out to Steve and Irene's property direct as a direct director anyway he'll have a chance to absorb before it is there. Okay. Produce a final grade that's compatible with the surrounding natural terrain it's something you've described create a harmonious transition between graded slopes and the natural terrain. That's something you've described. And then that avoid creating continuous unbroken slopes or linear slopes. Will there be any new linear slopes created. That's why the rendering is actually a little bit of a misnomer right because it looks like a very linear trajectory. What'll happen is it'll follow the current slope which is fairly steep at the beginning, and then trail out just as it does today. So, there'll be a minimum of two slopes. Okay. It's not more to distinct. Okay, questions from board members about that. Obviously, you know, it's kind of like a cookie cutter here and whatnot we're just taking the foundation and cutting out the slope and filling it with a barn. But during construction, could you have any idea from your contractor for the builder about plans for sort of like where equipment will be stage if there's any like temporary excavation of the slope it's going to be needed. And then replaced, you know, just if you could shed a little light on that plan if you have any info. You know, Rob, I actually don't I'm sorry I don't have an idea of how much they're going to have to remove before they can put it in. I know they're planning doing all the work from the driveway. That's their current plan is they're going to try to fall from the driveway because of getting down to the bottom of that would run across my septic and do all sorts of other stuff. They're concerned about trying to be down there so they're, they're going to try to be up there. They may have to stage some fill forward have you, but I just don't know those details. Sorry. No, I think that makes sense and that's that's enough information so thank you. Okay, great. Thanks Rob. Other questions at this point. All right, we'll continue. The next standard is to contour contour graded slopes by varying the slope increment to produce final grade that undulates both vertically and horizontally. And this has been described as a goal of the project. So that it's not just a steep this or a steep that it's it's more natural. It's very cut and fill banks and terraces to produce a final grade that has visual interest allows for naturalistic landscaping. And what we've read is that it's too small an area for terracing to really be a part of it. But it says that integrating the structure and landscaping to put the rest of property will be completed. And I didn't see the details on the landscape and could you just say very briefly what what that will include and and whether that has additional stormwater or original control benefits. So it probably won't include much honestly, because the original trees are so close. So there's a red maple and there's a couple of elm trees that are also part of the project that were asked you to ask trees that are the barn is kind of sliding right in between them. And then with, you know, the natural grasses and everything else that fill in here will probably plant but it's mostly going to be those trees that will keep. So, until such time as they don't, you know, don't. Yeah, any concern about impacting the roots of those trees during excavation process or how you might protect them. So I've talked with Scott I mean we've set up the barn, like he's like we're sufficient distance away from the red maple we're sufficient this way from the ash trees like he really feels like we kind of got a sweet spot. And we sized it that way to kind of keep that in that spot. So, they get to stay. That's good for the barn to barns foundation. Jean, did you. You answered my question I know you have brought that up in the casual overview about the vegetation and the landscape and keeping those trees and so you asked the same question I was about to ask Kate, thank you. Sorry, I should let you do that. Okay, so the next standard is to consider the use of retaining walls and terracing rather than cut and fill banks and it sounds like the foundation of the lower story of the barn is effectively a pertaining wall. Right. Okay. A few more standards here vary the pad elevations on sites with multiple structures to follow the natural terrain. It doesn't doesn't have multiple structures but the different floors kind of behave as different structures in different areas of the slope. And it will fit into the bank. The roads and drives is not applicable multi story building is being constructed. And then the split or multi level building form that step up or down the slope. Indeed, that is why we are here. Those are the design standards and then and Meredith did highlight for us about whether we wanted to get additional clarity on the linear slopes design standard and we talked a little about that Meredith is there anything else that was on your mind about that criterion. Not really. No. Okay. We talked about the official grading plan showing existing and proposed slopes. I'd like to get DRB members takes on the utility of that for public works benefit for record keeping. What a folks thing. I think that's a good idea. Just to see if, if how much the slope would be impacted change from or after. Before and after a condition is pretty reasonable. I think I mean I think I would be inclined to say the same thing because I feel like I'm usually one that does say this. I think that this applications actually, you know, use the cookie cutter analogy. Very, you know, different than the previous ones were reviewed of similar type. And because of, you know, if you were to draw a map of proposed contours of this you wouldn't be drawing any contours. All you would be doing was showing that was showing the building just because of, there's no actual, you know, grading or filling per se. In the previous application where there was a kind of retaining wall and they were backfilling behind it and whatnot and it was very unclear where they were going to be matching into existing grade and whatnot. But here it's like, it's just, it's actually that when it comes to disturbing see flows it's like the simplest way you could say like, okay, there's this zone here, or cutting a hole and putting a building in it. And so yeah, I do think this before and after but essentially the image and the map created for the four and after is going to be identical to what is already in the record. And so in the nation of like wherever possible to avoid the applicant from paying an engineer to just do another map but you know I do feel enough uniqueness with this application to set it apart from the others and not require that. Not require that at the structure. Okay. Thanks Rob that's very thoughtful and make makes a lot of sense and what do others think Michael you can weigh in, if you'd like. I don't agree with Rob I don't think we need any additional posts construction information from the. I don't think we need to take pictures for the record. I mean if it would probably make more sense you can actually see a little bit better in terms of what the slope actually looks like, and what it will look like at the end says like, because I can take a perspective. And it might give a little bit better visual actually what what it is. If that is simple if that is simple to do and then combined with the discussion that we've just had which is also now part of the record that could could suffice. Since you've expressed an openness to either taking pictures or having another map drawn I think perhaps in our deliberations we can we can determine whether the complexity of the application warrants one or the other. Do you have any questions for board members. Yes. Okay, not to create suspense or anything, but we have some good options and I appreciate that. All right, so we've talked about the footing drains we've talked about the sediment barrier locations and the steep slope design standards. Is there anything else in those areas that board members want to think more about or ask about if you have the information you need to make decisions. Okay, good. So the next section we'll look at is erosion control. This is where the silk barrier came in and we've talked about that a few times. And regarding stormwater management we've talked about that to the footing drain. So, in order, you know, we've just seen that as part of the record in this hearing it would be necessary to submit or that revised picture showing how the footing drain goes goes around and where it points to probably is a condition of the permit should should we approve it. Yep. Okay. The standards having to do with access and circulation parking and loading and signs don't apply to this project so we'll move past them. Okay, so as I mentioned at the start of the meeting, we do take our deliberations into a deliberative session during this zoom environment zoom time in order to issue more effective decisions that we issue a written decision at the end. So at this point, I would entertain a motion from a DRB member to close the public hearing on this application and go into a deliberative session after the close of the public meeting. Is there a motion to that effect. Motion by Jean. Second. Second by Rob. Thank you. I'll call the roll. Jean. Michael. Yes. Abby. Yes. Rob. Yes. I vote yes as well. The motion carries and we will deliberate on this at the close of the public meeting. Justin, thank you very much for your time and the information. Thank you. We'll be in touch as soon as possible. Sounds good. Take care. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you. That concludes our first item of business. We have a brief overview of where we're heading and that should give folks a chance to come on into the meeting who may, may or may not be close to their computers. But as before we will swear in witnesses, anyone who wishes to provide testimony on this. And that will include the appellant that will include the applicant and anyone else who thinks they might like to make some comments. And at that point I'll ask Mike Miller, who will be staffing this application to give an overview. And then the likely, likely order is going to be as follows. As in contrast to a permit application in this case, the case, the case of the question being brought is by the appellant. So they will present their case that will be presented by Charles Phillips and Elizabeth struggle. And then the board will have a chance to ask questions. And after that, the property owner Steve Rivellini will present his case and the board can ask questions. And then if there's anyone else here who's interested in being heard on this, they can make comments. We ask that they stay relatively brief two to three minutes, and then the board can ask questions. At that point, depending on what's come up and what has or hasn't been resolved by that time. I'll invite responses from the appellant to the property owner and additional questions from the board as needed. And then we'll start with the firm are headed. At this point, I would like to swear in anyone who wants to speak on this application. So anyone who is going to make a public comment, if they could please raise their right hand. Thank you. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury. Thank you very much. So I've just sworn in Steve Rivellini, Charles Phillips and Betsy Strebel and Richard Shire. That's he I are here. Thank you. Thank you. Very good. So I will turn to Mike Miller to give an overview of this of this appeal. Mike. Thank you, everybody. So I just wanted to kind of give a quick update for members of the board as well as, you know, the public. So appeals of the zoning administrative decision are pretty rare. We don't get a lot of them in in the city. We usually resolve most of these for they ever get to you. But when we do have appeals that go to the board, it's not required under law, but we like to as a policy as a part of good governance, go and hand the appeal off to somebody else which is me as the planning director in this case. And that's just to make sure that there's no sense that anyone, you know, to have the zoning administrator. So we have to make a determination or a decision and have that get appealed and then the staff reports written by the zoning administrator, somebody may not feel like they're getting a full picture. So we always hand it off just because it makes good governance. And so that's why I'm here to handle the staff review side of the zoning appeal in this case. As Kate mentioned, in these cases, the appellant has the burden of proof. So it's kind of a little bit different than what you're used to looking at. And so we'll also only be looking at a limited number of things because we're not looking at an entire application we're looking at the merits of the appeal that was presented. So there is an application pending associated with this as well and it's been left on hold waiting for the outcome of this decision so there, there will be opportunities to kind of address the application or if you need to condition something you do have that ability because there isn't an associated application but your decisions and your motions that you'll be making and either approving or denying is to approve or deny an appeal. So unless somebody has some questions about some of the format or details, I'll just go through a quick real quick summary. So this was Oh, excuse me, Mike, if I could just restate something at the risk of being really redundant or obvious just it's a little new. So we're not appealing. This is not an appeal of a permit because no permit has been issued. This is an appeal of a decision that the zoning administrator made regarding a zoning violation. And so the decision that was written up about that zoning violation had some facts in it and some findings and the nature or the veracity of those facts and findings are being questioned through the appeal is that right. Correct. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Please, please go ahead. Thanks. All right, so this did start a little bit back last August. There were some complaints about the light. So the property in question is 197 Main Street. Owned by blueberry associates and the neighboring property is for Harrison have in the residents of that property are the ones who who had asked and had had some complaints about the lights that had been installed. There were some investigations and studying that that went on. And eventually Meredith made a determination on that and that is as Kate mentioned is what is being done. So now the owner of the property at 197 has been working to try to remedy the issue. And so there is an application. The construction was done. The lights were installed, but now there's an application pending to kind of address the the installation of those lights. So that's a little bit of the paperwork background that we're looking at. And then there was a determination which was in your packet and really going to be looking at four, four items one of them is just to make an affirmation about the validity of the appeal, which there is a staff finding in their staff recommendation on that. So there are three facts within the exterior lighting that should be addressed, one of which is about the shielding, one of which is about the total lumens, and one of them is about the allowed lamp types. So they're basically going to be three decision points. I think that would need to be made in this appeal. So we'll still be here to answer some questions if you have questions about the determination, but the staff report those questions I will handle those. Thank you Mike. At this point I'm going to pause and see if DRB members have any questions about anything they've heard so far. Okay, thanks. So Mike you're all done with your overview. So I'm going to turn next to the, oh Jean, yes go ahead. So the modification was just shields like wooden shields that were added to lessen lumens or increased lumens. So the some getting a little bit more specific with the history so there was an existing outdoor, I believe it's an outdoor stairwell that has lights in the stairwell. And so those lights were replaced. The light fixtures themselves. They were formally. They were more box ones and they were replaced with LEDs the new lamps were different, obviously created a difference for the neighbors who then questioned and found that this project should have had permits in advance, but the lights were replaced without the permits so now we were kind of working backwards to to fix that problem. So one question was with the shielding and we'll get to some of the the decision points on there but one was, there was too much light going on to the neighbors windows so the first thing they tried to do is to modify the lights by putting some shielding around them to add extra shielding. And that did not solve the problem. And so the question the application continued, but there was still a question of whether it, you know, whether it did or didn't meet the shielding requirements whether it did or didn't meet the lumen requirements. And that's what was appealed. Thank you. Thanks Mike and we will get into those details more later as well but that that's a good roadmap for where we're going. All right, so I'm going to turn to the appellant so Charles and Betsy. This is your opportunity to talk a little bit about why you're here tonight what you'd like the board to know about about your appeal. And after that the board will have a chance to ask you some questions. So please go ahead. Thank you for the opportunity. Thank you board members for your service and particularly would like to thank Meredith who is shepherds through this process and it's been a great help. And I should note that we've been neighbors of Steve for a number of years. And we've had issues like trees that needed to be removed and fences and all and we've always been able mutually to come up with a satisfactory solution so we're optimistic that that we're headed in that direction. With Michael outline. There's some new lights put on the back of the apartment house on Main Street and from our vantage point, drastically include and increase the amount of light that was coming into our backyard and particularly into the backside of our house. And it's a fairly straightforward issue. Steve has already tried to remedy it. And somehow in the process. I think some of the regulations came to play, not because we knew what the regulations were but that the type of light that should have been installed was not installed so I think that's basically where we're at. Okay. You're both welcome to speak at any point if you if you like but okay. Thank you. Okay, so do board members have any, any questions so far. Okay, we might get into this case. The details, but I'm wondering about just the, the lumens requirement. We can we can talk about that. Yeah, we can, we can start kind of bringing some of the facts of the case case to the surface so I might, I might turn to to staff for this but I believe it's a max because it's a it's because of the zone where it's located because of the purposes of the light. But lighting is used their eight units, which allows 10,000 lumens lumens per dwelling unit for a total of 80,000. And the materials submitted by the property owner, say that the actual output is 51 51,550 lumens. Okay, thanks. That's a nice segue so next we'll we'll turn, we'll turn the property owner will turn to Steve Ribilini and if you'd like to tell us present to us what what has been happening for you in this in this case and what you'd like us to know. Okay well thank you very much. And that's all I just wanted to make it clear that we didn't add any light fixtures we just replaced existing ones, and existing ones have a flat lens on them. I think one of the reasons that they look so much brighter as one their LEDs, and a question had come up at some point. Could the bulbs be changed to a warm white bulb, but it can't they're not bulbs in there they're like an LED strip. So there's nothing to change if you take the cover off there's no ball done screw and change. And we did try to put a wooden shield about out of a one by four, maybe say the lights around eight inches square and I think the shields about 12 inches square. So I'm hoping that would direct more light straight down. Because this is a three stories. And really from the backside of Luma Street. It's really four stories if you count the basement so with the stairs for a while. Charlie and Betsy's house. If you look outside the window. Yes not the first floor. It bothers so much as the upper floors, I believe. Right. From what I understand it. Yeah, they're actually seeing underneath the light I would say. Yeah, this was nothing that we did on purpose, you know, the light over a period of time. You know when you get that many fixtures and a bulb of burnout and burnout or something. So at some point, and we had some. Some fixtures over there with lighting and so we just thought, well, they do the right thing, we'll just have the left person come for the lights and so we said. They have replaced these lights for us and they did and that's when we started down the road. So, you know, we were hoping this shrouding would have helped some but, and I think Betsy had said in an email that had helped some but not much as they would like. And it's primarily the upper floors, you're right because those are the floors that shine, you know, on us. We've got the fence that's providing a little bit of relief from the lower floor light. So I'm hearing. Oh, sorry, go ahead. Go ahead. No, I think the. They're a higher or brighter light than what was there. Or within the mood of them. So, yeah, that's right. We were trying to do something to maybe over. And we want to light this bright enough for the tennis going up and down three flights. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Board members, some questions. Jean, go ahead. So on those, what you specified on the box fixtures that you added. Can you implement or put an additional shield plastic. Clear that shielded tinted structure on the bottom of the box. Perhaps, I mean, there might be some other things that could be done. That would help. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Other board members. Trying to, you know, Process is important here on trying to sort of like understand how we got here. What we're at. My understanding is, is that. There was a. Upgrades to lights. Lighting that happened. Which, you know, The determination zoning administrator was that should have been done through an administrative site plan. Amendment. But it was, it was not. And that's how we got here. Is that correct? So there's, there's an issue, not just with the lumens. Although it sounds like that's. Maybe not. So if the limit is, as you said, Kate. 80,000. 80,000, we're at like 51. There's also the issue of the temperature of the light. And it sounds like that may be more of the issue that the, that the Kelvin. Which determines how warm or cool a light is in those cases. It's more on the cool side. Am I understanding that? Right. I guess this is a question for, for Charles and Betsy. I think that's absolutely right. I mean, we didn't even know light temperature was an issue. It was something that could be addressed. And. From our understanding. The city requirements are the lights on a building B of the warm white rather than the cool white. Is that true? Yes, that is the requirement. Okay. That is a requirement. Did you say that? Was that my. Yes. Yeah. Okay. The Kelvin exactly. It just says of the, of a warm. And there is a significant difference. Especially with the LEDs on the cool white. Pants were here. And so. I recall 10 years ago, I was working on street light swap outs. And we were going from like that kind of cool moody pinkish. Sodium light to the LEDs. And there were a lot of conversations in communities about. How alarming, how alarming that is. And that's an extreme case of course, but just kind of following on what, what Jean said about just the quality of the light with these different bulbs can. You know, You know, You know, You know, Different technology. Other questions from board members. Okay. So this, this is a good discussion and we're, we're going to keep kind of. Do the question. Yeah. Is there, is there a possibility of replacing the, the light strip. Steve that you described to be of a warmer variety. I don't know that that question only came up today. I know I heard it today. But I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. So. I didn't have time to investigate whether. That could be done or not. But. It may be possible. To see if they could be put on a dimmer. But that type of, you know, so I thought we could just. Because they're all turned on and off with a photo cell. I was hoping we could put a dimmer. And, and just. So that when the photo cell came on, you know, you can't do that with that type of light. Yeah, I know, I know a lot about LED technology. And there are different, I mean, you can do so much in terms of changing the temperature of LEDs remotely. So that might be just something to talk to your electrician about. Like what are the other options available. Perhaps the company to build the light. Yep. You know, we're no more. And I'd be willing to do that. Yeah. Thanks. So. I do want to. Make sure there's an opportunity for other folks who have an interest in commenting to have the chance to do so. And I know that I swore in. Richard. So Richard, if you'd like to speak this, this is, this is an opportunity and anyone else who is here to be heard on this. So I'm going to go ahead and mute and join us. Okay. Here we go. 39 Loomis. I am another neighbor. And who abuts that property and can look up there to be perfectly honest. Our son was living in the room at the time. And no one noticed it. And, in that particular room for a reason. And that's that there are curtains that are used in those rooms. And the room is open. The room is open. And the sun is coming out at 5 30 in the morning. So normally during the day when those lights aren't on, the room is open and on curtains. And then it's curtain at night. And again, we've been next to that building for over 20 years. It's not as if those lights weren't there in another version before, because they were. And they were sufficient to have us curting that. So we've been in the room for over 20 years. We've been in the room for over 20 years. We've been in the room for over 20 years at all. And we have the same view as they have, but about 20 feet to the West. So whether this thing is how bright it is, how warm it is. That really just doesn't play in. In bedrooms that are curtains. Properly. Curtain is almost everyone has bedroom curtains. And I would say that in a three story building, you want curtains in there because you want your privacy. And you want to make sure that. You want to make sure that. You want to make sure that. Like this complaint. Just doesn't, if, if it had fallen off a skew of the lumens, if, if Steve was at 85,000 instead of 80,000 lumens. Then I could understand this complaint. But we just don't see it. And we approximate neighbors just as they are. Okay. Oh, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. What the problem is and how to solve it. I appreciate the other data point. From the neighborhood. Okay. Everybody's muted and unmuted. Who wants to be. Okay. Are there any, any board questions for Richard based on Richard's comments. So I had said that at this point, there could be a little bit of back and forth and, you know, a little bit of back and forth. I think that would be a little bit of a process, but a formal informal and informal formal process. I think what I would like to do is go instead is go through the staff report and use that as our framework for further discussion. We've touched on a lot of the key points. But during that or after that, there will be an opportunity for, for both appellant and the applicant to, to speak again. Okay. All right. So we're going to look at the, um, at the, at the staff report, um, hope folks have it. Um, as Mike said, at the outset, there are a few determinations that, that we need to make. And the first is that we need to, as a board, affirm the validity of the appeal. Um, the findings, uh, we must determine that it's an appeal of an administrative act or decision. And it is, it's a notice about, it's a, um, the termination of non-compliance, um, that, that is being a termination of violation that's being appealed. It must be made by interested person. And the neighbors are interested persons. Um, it needs to be done on time within 15 days of the issuance of the decision. And that was done on time. And the notice of appeal was proper, um, including, uh, noticing and publication and information shared with all. And that was properly done. So, um, the appeal is valid. Um, do board members have any questions about that? Okay. Um, and just as kind of a background for, for the permit that is in the background of this, that is being contemplated, it is a minor site plan review. So it doesn't require a lighting plan by a designer or an engineer. So that's why we're talking about the things in the way that we are with the materials that we have. Um, All right. So we, we've talked about the lumens and the allowed, allowability it has to do with this being class two lighting, which is about visibility, safety and security. And that's a primary concern. And then we've got different zones in town for different types of lighting. This is lighting zone one. There was 3000 district. Um, so let's, let's go a little bit deeper. We started talking about the shielding. So, um, we're going to talk a little bit more about the lighting. Um, the standard that we need to meet here is all after our lighting fixture shall be shielded in accordance with figure three dash 21 of the zoning, all class three lights in zone one shall be fully shielded regardless of initial loom and output. So we've received testimony that, um, some one by four as we use to put, you know, the light fixture itself was about eight by eight. The one by four is we're about. Um, 12 by 12. Um, we've heard from the appellants of that is, is not sufficient, particularly for the upper floors. Um, I think something I'm interested in knowing, given the elevation difference between the home on, on Harrison and the, and the one on corner lumus and Maine. I'm wondering there, there are other places besides Montpelier with Hills and homes and apartments. And I wonder if anyone knows what some of the best practices are, whether for types of light fixtures or shieldings, when it comes to, um, Places that are configured that way. Are there, are there special light fixtures for just this purpose on the hillside of Italy? You know, I mean, I'm just kind of wondering, um, if anyone's given any thoughts that. Well, from my experience, because I've built boxes for either defusing light to go upward. And then so it's covered downward or vice versa. So there are defusing tactics and shielding available. If it's, so it's something that you would have to discuss with a contractor or electrician regarding, you know, defusing the lamps, especially if you already have, if you've already tried and installed some, some of those boxes, it'd be probably simple enough to, to get a tinted, you know, but yet transparent, defusing shielding on the bottom of it. It's hard to, it's really hard to, uh, give a perspective without looking at what they've actually built on the building to determine the exact specific fixture that could be implemented. And I didn't see in our packet, this is either a mic or probably a mic question. Um, were there images included with the retrofitted shielding of those lights? I didn't see that in our packet and I'm wondering if I missed it. No, I don't think they were in your packet. We have a picture of the lamps, but it's not of the, the, the one buys that were boxed around it. Um, and. You know, I'll, I'll point out in, in the staff report, you know, we, we looked at this from an objective standpoint, um, going back and we put in the staff report, the definition of the fully shielded light. And it really comes down to whether or not it allows light to go above the horizon. So the, the shielding itself probably for somebody who is downhill, probably it's, it may not fully do it. There are other requirements in our zoning. If there was a different, in a different situation, there's some other requirements that could apply if this was a different project, a commercial project, uh, rather than a residential project. Um, that could have required, you know, lamps, not be, you know, they have to be set back farther from the. Property lines. Um, but, uh, those types of requirements didn't apply in this, in this specific case. Um, the case of the shielding, um, based on the definition. And I think Meredith and I would have a question, um, for you, because Meredith felt, and I would agree with her that. Um, I think it's important to note that these lights probably met the shielding requirements. Without having those, those boxes that Steve had put in to try to mitigate the problem. Um, and if we know that, then we've got the, but Meredith has the ability to make some determinations later on. If somebody comes in and asks about them, I think the issue is not with the, the, the lights not being lamps, not being shielded or the fact that they're not being shielded. Um, they met the technical definition of a shielded light. It just wasn't, there would be very little they could do. I mean, there'd have to be, you'd have to screen, screen in the porch, which the lights are in, in order to block the lights from actually getting to the, to the, a butter property based on how high the light is and where their property is. Okay. So, um, so, um, I think that we're, um, Meredith determination that it meets the technical specs of that. And so I think, I think what we're hearing is that because of the difference, because of the elevation difference, if you will. Um, We could shield a lot and it may still not solve the problem. Um, okay. Um, questions from DRB members about shielding. Um, I think we're going to have a couple of comments on that if they wish, and then, and then Steve about shielding before we move on. So go ahead. If you'd like, Charles. If there's anything you want to add. I think that Steve went. Beyond to put those boxes around and you're right. It's the elevation. As much as anything that, you know, is, is making it bright on our property. Okay. And I would add, I'm assuming that the board. Uh, would take into account the tone of Steve. Steve's letter. I don't mean Steve. I mean, Richard's letter. And there's some factual, uh, things that, that he. Said that are not accurate. Uh, I particularly took offense by the statement. He felt that we had fictionalized the facts. Uh, that's tantamount to calling a slayer. So I don't think it's appropriate. And I don't think it furthers this discussion. I don't think it's appropriate. That's all I'm going to say on that account. Okay. Thank you for, thank you for responding to that. We've noted it. Thank you. Speaking of a little more on the shielding, Steve, is there anything you wanted to add on that topic before we move on? No, just one thing. And that was. These boards are one by four. So technically they're three and a half inches wide. And the board itself only sticks down an inch. From the ceiling. So. Yeah, there's about two and a half inches of shielding. I thought about putting like a one by six on there, or even a one by eight. But if I did that. In the box itself. You know, where. It could impede. Moving furniture in and out or. You know, those porches, I didn't measure it, but I'd say. Come forward as feelings, maybe just a little over seven feet. So. Seven feet. So, you know, whether you come down with, with something. Right. Problem. Different set of problems, right? Right. Okay. Thank you. I'd like to move on to the next of the standards that, I'd like to take a quick look at the, the standard of the measure of output and what's allowed is 80, 80,000. What's there is 51,000, 550. So about just under. Less than two thirds of what is required. And I, as one board member, I, I'm. I would be challenged to assess what additional lumen reduction of safety as this lighting is meant to provide and in offense from nearby properties. I don't know that I can pick, given that it's already at two thirds of what's allowed, I don't know how much lower one could go to make it work. So I'm gonna invite board member comments or questions on this issue and then we'll do the same thing, Charles and Betsy and then Steve. I really think it's a question of the temperature, the Kelvin and not the lumens. That's my guess. I think that you can find replacement bulbs that have a lower Kelvin, like in the 2700 range. I think that would help. Because these are strips already installed strips and not bulbs. So I don't think the strips, you have to find out if those strips have, because I've installed LED strips that have over a dozen options of warm and temperature lighting. So like you could fade them, you could cut them. So find out if those strips have any options to like you mentioned earlier. Okay. Well, these are really related in terms of quality of the light. Oh yeah, go ahead, Michael. So I just want to say it sounds like we're doing a lot of sort of guessing, you know, pining. And I'll just say to the property owner, this is exactly what efficiency Vermont is for. Not only can they provide technical guidance, but they can even provide likely rebates for any retrofitting going on. And we all pay into the efficiency Vermont fee to fund that type of guidance. So to the extent that efficiency Vermont has not been brought to the site, I would encourage the property owner to do that and utilize their guidance. Thanks, Michael. That is a resource that's available. And we, yeah, we can know some basics about the science of brightness in the Kelvins. And I'm glad I know what K stands for now. We know what warm is compared to what's there, but for that more in depth lighting design and efficiency and possible rebates, yes indeed. And I'm happy at this point to sort of combine our conversation about movements, which is total output standard and lamp types, which is the Kelvins and temperature conversation in our comments next. So Rob, did you have a question? No. Okay. Good, so we're kind of focusing in on what is under one's control, possibly at this stage. And it seems like a possible next step that would, well, I'm sorry, we're supposed to be finding, making findings, not designing a project for you. I wanna give you that, that is your prerogative. But what we've determined is that the lumen, the standard regarding lumens is met. Based on the conversation and the observations by our staff about the brightness of the light, we are arriving at the conclusion that the standard regarding lamp type is not met with what's been installed because it's too cool. The temperature is too cool. And I assumed that a likely remedy would be to get a warmer temperature involved as we've been discussing. So according to the staff report, we are finding that the appellant's claims for relief based on the lamp type are valid, whereas the shielding is met, the lumens are met, they strictly speaking meet the regulations, but in that third category, the lamps do not comply with the zoning is kind of where we're landing. Board members, any questions about what I just said? Okay, so I'll turn to Charles and Betsy and then Steve for any comments or reflections or additions at this point. I think the suggestion that Michael made about contacting energy Vermont is worthwhile pursuing. I think there are a number of questions in terms of how effective remediation would be in various forms. And as I said at the beginning, Steve and Betsy and I have been able to work together. And I suspect we could be able to continue to do that. So I don't know what we need at this particular point other than I feel confident that maybe the three of us can work out a satisfactory solution without having anything mandated at this particular point. I don't know how Steve feels. I don't even know how Betsy feels. So I may be in trouble when the evening's over. You can go on mute for a minute if you need to. I believe the room. I would think that changing the temperature of the light and keeping the number of lumens the way it is would be satisfactory. And if it's not, then it's on us. Okay. And I appreciate that we're having this conversation. I want to, for anyone watching or wondering, just note that we are doing this within the framing of the zoning requirements. So we are not in the process of saying, we've got this really creative idea that's not required by the zoning. Go figure it out. So this is within the bounds. So that idea about warming up the light, Steve, would you care to respond? Yeah, I would respond. So like I said, I think that may be possible by one, as I said, talk to efficiency of Vermont and also talk to the manufacturer of the lights because maybe they do make a strip that could be retrofitted to those. Like I say, and I think it's been mentioned a few times that to put in warmer temperature balls, but just for the record, they're not balls, you know, because we always call them light balls, but they're really not. Balls as shorthand for. Right. Bright device. No, and both Charlie and Betsy have been good neighbors and we have had other conversations, like they said, with a tree and with a fence one time and maybe a few other things. Maybe even a tenet or two. I don't want to go on there. Outside of our jurisdiction. But yeah, if we could, I mean, I don't know what decision has to be made tonight, if any, if we could like extend for 30 days or something like that. I'm fine. You know what? Thank you. Thank you both. Thank you all. I'm going to look to Mike on procedure, but I believe it's the DRB's job tonight to determine whether the appeal, the parts of the appeal that have merit based on our evaluation. And I think that we've discussed that the shielding requirements are met, the lumen requirements are met, but the temperature requirements of the zoning are not. And so on that basis, the appeal is have a valid claim. The accounts have a valid claim. And then separate from this process will be the administrative permit undertaken, applied for two merit to the zoning administrator. And it's in that process that you'll dot your eyes and cross your T's to make sure that whatever is in there, whatever you're applying for the permit for meets the requirements of the permit, particularly the temperature of the light, not bold. For clarity, what is the temperature that I want to ask them for? According to the regulations, it's just defined as warm light. Meredith and I did take a look through the regulations. We did not find a definition, but if you were to look under, we just Googled what it would be. And in the cut sheets that you had provided of your lamps you had installed, had neutral white 4,000 or cool white 5,000. Now we don't know which one got installed, but we know it was either a 4,000 K neutral or a 5,000 K cool. But typically what we found on Google was 28,000 to 3,000 was about a range that you'd see warm light. As Abby was saying, 27, you can kind of in that range less than 3,000. Okay, well, that's helpful. Okay, very good. So if I could just make one final comment just to the neighbors and to Steve, as we work our way through, and maybe this is also helpful for the public and for the DRB, my role as planning director, I work with the planning commission to write the zoning that the DRB and the zoning administrator gets to implement. And what we try to do as much as possible is to make good sets of rules. So therefore, if we find that, let's say Steve gets warm lights and installs them and we still have problems, that's helpful for me to know. He's not in violation of the zoning and therefore there's probably not much legally you could do from that standpoint, but it's very helpful from my perspective and from the planning commission's perspective to make sure that our rules are doing what we want them to do. So if it works, if the warm lights fix the problem, then we know our rules are doing what they're supposed to be doing, which is if you put in warm lights and you meet this lumen and you have this amount of shielding then it should be good. And if they don't, then it's also helpful for us to know because we'll have to go and take a look at the rules to make sure there isn't something that we overlooked or something else that we should be checking for. And it may just be this is a unique case. Normally you can't have a light above 25 feet off the ground. So usually that's not a problem for in a butter. But in your case, these are in a stairwell that's much higher than that, but that's legal because it's part of a building. So it may just be a unique case that the zoning will never be able to account for. But if whichever way this works, I would certainly be interested in finding out how this turns out just so that way I've got the information I can take back to the planning commission to make sure our rules are doing what we want them to do to make sure that we're being good neighbors and creating good situations. So however this turns out, I'd appreciate hearing back from everybody. Okay, thanks. And Mike, perhaps there even becomes a definition and definition section of what is warm, what the range is that is warm. That's probably implied in what you're saying. That's already in our notes. On the list. Already there. All right. Any last questions from DRB members before we move on. I think we've gotten through this. All right, in keeping with my statement at the beginning of the meeting, we will be deciding upon this in a closed deliberative session and then issuing a written decision. And we're doing that for all applications in the Zoom environment. So with that in mind, I would take a motion from a DRB member to close the public hearing and go into deliberative session after the close of the public meeting. So moved. Motion by Jean. Second. Second by Rob. Thank you. I'll call the roll. Jean. Yes. Michael. Yes. Abby. Yes. Rob. Yes. And I vote yes as well. Thank you. We will deliberate on this at the close of the public meeting. Thank you to everybody who participated, including folks who may have signed off. This is important for people to have their voice and to take the time. And thank you all for doing it. Thank you. Good night. Good night. All right. That brings us to the third and final item on our agenda, which is 27 Liberty street. We'll give folks a chance to. Come on or off the, the call. Welcome. Welcome to those who are joining. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. So shifting gears a little bit. Thanks. Thanks for waiting. And for being part of this hearing, those who have been, who have been tuning in and waiting. So we are looking at 27 Liberty street for the, the demolition of part of a historic structure. The way that we're going to proceed with this is we're going to swear in the witnesses. That's anyone who wants to speak about this application. Okay. So we're, we're going to take a look at the, we're going to take a look at some of the items that we're, here from the applicants. And then we'll walk through the staff report with a, with a focus on those items where there are bigger question marks and kind of looking through those, not spending a lot of time on the areas where. That don't apply. Okay. So for anyone who would like to be heard on this, could you please raise your right hand? Okay. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony we're about to give to the applicant? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We've got some yeses. Very good. So we've just sworn in Rick Cannon, Gary Rose and. I'm sorry. What's, what's your name? Laurie. Also Rose. Great. Okay. Thank you. Thank you all. All right. Meredith, could you please give us an overview? Yes. So as you said, in the situation, we have demolition of part of a historic structure. The building as a whole is listed on the national register of historic places. And in that description, which was in the packet. They do include this sunroom slash sleeping porch in that description. But we've got a situation here where. That sunroom was added at a later date. We're not sure. Quite when it was added a later date. It's in extreme disrepair. And so the applicants want to take that sunroom off and. Combination of reconstructing rehab, the original porch structure below it. So this is coming to the DRB because it is demolition of part of a historic structure. And so that's the main issue here. The main issue here really is going through those demolition criteria. A reminder that the criteria about evaluating. Demolition and part of the historic structure, specifically the. Undo financial hardship, which seems to be where the DRB goes a lot in these decisions. And so that's the main issue here. And it's a situation where the board just has to consider the following factors as relevant. So a lot of those criteria when you're dealing with a single family home. Really aren't going to be relevant, especially if you're not talking about demolition of the entire structure here, we're talking about demolition of a really teeny tiny part of it. That really can't be used for much of anything. And so that's the main issue here. And so that's the critical eye when you're going through it. And that's what I tried to do in the staff report. Okay. Thanks, Meredith. And the reason that we. That we're doing zoning with a list of things for consideration, which doesn't sound much like a checklist of standards. Is that, you know, you are before a board that is a little bit more discretionary. And taking into account the whole of the situation using this, using those considerations as a guide. So that's why we're doing zoning with a list of things. So that's why we're doing zoning with a list of things for consideration. So that's why we're doing zoning with a list of things for consideration. Before five, five people thinking it would be before one person thinking, not that our one person isn't highly capable. I'm happy to put things like this to you guys. That's why they're here. Okay. Great. So I'll turn it over next to the applicants to Gary and Lori. If you'd like to tell us a little bit about what you're doing with the zoning. The zoning. The zoning. Built in the 18, 90s of Victorian and. The sleeping porch was added sometime later. And it has fallen into disrepair. And we have the original plans of the house. And we would like to return it to the original plan. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to go into the staff report before I do, or are there any kind of any basic questions from DRB members? Yeah. So that structure, when was that added? How many years later? Yeah, we don't know. I would guess seventies or eighties, maybe. I don't know. Okay. Got recently. Okay. Good. And at this point. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Rick, Rick cannon. We swear you in as well. I think what I'd like to do is just get a couple words quickly on the general nature of your, of your interest, what you might like to speak to. And I can. Then determine whether I should have you speak now or. During the relevant part of the. Of the staff review. If you'd be willing to, to share just kind of the nature of what your comments would be. Sure. Yeah, I suspect the sleeping porch. Was. The original. Is very attractive. Victorian. 60s or 70s. And I believe it was. Added by. Hope I'm not hurting anyone's feelings by a carpenter who really didn't know what they were doing. So it's in. A bad. Condition at this point. And the, you know, the support over the. Header area. Of the porch below. Wasn't even wasn't the support of the. The second porch above wasn't set. Upon the header. So it was. Area was, it was set upon the rafter tails out by the facial board. So it's, yeah, it was just. Sort of a bad idea. Maybe maybe an okay idea, but just not a very. Good way to build the thing. And so it has been moving over the years. And I can answer any questions you have after that. All right. So. Great. We're going to move into the, into the criteria and the staff report then, unless anyone has anything to add. All right. So. We have the general standard. Is that we just want to ensure our being that the first of those is the use standards. This is the res three. District. And this is a single family dwelling, which is allowed. So requirements are met. Similarly, having to do with dimensional standards, that sort of structures. Pretty much nothing is changing in terms of the setbacks from the property line or the coverage on the, on the ground. And there aren't any units being added or anything like that. So it is, it meets those criteria. So that brings us right along to section 3004, and then we'll move on to section 304. So we're going to look at those considerations. And again, it's here because it's, it's listed as a contributing structure to the stroke sites and structure, servant and the national. Register for historic resources. So what we are, we're looking at the board needs to make a finding that either the rehabilitation of the structure or a portion of the property needs to be done. So we're looking at the first one. We're looking at the owner or that the demolition. Is part of grander plan with substantial benefit to the community. So that's why we're looking at the first one, the financial hardship one. And we do look at this very, very frequently. When it comes to demolition. So this is a non-income producing property. That's one thing to know about it. So. So the property needs to be done. And the property needs to be demolished. And the porch is the object in this. Situation has no beneficial use as a residential dwelling or for institutional use in its present state. Or if rehabilitated or if rehabilitated and denial of the application would deprive the owner of all reasonable use of the property. And we consider these factors. The knowledge of properties, historical significance at the time of acquisition. And the construction of the property. And the construction of the property. And the structural soundness of the building. So I think this is where we're just supposed to ask you. Gary and Lori, that were you aware that it was a historic structure when, when you purchased it? Not the legal definition, but certainly. We knew the age of the house and we're. Very good about. Maintaining the character of the property. I think that's a good point. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Well, I just wanted to point there. People's attention. Maybe page six of the packet here. I could share my screen maybe for the public. Since I have it right up here. I think it's. Yeah, I don't know. I just think everyone should see this before we get to these questions. You know, and I'm looking at this and I know, maybe I would ask the. The, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the individual that spoke was construction savvy, you know, is there a risk of that? Coming down and causing damage to the. Actual historic, you know, porch. You know, that would be a certainly a concern of mine. Here. Maybe not spelled out in our exemptions exactly, but. Just wondering if that's a, that's a risk here. Yeah. Thanks, Rob. Rick or Gary. Or Lori. Welcome to answer. You pointed that out. Well, it's yeah, it can collapse. I don't expect it to collapse the next month, but I don't think it's going to make it through the next winter. And you can see the outer walls, like I mentioned earlier, of the upper sleeping porch. It just wasn't built right and you can see it's wasn't attached to the building right. And yes, the damage to the original porch below would be most likely catastrophic. Or someone's below it when it falls. Right. Very catastrophic. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Thanks, Rob, for pointing that out. Has it been that way since you bought the house or how can you, can you tell us about the condition of the sleeping porch and how, how it came to be so deteriorated or what caused the deterioration? I think there's gradual overtime and weather and snow and ice damage. Would you say there's anything about the original design that made it less robust than it should have been to withstand the weather and snow and ice? That's out of our, that would be right. It's kind of a big question. I'm sorry. I mean, we shoveled the snow off the roof, but that portion of the roof is very difficult to get to. Yeah. Yeah. Like I mentioned, it just wasn't built correctly. It's not attached to the house correctly up at the top and. You get a couple of tons of snow on that and then rain. It'll slowly pull it away from away from the house, which is what's happening. Being undo weight on raster tails of the porch below. So yeah, it's, it just wasn't number one. It wasn't a good idea and number two, it wasn't built correctly. Okay. Okay. I've been a bad idea built correctly. Would be having a different conversation maybe, but. Okay. Thanks. That helps us. Kind of can consider whether maintenance has been an issue, which is something that we're supposed to ask about. And part of what I'm hearing you say is that it's hard to understand what's going on in the building. I mean, it's hard to understand something that was built poorly. Exactly. Yes. Yes. Yeah. It's just. Yep. There's not much more I can say it's just wasn't built correctly. And it wasn't a great idea to begin with. Okay. Thanks. So we've talked about your knowledge of the historical significance of the property and also the structural soundness of the building. Those are the two considerations. Yeah. Yeah. I'll ask one more question and turn it over to others. Did you. You know, constructions expensive. We know, did, did you look into what it would cost to rehabilitate it to a point where it could be a useful part of the house? Another thing that we sort of consider is the economic feasibility. Of rehabilitation of it. Well, you can ask Rick, but I think it was not rehabilitable. Yeah. It would probably be at least $40,000, maybe $50,000 with the cost of building materials now to. Remove it 100% because there's nothing, there's no value there right now. You have to totally take it out. Then build a new one with decent windows and, and such. Yeah, at least $40,000. At least to rebuild it. And for a very small fraction of that. Fairly small fraction of that too. Return it to the way it was back in the good old days. And it's, I couldn't quite eyeball it, but we're talking about something that's. You know, 10 feet by eight feet. Is it pretty small? Isn't it? That's correct. Good guess. Really? Yes. All right. Wow. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that estimate on the fly. I realized I put you on the spot to talk about money. Thank you for doing it. All right. So I'm going to encourage DRB members to take a look at this conversation. I'm going to open it up to questions from DRB members. You know, I mean, I think we've got a pretty good track record of dealing with, you know, these similar ones and we've got the process down. And so, I think, yeah, great job and getting through it. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate the conversation. I like to spend the time because we can't, it's hard to go backwards. So, so I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to move on or entertain a motion. Does any, do any DRB members have any, need any additional information to make a decision about, about this application? Okay. If not, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing and. I'll backup. You may have heard me say this once or twice already, but we do all of our deliberating in a closed deliberative session. I'm going to move on to the public meeting. I'm going to move on to the public meeting. I'm going to move on to the public meeting on your application. So is there a motion to close the public hearing and go into deliberative session after the close of the public meeting? Motion by Jean. Is there a second? Second. Second by Abby. Thanks. I'll call the roll. Jean. Yes. Michael. Yes. Abby. Yes. Rob. Yes. And I vote yes as well. Thank you very much for being here. Thanks for telling us about your project and helping us think it through. We'll be in touch as soon as we can. Thank you very much. Thanks. Thank you. Good night. So what's next on the agenda? Other business. Other business. Thank you. Of course. So our next meeting is over. You'll get a written decision after, after the meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Good business. Thank you. Of course. So our next meeting is June 21st. Two weeks from tonight. Do. And do we expect to have here? Applications. Meredith. Do you know? Yep. We'll have. Very good. Okay. So what we do next, we will. Oh yeah. Rob, go ahead. Well, I just don't know if it was last meeting or whatnot. We had talked about a brief conversation about in person meetings. I don't know if you were headed there or not. I was not headed there. I wasn't at the last meeting. And I. Okay. You're right. Also. We also mentioned the last meeting. And so Meredith, what's, what's going on with the. As far as like the city. Perspective. Right. I don't really have an update. So pretty much the same status and that the city council is going back to in person meetings and Mike can correct me if I'm wrong. But last I heard they were going to be to start doing that. In July. And so, you know, the other. The, the committees and boards that get appointed by the city council will be able to choose when they go back to full in person or do a hybrid version. So if at the very least. The city council, the city council, the city council, the city council. Once we hit July meetings. I would be no longer in my office. I would be upstairs in city council chambers so that the public can come in if they want to. And we would have some sort of setup there, but. We were thinking that it might make sense to let the city council do some in person meetings. First to work out any technological issues. And then the other thing I thought was that we would still leave some form of zoom capability. For those people who, for one reason or another, can't make it into city council chambers, but still want to participate. That, that keeping that benefit that that really has been a benefit during this time. But it's really up to the board and other committees to choose how they want to do this. Okay. Okay. I'm agreeable to seeing how it goes with city council before coming back. I also agree that this is this approach has provided access. That's important. For people. What do others, I'm not ready to say that on this date, I will be 100% comfortable being in a room. With other folks. I just don't know. It's changing every day. I don't know. I don't know if there's any thoughts that they want to share about this and you are not required to share your thoughts. If you have any. We have other boards that have chosen to stay remote because they prefer this format. So. 100% remote. Yep. I mean, we'll have to go and still, we'll have to provide an option as Meredith said. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. We would set up some computers up there for people to come in and have a remote access to a zoom meeting. But everybody else. From like the planning commission is going to remain in the zoom remote format. They don't want to go back to a meeting in person. And I know there are a couple others that like that. Okay. Yeah. I think that there's. Potential challenges and like quality of meeting if there's. Half of the people are remote and the other half of the people are together. I don't know how to resolve that, but I know that's. In a lot of the return to work. Literature. I'm reading. Teams and organizations are making choices to either be kind of all different. So that there's more equity. Equal participation and access. Everybody. So I just, I put that out there as just a factor. And that's, that's one reason I was thinking we could wait and see how city council manages things, especially technology. You know, because there are. There are groups of people, even if we're just looking at COVID specific, there are groups of people who. You know, You know, You know, You know, People who can't get vaccinated and aren't going to feel comfortable being in a room with a lot of people. But you don't want to keep them from being able to participate in the process. And so having some sort of good flowing remote system for that. And it might mean that. We need to have, you know, all the board members need to have screens at their spots in the round. So that's the way that we can be seen. And there, or there needs to be some way for. The orca streaming to be part of the zoom. We're not quite sure, which is one reason I'm thinking we, we let city council work out some of those issues. Because they're going to have public participation the same way the board does, even if it's not for an application per se. Yeah. Yeah. And I would say in some ways, our public participation is a little more intensive and interactive. It's less reporting or commentary and more engagement. And it's a little bit more interactive. And it's a little bit more interactive. And sharing of documents. And I think the document sharing in this has been very valuable because when we're in that room, it's not like we have a projector where everyone in the audience can see. And this is a very visual. This is very visual work that we do. And that's one of those things that I would like to try and keep. And then like having a couple of different screens, not the big projector screen, but the one that is logged in so that maybe myself and one or two other people in the room have the ability to share their screens. That big screen. To be able to documents. Yeah. Okay. So it sounds like we don't need to make any decisions tonight. Is there, are there any other factors that DRB members want to make sure are considered. Yeah. There is a factor. I mean, so not everyone has it. So it works vice versa too. Not everyone has access to format. So. There has to be a. We have to accommodate those groups or folks who don't have this capability of accessing zoom or. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you, Jane. That's it. That's an important point too. Yeah. Let's do like a standing check in on this. As we go along and see what, what there is. It may not be necessary next time, but certainly the time after that. Yep. Sounds good. All right. Great. So let's take five. Meredith is going to send us if she hasn't already a link to the deliberative session zoom. So please come back at. 856. Yeah. Do we need a motion to adjourn? Close the public hearing. Yep. Yep. Yep. But I wanted to say when we're coming back before we adjourn the meeting. Rob. Rob, did you have a question? I was just going to. Say that. Make Meredith comment. Okay. Do you have anything else to say instead? Perhaps a motion to adjourn into deliberative session. Yeah. I'll call the roll. Gene. Yes. Michael. Yes. Abby. Yeah. Rob. Yes. And I vote yes. I will see you all at 856 in the deliberative session. Thanks to anyone who watched and thanks to everyone who participated. Good night. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you to everyone who participated. Good night.