 But we typically move through the items in the order that are listed on the agenda on our agenda towards the end city of Burlington High School application. This was marked for the staff recommended this for consent. We did not publish a consent order. Any members of the board have an issue treating it as a consent agenda item. Whether they have any questions for the applicant on it. It's a very minor change. It's just going to project. Right. So I would move. Is there anyone in the public here to speak on VHS application. If you'd like to speak on the application, raise your hand please. All right, so the applicant here. Do you have any issues? Have you looked at the staff's findings and conclusions? Yes. Any issues? Yeah. So I move that on ZP 23 by 36. 52 minutes to road. We approved the application adopts desk finding. Okay. All right. So the next item on our agenda for the hearing is. The applicant here is the appellant here. So. Can I get everyone's wants to speak on this item to raise their right hand. You swear the testimony about the is true and correct. And penalties of perjury. All right. So. You're Charles. Yes. Charles. In an appeal. We typically have the city go first. And explain the basis for that denial. And the reasoning. And then we'll give you an opportunity to respond to your outline. Why you think they're wrong. I will speak on behalf of the project manager who's not here tonight. As outlined in the staff report, the application came in. And. In October. It was reviewed administratively. The property. Is listed on both the state of Vermont register of historic places. And within the battery King street historic district. At issue is the small second story porch that's under the eaves. The application proposes to expand that around to the front of the house. That was seen to be in the staff report in Congress. In the front of the house. That was seen to be in the staff report in conflict with at least two standards within section five, four, eight. For changes to the historic character of a property. And new additions, exterior alterations and related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize the property. So that's what we're going to talk about. Back and forth discussion about proposed materials, which remained unclear. But staff found the application inconsistent with the standards of section five, four, eight. And it was denied administratively and appealed in a timely fashion. Okay. Can you walk us through what those standards are married that they're inconsistent. Under section five, four, eight be standard to. The new additions are retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships. That characterize a property will be avoided. And under section nine. New additions, exterior alterations or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize the property. differentiated from the old and will be compatible with historic materials, features, size, scale, and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. And the city's position was that since the porches are called out in the architectural Vermont historic standards, then that alterations are reported really particularly. And specifically in the Vermont standards, as well as a natural register, that second-story porch is singularly identified in the building description. That was called out. Oh my gosh, you have it, sorry. 77. Eight to 99. Mary, when we have looked at those historical standards before, because the documentation is done, like a lot of those recommendations were done. 70 is, or it was the state of the home at the time. Is that taken then as the evidence of the original state of the home? Or why is that the description that is? The description records what was present at the time that the assessments made. The national register was, the Battery King Street district was written in 1977. It was revised in 1984 and this building was included in the 84. Essentially it was an expansion district. More buildings were included. So I have this in front of me. So I'm gonna see if I can share this with you. Anyways, I do have the building description from 1984 and it does include the second-story porch. And it looks like in the drawing that there is proposed first-floor porch expansion as well. That's not an issue. The first floor porch was expanded under an earlier program and there was documentary evidence to show that it had been original and was removed. So that was replaced with a curve. And so the interpretation by the city is that expanding the second floor porch is destroying the character because one piece of railing is away or because it changes how it relates to the first floor. Can you just explain to me? In both of the registered list states, there is a narrative describing the characteristics of components of the building. The second-story porch has remained a constant in both of those listings. It's a primary facade. It's the street front, which is given the highest priority because that's what the public sees and experiences. So an alteration to a primary facade is a challenging thing to do unless there's documentary evidence that it existed prior to the listing. Mary, the application is ready just to do with the second floor porch. It's just to do with the second floor porch. The expansion of the first floor porch is not an issue. It is not subject to your appeal review tonight. The other question I had, Mary, is about the call-out for the material usage where it was explicitly stated that pressure-treated bumper is not permitted. I thought we had talked about that on the board before that materials that were very similar, but just for more durable were acceptable. The board has made prior decisions relative to materials on porches. There has been an allowance or flexibility to allow for composite materials in some of the components, the decisions of this board prior to today have allowed for pressure-treated for superstructure. It's like pressure-treated lumber looks differently and ages differently than typical dimensional lumber. So pressure-treated has been allowed for superstructure, i.e. what's not seen but is supportive. Wrapping materials should be traditional materials. Posts have been required to be traditional. Railments have required to be traditional materials. Decking composite has been allowed by the DRV. So we're going by the decisions that this board has made fast. And where was the pressure-treated lumber proposed in this project? My understanding it was suggested in the application materials, but there was no further definition if there was a commitment towards that. And this is an after-the-fact permit, right? Some of the work has been started. It's not my understanding. I'm sorry, I'm assuming the management of this and to have CSIS gone. Okay. This is from the board. Okay, so what was yours? Is there a timeline? I mean, and I have things to do. I don't want to take up too much time. I just want to be aware of it. I'll say this. You can all read. Okay, I'm trying to read your letter. We're certainly aware of some of the issues you point out about the confusing nature of the online permitting system and the difficulties that individuals like yourselves have encountered in trying to navigate our relatively complex owner. Okay. We're well aware of that. Okay, and we've also read your letter and I'll speed you along as CSIS. Okay, so just really quickly, when this, I have two concerns. One is this and the other one before I leave should be pretty short, in relation to that directly, I want to make sure that I'm doing the right thing, which is why I have so many permits out and come here so many times. There is no future and it's kind of a mess at this point. I am very cognizant and respectful of history. The entire project that I've taken on has been to get this back as close to original as possible, including the paint job that I've started undertaking that whole because of confusion with the led-based standards, which is why there's still vinyl siding on some of it and the bottom, most of the bottom part is painted. I got historic colors for a bunch of more whole night garrets, the cornices that are there that are original. I've taken them off. A lot of them were broken and cracked. I've been repairing them, replacing them as I could. One of the things to point out in those pictures, the posts are original. Actually, I had to reappropriate a couple posts when the wrap-around porch was taken off at some point. The house next door, these were on the Jesse, he had them over there kind of laying around and one was in use, I got them back so it can put them back. But the bottom of those posts is they're just shot. So I had to cut them off and use pressure-treated blocks to stand those posts back on. The bottom of those posts will be, again, covered with trim like they originally had done, but that's the kind of nuance throughout the whole project that I'm cognizant of but confused by in terms of materials. So the material aspect, the proposal of the second floor, I'm not asking for, I don't want pressure-treated wood but there was pressure-treated wood up there. I removed that and then I was told I had to put back what was there but then subsequent correspondences were original materials. The way the weather comes up from the west of the lakeside, there's constantly snowdrifts and it was a mess. I would like to seal that off better and use the same style of composite wood-look decking that's on the bottom that when you see from the streets, absolutely cannot tell in color and style. It would look the same. Yeah, I think I understand that. I mean, we hear the materials issues part of it and I think the thing that we'll probably struggle most with is the observation from the single porch to the wraparound. Okay, so I'll transition to that. What you see there right there, that is just framing for the ceiling. I'll put an original style, tongue and groove, pine, sky blue painted ceiling that was common at that time. That's what that's there for. Before I started the porch roof which is accepted in the application. When I got up there, I had to remove that entire section of the balcony because it was just mush. So when I did that, I ran across some interesting things and while I'm up there looking around, the basis of my argument is this. The call-outs are from the 70s and 80s and one map excerpt from around 1950. Without due respect, I'm not speaking to anybody here that to me seems irrelevant because at that time, what's widely accepted as the original appearance of the property had a wraparound porch. I can also tell you that in removing the rotted materials from the singular bay that's called out in the 70s which is well after this house was hacked into a duplex, most of the original pictures on the outside were removed that I'm trying to put back that you can tell the original joists for carrying a map deck were kind of like hacked. So some were several inches longer and shorter than the other. Can I ask you an interpretation? You talked about wraparound porch. Are you talking about the second floor? No, the first floor. So the first floor had a wraparound porch because this was a singular residence. I think so. You're wraparound porch on the first floor. You got a permit for that? Yeah, that's all set. So I can tell this was called out in 70s and 84 I believe as the single bay porch on the second floor which is being discussed right now was absolutely bigger than it was now. I have no idea how much bigger it was but you can tell where the floor joist. So if I, so if we go back to the photo with the... Yeah, my best guess is that it extended past that window, maybe a foot, maybe five feet. But there's nothing on there where you, when you took off the side and you saw old post connections on the second story wrapping all the way around. I did not because there's plywood there where they had taken off the entire original. And I think it was due to rot but also due to the covered wraparound porch. And there's no evidence that you've seen that prior to the 40s or in the 50s there was a wraparound porch in the second story. Like there's no reference to the MLT-99 in the wraparound second story. And are you saying you think that porch extended past that window? Yes. It's hard to see how that would happen given the roof. There's a roof having the porch extend past that roof. So we just... And that's, I would agree in the section five, four, eight, the two and the nine that are quoted here. If you drive around, there's a lot of second floor balconies that are exposed and open. Typically above entry doors and or Victorian houses. I don't know how much it extended. It just, it honestly to me looks like it was cut off to be tucked under. So I can imagine maybe there was an issue with weather that when at some point when any of the renovations were done it was tucked back under there. I think this, what I'm proposing is compatible with historic design based on other properties around the city, even if it doesn't mean, even if it can't be extended to come around, extended in some way for aesthetics, safety, usability, maintenance, all those issues I feel should be taken into consideration because all of them are compromised with what it is now. What's the, I'm just curious, what's the benefit of having a wrap on second story? Is there, just trying to understand what you did. So honestly, number one would be usability to be able to have usable outdoor space. Number two, it's another means of egress which is why I wanted to wrap around to begin with the two windows that you can swap. And this picture is the two windows you can see are separate rooms. There was another window that used to be there that's not there anymore, it's in a closet now. But also for maintenance, it's almost impossible to open that door in the wintertime to get out there, to shovel and maintain it. It's next when possible to get out there to do any kind of paint repair, maintain the rent. It's phone booth. Is there still a two unit building? And so as best that would be the only outdoor space for that unit, is that what you're trying to achieve? Yes. And out of curiosity, the post there that's on the first floor. Yes. Do you suspect that that's in the original location? In the original location, it's close. It's without some on the way from the building? Yes, because again, the original wrap around porch, I don't know the dimensions of. So when I applied first to a wrapper, the first floor wrap around porch, I didn't know the dimensions. So I guesstimated, but when to be able to carry the carrying being for the rafters, that's where the post has to go. So it's, I guess, laterally looking at the house, it's very close to where it was. But again, original. I don't know. I'm also being an amateur historian and architecture and done a lot of old building remodels. I'm having a hard time figuring out why or if there was two originally two entrances, there had to be to have a wrap around porch. But I think my best guess is originally be given what I see inside with some tampering of the trim. I think that window to the left what might have been the actual door, but I don't know for sure. I mean, I think you've laid it out pretty well for us. So I think we understand the issue. The current second floor porch is eight by seven, right? No. No, that's that's including the roof, the roof line. I believe budget maintenance on seven by five. Seven feet alone in the house and five feet away. Oh wait, yes. Which would have to be, that part would have to be expanded regardless of the profile of the new approved roof line for the first floor. So if this application was denied, if you might be like seven by seven sort of thing, seven by six for that second floor porch. I mean, I can put the floor spacing back where it was if I had to, but ideally I would have it accepted if I can and it was only part of the way. Halfway past, I went to whatever, anything that's a little bigger or useful would be in my book. So I can make it exactly the way it is in that picture, but it's to the reasons I stated it's not ideal. This question, maybe we don't have a copy of whatever has been approved. I don't believe for the first floor porch. No, not on an appeal. No, but it's impacting what you're saying is the roof. There's a roof over that first floor. Yeah, it was a covered wrapper. Well, that's what your permit is for now. Yes. Got a covered first floor porch. Yes, so the roof, the space up there is already there. So that new roof that we see in that photograph, the framing for that, that was in that photograph there a second ago, whatever that is, is that right there? Yeah. That's part of the approved new roof. That's the ceiling of the roof. Yeah, that is the third roof. Yes. So that roof is gonna slope back it's hips around the corner and take it, just go around the corner. It does, but that's the ceiling. That's part of the roof. It goes around the corner, it's hips on both sides. And it's gonna rise up and come underneath that window, I assume. Yes. Is it higher than the roof that's on the existing second floor balcony? So, but the new roof of that roof is gonna end up coming up higher than the roof on the existing second floor balcony. Can you go back to that? The little section, the L section around it. And it's okay. Yeah, okay, right there. The thing is, circle there, that little roof there is gonna get bigger because that's where your roof is now is coming out further than for the second bath. So the slope from this side of the house towards Brownsport would have to be, it's about a foot bigger than it is now to come up higher than that thing. Yeah, it has to, and that's part of with the... So now you're gonna have a little bath tub up there. Right. What's that? You have a bath tub up there. Right, but that's one bath tub up there. You know what I mean? Right, but again, originally, this was a covered wraparound porch, which is why, again, I do not believe that the covered wraparound porch went up to this small section. Oh, you don't have any information on that covered wraparound porch. Do you think it was there? No, but nobody else does either. No, well, yeah. Well, it is in the sand war map that there was one. Not a wraparound. Not in the first bath tub, but it doesn't say it was covered or not. There's actually a picture. I mean, it's a proof, thank you, at some level. I understand, but it impacts the whole thing we're talking about in terms of the sand floor. Right. In terms of the size of the porch and how the roof is gonna work and how big this thing is. Because if you rate it the same size as it is now and you have this bigger roof, you're gonna have water sitting in there all the time. That's why it's taking off the bath tub. Right, and which is exact, which is part of America, but also part of why I do believe that that section was bigger, because originally we know that there was a wraparound porch there, where the plywood is up to under that window is roughly where the top of the roof line was. I think it was probably six or eight inches below the window sill. And that, it would not have made sense for that tiny insert to have been there originally. I think it was longer. You know. I'm still trying to understand the application. The application now is you wanna build a second porch on top of this approved roof. If we're gonna put a roof in the woods. In the woods? Yes. But you're not gonna put a roof over this time? No. We're not leaving the roof the way it is. Yeah, okay. And you're supporting the second porch? Just so we can talk about it. You're gonna put posts up in the first part. Yeah, I'm adding. I'm actually trying to find somebody to mill the exact profile of the posts that are there now. I have enough for that side, but then I wouldn't have enough to be identical for the spaces. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak on this one? If you'd like to speak, please raise your hand. No one. Being here, wanna speak? Not you. I know you know. Okay. It's trouble to learn a lot about that. I appreciate that. Is there any other issues you wanna bring up? Specific to the second porch or a general project scope? It's just specific to the second porch. Because that's all we really have in place. I guess I'm just gonna look. So your intention is as much as possible to have the finished materials of this, whatever it ends up being approved, is to match what you can figure out was original to the house in terms of the spindles of the porch railings and the new posts and all that other stuff. Absolutely. So if you have this crescent-treated piece, you're gonna wrap it with something that they make longer figure, but it's gonna... Yeah, and I don't foresee having crescent-treated pieces unless I'm allowed to have crescent-treated stuff that gets painted. But otherwise, the railing doesn't paint well. The new stuff does, because it's not the first thing I've done. Yeah, so, I can use whatever for that piece, the structure, the supports, that stuff in my opinion needs to be more than just soft with it, because it paints. Well, safe to issue, but okay. Appreciate your presentation and I'm gonna deliberate on it today. Okay. We'll take it under consideration. Thank you. All right, thank you for your time. I'll put it in English for you. Last on our agenda, it is the State University of the Non-Agriculture Ethnology, UBM, an application that claims on the number, C, C238530. So take it over in this, the way the construction of intended working spaces. The applicant here. Yes. I'm sure your team is as well. Anyone who wants to speak on this application, please raise your right hand. Just note that Claire Forbes is in the, it's online, and she's also- Yes, we got two people with their hands up online. Let's hear her question. Jay Robinson, is that part of your team? Nope. Okay. It says Claire, that we know of. Claire, yes. Right, well, all those who want to speak on this application raise your right hand and do you swear that the testimony you're about to give in this matter under consideration is true and correct and it depends. All right, well, whoever would like to explain the product to us seems relatively simple. You're adding 10s parking spaces and you're converting that a lot to a paved landscape, non-grabble, the state doesn't want us to have grabble for short motor management purposes, any parking lot, absolutely. Claire, sorry. Why don't you take this to anyone and introduce yourself and just- So I think Claire is really the project manager. All right, so- Claire, why don't you just do it? Take the digital seat, explain it to us. In case there were any other requirements. Okay, thank you. Hello, my name is Claire Forbes, Associate Planner at UVM, 31 Spears Street, Burlington, Vermont. So for this project, UVM is proposing to improve and expand our existing physical plant compound lot from 80 spaces to 108 and creating an additional 10 space row on the south side of University Road. The parking lot, as you know, is located on the north side of University Road and west of the Centennial Baseball Field. The parking lot will allow UVM more flexibility to shift parking needs on main campus for priorities such as housing and sharing resources with the UVM Medical Center. The project is included in the City Approved 2023 to 2028 Joint Institutional Parking Management Plan. And you've probably seen the plan, so I just wanted to sort of address a couple of the conditions in the staff report, if that's okay. Sure. Is there anything else you wanted, kind of general information about the parking lot? Or, let's, why don't you just go, take us where you think we need to go? Okay, so there are some conditions in the staff report. So we just wanted to address those. So a portion of the project includes widening of the University Road. So because of the space limitations, there's not enough width to add a sidewalk along the whole roadway. So the plan here was to widen the road. University Road was recently repaved. So during that repaving, there was an issue with the sub-base that was discovered that necessitated rebuilding some of it. So as the future plans were to widen the road for pedestrian safety within the next year, the construction team made a decision to widen the road concurrently with the repaving work to prevent rebuilding and ripping up everything again to widen the future, to really minimize that burden for the residential neighbors. And so that was not the original plan. So the reason we want to widen the road is to dedicate a four-foot stripe along the north side to provide space for pedestrians, mainly for safety reasons. Currently, we have hospital workers, UVM employees, game patrons, and members of the public that walk along both sides of the road, which can be very dangerous. Also wanted to mention, there is a new residential building that was added at Five University Road. I think it's shown right there on the plan. And so as part of that development, a driveway and a sidewalk were added within that right-of-way. So that increased the non-conformity of that RL zone, which we're talking about here. So we're just asking for the same sort of requests for access along here. This area has been institutional use for decades. So that's how it's been used historically. We did see the comments from DPW and we will certainly work with them on coordinating any future changes to the road to align with any upcoming improvements near East Avenue. So we're requesting that the conditions to revise the site plan to show no increase, a lot coverage, and the condition to remove any paving, not be included in the final decision-making. And again, the reason is the additional widening is for pedestrian safety. So we just really want to provide that dedicated space for them in this area. Can I ask a question about that? Yeah, go ahead. I jumped to something that I wasn't sure I understood. So you're currently, your proposal places you go over to the lot coverage limitations, is that right? Yes, yes. So within, so the majority of this parking lot and all of that is in an institutional zoning district. And there's a little piece just along the roadway, kind of that lines up with the other residential properties. That is a residential low density zone. So that is where the lot coverage issue comes to play. And we were already at 80 something percent and we increased a little bit to 80 something, 89%. So it was already non-conforming. It was never a conforming lot there for lot coverage. Mary, can I ask you a question about that? Absolutely. So that makes it a split lot zoning, right? And that's both pasta had that quite extensively, right? The both decision that went to the Supreme Court determined that in parcel split line zoning districts, each section of the parcel must adhere to the dimensional standards within its own district. Do we have a lot coverage waiver ability? They could ask for a variance. And then that gets another question, is under 24 VSA 4413 as a state municipal, as a new state organization, we have a limited scope for view. A lot of coverage is one of those. Right. This is not an accepted street. It's not public right of way. It's a private parcel. Yeah, I was going to ask, is University Road a, it's not deeded to the city. It's a private drive. It's drive-based. Yeah, it's owned by UVM, correct? We, that's fair. Drive-ways on public driveways. We do have a, Oh, that's, that's your easement issue. No, I don't mind. We do have a member from the Department of Public Works here. If you wish to call on. Probably. Um, I, well, where is the, where's the line between the districts? I'm confused how, how it would be. Where it kind of expands. Once you're pulling down the driveway, they draw a straight line connecting the short part of those two parcel lines right there. It's, it's a very, very narrow trial. You have me over. Got it. So everything to the left of that expansion is considered residential. So within that small roadway parcel, where the auto law comes in, I'm very concerned though. There's some parcel with it. Okay, so it's not to be with the parking lot. No, it's the little roadway expansion because what ends up happening is all the pedestrians kind of get up to the road. There's no dedicated space to try to shift the cars over. So then you actually kind of walk that right turn down. So by pushing that up there, you know, there's an alignment issue mentioned. It allows for a kind of an earlier or deep down the way to let them at the canister. So it seems like it's literally just to the right of the road. You're kind of paying attention to this side view. What I mentioned with sidewalk, there's no room for sidewalks on either side of the street. Is there a sidewalk prior to the start of this project? In front of those houses, it looks like that maybe on the west side, is that the west nozzle? The east side of the east avenue. There is a sidewalk. I'm no law university type. There's no sidewalk there at all. So rather than put a sidewalk in, you'd rather make the street wider and have them walk in the street. No. Sorry, the road is already widened in most of the places. It was just selected winding to make it even with all the way through the corridor. Okay. So instead of ripping out, I got to just add it to the existing show. Here's the zoning district overlay. The longer color here is low density residential. Blue is institutional. And here is University Road. Got it. There's the parcel split. And so it's that little nugget right there that has a lot of coverage problem. Right here. A residential roadway. Yeah. All right. Well, that's a problem. But the lot of coverage increases because you're evening out the width. So it's making some of it's already that width. Yeah. One side of the driveway is full width. The other is and that isn't the historic. Yeah. It's historic gravel driveway. It's sort of been added on over the years in the run. Right. And with the hospital best three in the traffic through there, just trying to eventually we'll get to having conversations with the city about the alignment on the south side of East Avenue as it turns in. But the traffic inwards is the situation gets better with this proposal and it only gets better with further conversation. And you said so with this picture. The house that was added, that's not in this picture. Right. Did you say there was a sidewalk added as part of that? Sidewalk and roadway. So walkway to the road. Not a sidewalk. Got it. For particular to the road and not with a harrow to the road. We don't have enough width for a sidewalk that's parallel to the road. So we must drive forward. So. Got it. Thank you. That was it. So the university owns the roadway there all the way through houses. Correct. Impervious was increased by the addition of that driveway and roadway. And so it's already recently exceeded the residential district by the addition of that as a precedent. And since that's a private street, that's probably a lot of coverage level. Correct. It doesn't exceed the overall but within that district when you pull out the rest of the square footage of parcel. I mean, the fact that it's been a lot of coverage can go above the threshold. I think it was even down as proposed. For the residential. Yeah. Yeah, right. Everything in the yellow. So all right. Let's talk about the parking lot. Right. The real application. Well. Right. Yeah. Let's take us to the parking lot. Claire, can you? Adam, do you want to? Since you're right there. Sorry, Brian. He wants you to do it. Certainly Claire can. Historically, it's been a gravel parking lot. Part of our parking management and as Claire mentioned, we have a lot of things in the blocks we have parking needs that are constantly changing. And this has been in the tip first quite some time to formalize and just actually get a bit more parking and more organization than we address stormwater, we address EV charging. Yeah, we will have additional ADA parking. We'll have spaces for EV parking. We will have lots of honey locust trees and some along the neighboring, some trees along the neighboring properties. So the lots of shading and protection from that and the hedge along the west side will remain. The future use is currently planned for hospital. What's the current use? It's kind of our catch off or our main zones. So it's got trailers, snow plows. It's our clock and location, our utility. So this goes also to our bio research. Parking lot there. Right, because you move all these people over there. That's where these guys are coming from. Going out to bio and then UBMMC may take additional parking down there. I'm not entirely privy to those full details, but I believe the plan is UBMMC goes down there. So that's part of where the TED Extra Spaces came in after our grounds, all their plow stuff is under the bleachers at Centennial. So we're keeping plow trucks and more of our grounds vehicles for the TED Extra Spaces off to the side. So those will remain service vehicles. And those plow trucks and everything are now currently driving in and out on University Place. Rope, yeah, University Rope, sorry. Yep, they go into the compound and grab their trucks from there, yeah. When was that University Rope laid out? Oh, you don't know the rhythm of it. Centennial's been there under years. But it's existed just in this condition for 20 years. There's been kind of a mixed history where it was one way that I got a lot of additional aid, but I kind of got some out of it. The University Rope, yeah. Did Derek White have, you have any? Or something when the road came in? How long it's existed in this condition that it's in now? He was paid in 2007? Well, before that was gravel. Yeah, he was. Did he pay for the brolling to electric? And who else that came to his office? I was. So the make was 2012. He was paid at some point. It was historical. Yes, we paid the bottom part from the parking lot just south in 2012. It was paid from where the tenant's faces. East, that was paid in 2012 for an effective ground for each one. Thanks. I have a question for Claire about an email from Chris Clow. So I just want to indicate so that this lot he had said was not serving new or additional traffic. So you don't need a traffic study because it's serving existing traffic. Is that accurate still? Because that's an old email for me. Yeah, for the majority, we're not sure of who will be the users. So we can't definitively say, but it's, you know, we're basically thinking about our, we think about our parking as a master plan. So it may just be moving some vehicles. Like you said, about by a research, many of them are moving over and the way the state views those vehicles, they're already having traffic impacts around campus. So they would not be new users. So those, just depending on who is parking there. And even if there were some new people coming from a different place, the maximum would be 30, 38 or 28 because we wouldn't have those 10 would still be physical plant vehicles. So he did indicate that anything under 75 would not trigger the traffic impact study. So even if at a maximum, we had the 28 or 38, it wouldn't impact that. So are you doing the curves on your, no, it's widening it, but not curves. So curves shown is on the parking lot. What are the university road in the residential district issue? Have you explored other avenues? For example, talking with the city about transferring that to be a railroad. That's a, I don't know if I'll be able to answer this. I think the university has best interest in keeping it, but I can't speak with that. Hi, hi. Yeah, project manager for the parking lot. Yeah, we have not approached that subject. Give you hands on the shirt. I think going a little bit, if that's appropriate. Thank you. The city does have a procedure to accept currently non-accepted roads. There are standards that would need to be met in doing so. So it's not a quick process, but we do have some allowance for existing conditions. So if that's all right now, of course now it would require a bunch more conversations with you. We were really curious if the EV charging spaces were going to be publicly available for private use. That's not a good conversation, but as of right now, it depends on who it gets rented to. If it's the hospital, it's all the, it's marketing transportation. As of right now, my understanding is they're approaching the hospital to take it. I think they want it, but if it's them, then it's their discretion as to who's in their space. So can I just note something? There's a case, it's your parking lot. It's not a public parking lot. So that may bear on what those chargers are used for. We can, so there's plenty of landowners in this town who perhaps tried to rent spaces out and that were not for their approved land use and that didn't go so well for them. So this is a UVM parking lot, not a, so if chargers go in, they're not for, be clear, they're not like, one of us can go charge our EV up there. That would be not a UVM related use. So this parking lot has people, I think actually Claire maybe wanted she has a hand up here, so I don't know if she wants to. Her hands are going to go up. Sorry, sorry. So the parking lot has sometimes it's, I don't know if it's even any UVM employees or it's UVM medical center employees, but in general, it's paid parking. And it's for right now, it's for institutions, it's not public parking, whether it's baseball game, you know, we do what we can to have it. I understand that, but I want to be clear that if you put an EV charger and someone who's not on site for a UVM medical center or baseball game or something like that, this is not a parking lot for them to go to use. It's not parking for rent, you know, to individuals around here. To my knowledge, we're not intending to run a gas station. I appreciate that. Anything there, it's people parking for their use. Right, it's UVM MC and possibly if tragedy ever happens, we're partially setting up to maybe, maybe let students there, but we need to watch that as we go forward. Not just you all, but in general. Fair enough. EV's all new and it's just 20% as right now. So that's good to know whether or not, what our uses are. Yeah, we're not planning to change the use on any of these from the UVM or UVM sanctioned use to just- That's public. Exactly, right. It's all a meter and a dollar per minute. Sold. That's too much not to be possible. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak on this? I mean, it's great you're converting to the rabolating storm or treatment. We have one hand raised. Who's? I believe it's Sharon Buescher. Okay. Sharon, floor to yours. Thank you. So I live at 52 East Avenue and as some of you know, I used to represent this ward and back in the early 90s, Ray Levine was a vice president of the University of Vermont and University Road was half, was owned by the city and UVM and Ray Levine convinced me that it was in everyone's best interest for me to advocate that UVM owned the entire road. I regret that advocating for that but that's how that came about. So it was difficult because it was co-ownership but I wanted to clarify that. I wanted to say that because it's really very close to my house and that I spend a lot of time watchdogging things in my neighborhood even though I'm no longer a city counselor. The paving project that the university did was outstanding. It is such a vast improvement because there were a lot of heavy trucks that go up and down that road. So I want to just applaud them for that improvement because every time a heavy truck went up and down it would shake all of the houses around. So that's an improvement. I wanted to concur with them that there is a tremendous amount of pedestrian traffic not only people accessing vehicles but people go down that road to sometimes walk around the Centennial Field. They cut through, pedestrians cut through to go over this kind of right angle to go out onto Colchester Avenue. People walk their dogs. It is a favorite place for many to go. So there are a lot of pedestrians. There's never been a sidewalk that's ever been incorporated into that road. It's like Latham Court which is the dead end street off of Colchester Avenue that backs up to the parking lot that is being paved now. And that's relevant. That's why I wanted to mention that. But Latham Court once again is a small little street that can accommodate sidewalks. So you do paving, widened paving to delineate safer places for people to walk. I understand that in that paving I was trying to listen carefully that they exceeded lot coverage or within the section of the street that is the first hundred feet or whatever that's RL. And I'm hoping that they ask for a waiver because I feel like it was slight. I didn't, and I watched dog stuff. I didn't really even notice that shame on me but I didn't. And I feel that no one would gain anything by having them rip that out and make it a little more narrow at the entrance. I just don't feel like. So if there's a way that's legal I'm not looking for any special favors but if there's a way that's legal through a waiver I think that makes the most sense. I do think that any way of that UVM can try to delineate a safe identifiable walkway for pedestrians would be great. That's the road. That's not what you're really dealing with but that's the road. I wanted to speak to the parking lot. I had a couple of specific statements. One is that because it's now gravel and it's going to paved I was concerned about runoff. I was concerned about runoff for Latham Court. There are houses that are just about on top of that parking lot. So I wanted to make sure that any stormwater would be addressed and I didn't see I saw a response from DPW about the road but I saw nothing about a stormwater evaluation or permit or review. So that's one thing that I think is absolutely necessary because that will impact people's yards. Number two is that staff has recommended ask that UVM comply with reducing the light levels. At a minimum I know that you've got lights that lighting that shielded but once again I mean if you were any one of you were to walk to that parking lot and see that you are basically looking in someone's window at the where the parking lot ends and the house begins. I want sensitivity to those neighbors that abut this parking lot so that they have quality of life that isn't impacted by any improvements. Now I support the improvements that gravel parking lots I don't imagine is fun to park in or walk in or you know whatever. I wasn't clear enough to understand that only some of the vehicles would park there and the rest of the spaces would be potentially for some other entity. The hospital park there for years not parked off of University Road for years I thought some of that still happened but if that's for the hospital people park there and then they walk across the street and so that's kind of consistent with what's happened in the past. So I wanted to speak about the stormwater permit wanted to speak about reduced lighting. I was happy to see that there were some new ADA spaces I really worry about disability and people not meeting the needs of people that have special needs so I was glad to see those spaces included and I was also happy to see that even though the expansion occurred they weren't going to eat into the green which is a beautiful little green area that everybody enjoys people play frisbee. I mean it's used by a lot of people including UVM students but anyways it's a wonderful little space and I'm glad it's not taking any additional space. I'm very happy that the cedars are being preserved and more plantings are being done along I think the line the back of the parking lot that abuts Latham Court once again for the screening that I think is important for noise. If it's hospital employees and if they're using it overnight then that becomes more relevant because of doors opening and closing in the middle of the night sound travels as we all know. So let me see if there's anything else. I was able to speak with Garrett regarding this and I thank him for being so open and explaining so much to me regarding this and so I wanna go on record as supporting these improvements with the understanding of trying to impact trying to address impacts by shielding of lights or reduction in lights planting of vegetation and also supporting UVM if they choose to ask for that waiver so they don't have to rip up some of the really beautifully paved and well done road that they just put in. Thank you. I think that was stormwater. Sure. Okay. We have an operational stormwater discharge permit for the project so I'm really glad to state as part of that we're required to look at additional runoff reduction. So we have underground stormwater chambers designed it's the big blob. It looks it's in the middle of the parking lot. We raise the grade of the elevation of the parking lot to get well the water tables meet the stormwater requirements. So the one year storm event will be fully up and traded with runoff beyond that going to the North Campus. So we will be reducing runoff. It's current. Are those infiltrated basins under our sub surface or subsurface detention to piping? They're infiltration chambers. So they'll infiltrate the one year stormwater. In 10 year? 10 year will flow north. There's a pipe that runs along the north edge of the parking lot close to the North Campus pond. Oh, okay. And currently now there's really just nothing in surface. And on the lighting, I'm double-checking now but I believe the lights can be programmable to stay at 20, 40% motion to 100 to get that lumen that shot on the automatic. So we have this specific lumen. The limitation is the parking. Don't we have Mary? But candle limitation, the parking, the bin bags. Yeah. Yes, there is. So. Your specific standards for parking. And they meant those. Yes. Well, I can figure that out. I know. Claire might have something. Where? And then you like to say at the end to wrap up here? So we kind of deferred to you, but we would request whether 44, 13 come to play here in that statute. Lot coverage is not specifically identified as one of the areas that can, that you can provide review. So we are not sure if that can, if we can use that route or if not to ask for the waiver or the variants as Sharon. Defended so those are. We'll get that. But you will take that 44, 13 under advisement. Okay. Appreciate it. Anybody else want to ask any questions? All right. Well, with that, we'll close the application, close the hearing on this application and we'll be deliberating on shortly. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a good night. Thank you Claire. Mary, did we talk to other business in the meeting or did we do that? It was like, you got so many. So the last item on our agenda is other business, which is a consideration of new or immediate standard permit conditions. I think they're all very good. I'm not truly very happy with the change in number four. I think two appeals to the Vermont Supreme Court, specifically on that language from this town, but from others. And I'm glad for having that standard language included. And I guess anyone has any questions or changes to them. Talk about them. I have a question about number 12, Mary. I'm not certain I'm equipped to respond to it. I can drag this by the zoning manager. I know it reflects some changes already to the existing ordinance, some changes to stormwater regulations and then the third group of changes where what was recommended. Who's the zoning manager? Scott. That's why we can't trust him. He broke the draft. Do we have to adapt this? Do we have to adapt these or not? This is information, all right. You may take time to review them, but I'd be looking for affirmation. All right, so let's go to look for affirmation. Everywhere. I don't think we need to form a motion, but I think these are good changes. And I look forward to seeing them in, I guess you'll just normally say to staff report standard conditions on 315. That's correct. I'm fine with that in future applications subject to this draft. I guess if anybody wants other changes, I'll put them in the Scott. I guess we can push it. I'm moving we approve these changes as our standard conditions. Sorry, I'm sorry. I don't think I understood it at first. The idea is that at the end of all the applications rather than- No, no, no, it does right now. So if you look at the end of the staff approval, they'll have some specific conditions. And then very often they'll just say, as I catch all our standard conditions, 1, 2, 15, and then when I get the final permits assigned, I'll see a copy of these inserted at the final decision, the permit, you know, all of these will be copied and printed out, but they just don't put it in our standard for the time which is four or two minutes. Okay, I'll repeat that. Great, I'll start with my motion. All right, I'll do some favor. That's it. That's that permission. Thank you. That's a formal application. Yeah, yeah, no problem. So with that, we'll close our public meeting for you.