 All right. Good evening. This is a meeting of the City of Montpelier Development Review Board. The date is Tuesday, February 18, 2020. My name is Kate McCarthy. I'm the vice chair of this board acting as chair this evening. And the other members here from my right are Rob Kidwin, Michael Lizorchak, Meredith Crandall, staff, Clay Rock, Ryan Cain, Roger Crands. Good. Thank you. So the next item on our agenda is the approval of the agenda. Is there a motion to approve the agenda or any modifications to it? I actually moved to modify item three on the agenda to say elect chair and vice chair as necessary. Okay. Is that acceptable to others? Absolutely. Okay. Is there a motion to approve the agenda as amended? So moved. Should I move? You moved the first one. No, okay. Sorry about that. Anybody else? All right. I moved to approve the agenda as printed. As modified? As modified. Yes. I'll second that. Great. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. All right. We have approved the agenda. Thank you all for your help with that. All right. That brings us to item three on the agenda, which is to elect a chair. And I will, by way of explanation, share that our previous chair, Dan Richardson, was appointed to the remainder of a city council seat. And so once he was appointed, once that was effective, he stepped down, resigned immediately his chairship of the DRB. So we need to elect a new chair. So are there any nominations for chair? Nominate our able and very talented vice chair, K. McCarthy, to serve as chair. Is there a second? Second. Second by Ryan. Second by Roger. All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. Rob, Michael, Roger, Ryan and Claire. Opposed? Abstaining. I will abstain. And I will thank you all for that motion and election. I greatly appreciate it. So now we need a vice chair, musical chairs, as the case may be. Do we have a motion for vice chair? A nominee for vice chair. And just as a note, you can nominate people in absentia? Do we have any information on whether people in absentia have any interest or willingness to serve as the vice chair? He does. They do. That information has been delivered. Kevin has expressed a willingness to serve as vice chair. And other people and others can express interest as well. I would nominate Kevin O'Connell to be the vice chair. It's very diligent, pays good attention. Oh, it's just right next to me, so sad to see him go over there, but it could be a good candidate for the job. Well, you can move over here, too. And you can take mine. We have a motion. Is there a second? I'll second that. We've had a motion and a second to nominate Kevin as vice chair. All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Just a note, these are to fill out the remainder of the terms. The seats will have to be newly elected come August at the annual election time. Yes, thank you. That's a good clarification. So this is to fill the remainder of the existing terms. All right, so comments from the chair. That's me. That's the first comment. Thank you all for your votes. I've been an alternate and a vice chair, a regular member and a vice chair, and it will be a great experience to continue to serve with you all as chair. I am sad to see Dan go because he was also great to serve with as a chair, but wish him the best in his city council endeavors. I also want to welcome Roger back to the board after. Thank you, Kate. It's really great to have you. Thank you for stepping up to be a part of this. All right, I'd like to move on to agenda item five, approving the meeting minutes from January 21st of 2020. Is there a motion to approve those meeting minutes? I will move to approve the minutes as printed. We have a motion from Ryan. Is there a second? I'll second that motion. Motion from Ryan. Second from Rob. All those in favor who are eligible to vote, which includes myself, Ryan, Rob and Michael. Signify approval. All in favor of approving the minutes as printed. Raise your right hand. Okay, the motion passes. Kate, Ryan, Rob and Michael. Thank you. We have approved the minutes of our last meeting. Yes. All right, so that brings us to our, there are only application that we have on our agenda for today. So if you'd like to come and have a seat at this table in front of this microphone, I'll explain the process and then swear you in to give testimony on this matter. So this is 159th State Street, Court Street Associates, and what we're reviewing and potentially providing approval for is a demolition of a derelict historic shed at the rear of the property. So just to kind of lay out how this goes from here, we're going to hear an overview of the project from Meredith and then we'll turn it over to you to talk a little bit about the project and the, how it meets the criteria. Then we'll have questions for you. It looks like there aren't any folks here to be heard to weigh in on this one way or another. So unless people pop in for public comment, the conversation will continue between you and us. Our goal is to understand the project and make sure we understand all the facts so we can know that it meets the zoning bylaw. So we'll start by swearing you in. So if you wouldn't mind raising your right hand, please. 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? Yes. Thank you. And would you let us know your name as well, sir? Yanna Walder. Yanna Walder, thank you. All right, so I'll turn it over to Meredith for an overview of the application. Okay, so 159 State Street. This project doesn't involve the main building on the property, which is also the main building in the National Register of Historic Places listing. It involves a small, well, maybe not too small, but an outbuilding at the rear of the property that is also mentioned enlisted on the National Register. And so that is why demolition of that building needs to come before the DRB. If it weren't on the National Register, it wouldn't be here. The Design Review Committee has reviewed this because it is also in the Design Review Control District. And the Design Review Committee approved the demolition. They didn't have any issues with it, especially because with the roof caved in and at least one of the walls already down, there was a sense that there was really no way to save the structure at this point. So that's, you know, if there's, you still need to go through all the demolition criteria that are in, sorry, Section 3004. And this is outlined on pages four through six of the staff report. Those are the main issues before you at this point. So that's what we've got. Unless anybody has any specific questions for me before we move on. Any questions for Meredith? Okay. According to the staff report, the standards for demolition are the big ones that we're going to look at. And we also, looks like there may be a couple of fairly simple questions, potentially simple questions about how the site will then be restored and regraded. What, if any landscaping, there will be really just those two things as they pertain to our bylaws. So we'll get to those in the conversation. Great. So I'll turn it over to you, Yana, if you'd like to talk a little about the project. I don't know what else to say. It's okay. It's a very small structure. We're hoping to take it apart and grade and seed the site. That's about a 20 by 20 shed. Oh, I have, I did have Robert McCullough, who's a historic preservation professional, look at it and give his opinion of the structure. And he wrote me a short email sort of aligning some of the same things, confirming that the building has failed structurally and documenting a little bit of history that he knows about it. Okay, so I would just note that within this Mr. McCullough's assessment is that theoretically it might be possible to reconstruct this building, but it would be a new building and not a historic one. He would recommend photo documentation as appropriate mitigation for its loss. And then he notes you need to obtain a permit, which you're here doing tonight. Okay, great. So I think what we should do next is dive right into the criteria for demolition of a historic structure and talk through how those standards are met. So in the staff report, that discussion begins on page four. And in section 3004D demolition, one of the first things we need to know about is that there is a demolition and site restoration plan. So you did mention in your application and just now that you plan to demolish and could you tell us a little bit about your plan to demolish and what to do with the site after? So I defer to professionals as a contracting company. And I think it's a simple wooden structure with a chimney. There's not much, you know, I think just the wooden structure would take it apart as well as the chimney and they will dispose of the materials and then grate the site and seed it, which is it mentions something about it being on the slopes, it's actually on a flat lawn. Okay. It's it's depending on the way our maps work out. Sometimes the slopes are the slopes data get skewed because of trees or even just the roof of the building. Okay. So that is helpful because one of the points Meredith had raised for us has to do with its location on a steep slope and your testimony asserts that it's on a flat surface and so that part of the bylaw does is is met. Great. Thank you. All right. And you've confirmed that there is a demolition and site restoration plan. So now I think what we should do is is talk through and I may ask for Meredith's help with this one a little bit, but talk through these standards for the demolition of a historic structure. So we need to find it is our job to approve this to find that the rehabilitation of the structure or a portion of the structure would cause undue financial hardship to the owner or the demolition is part of a site development plan and design plan that would provide clear and substantial benefit to the community. So those are the two paths we can take. We're going to probably do the analysis under the first, which is that prove that rehabilitation hear your testimony about why rehabilitation of the structure or portion in there of would cause undue financial hardship. Okay. So what we're what we need to understand is whether the building cannot be feasibly used or rented at a reasonable rate of return in its present condition or a free habilitated or a free habilitated and that the denial of the application would deprive all reasonable use. Do you want to jump in, Meredith? I'll be fine. Yeah. So maybe do this a little succinctly. Well, the what I was my problem with dealing with this particular fact scenario under this analysis is that, yes, this is a commercial property, but that particular shed has never, if it has been rented, it was decades ago. It's not something that can be rented now. If they can't rebuilding it the sizes that doesn't make it economically feasible to then rent out given other the rest of the I would ask, yes, I mean, can it be? I would put that to the question to the applicant. If it were to be rehabilitated, could you rent it out and make use of it and contribute to the economic value of your property? So it would have to be rebuilt from the ground up, which which is, you know, possible, but it would be not conforming. So we would like to take this existing building down and maybe rebuild something down the road that's further away from the boundaries, property boundary and you know, the current building doesn't have utilities. So couldn't even if we were to rehabilitate it couldn't be rented. So I guess, I mean, it's it is a it isn't a difficult, maybe it's not a difficult structure to do under this analysis. It was one of the problems I was wrestling with, which is sure we need the analysis here isn't as thorough as it could have been. We do we do encounter a lot of outbuildings, especially carriage houses or garages that have fallen into disrepair. I think the difference with this one is that it is a much smaller building that was probably not previously rented for parking cars or storage storage things. So yeah. All right. So what I'll do is I'll just come I'll just walk through these criteria for approving undue financial hardship. And then as I go I would certainly encourage other board members to chime in with any comments or analysis as well. So when did you acquire this property? I became the property manager about four years ago. Property manager about four years ago. And I think it was acquired in 2005. Okay. And do you know if was there awareness of its historic nature in 2005? I don't know position. I don't know. You don't know? And the next criterion is the structural soundness of the building or any structures on the property and their suitability for rehabilitation. And I've heard you say it is not structurally sound. You've provided evidence from Mr. McCullough and it's not suitable for rehabilitation. Wouldn't get too far. Okay. The next criterion has to do with economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the structure. And you've also provided testimony that it would not be economical or feasible. Meredith, could you help guide me on the next criterion which reads the current level of economic return on the property as considered in relation to eight listed factors? So the other thing to remember is you don't actually have to use all of these criteria. In the analysis, it's, you know, as these are all relevant. So that item as relevant. Okay. Yep. It's so good if I don't make your listed factors. Okay. It's these. It's a try. Yep. Oh, you guys. Yeah, but they aren't in here. So that would be the amount paid for the property, date of purchase and party from whom purchased, a whole bunch of information about the purchase of the property. Whether there's been a substantial decrease in the fair market value of the property, whether there would be a decrease in the fair market value of the property as a result of the denial of the permit. Fair market value of the property at the time the application was filed. It's all about looking at all these economic factors, real estate taxes for the previous three years. This isn't information I asked from the applicant because it didn't seem to make sense in this particular application. Okay. I agree with that choice. Does that work for other board members as well that we would bypass that portion of the consideration? Okay. Similarly, another criterion is the feasibility of alternative uses that can earn a reasonable economic return from the property as considered in relation to detailed information from engineers. I think we can bypass that as well for similar reasons. We are, the next criterion has to do with whether the applicant has demonstrated that they've looked into lots of other options like tax credits and grants and things. We're talking, it sounds like about a 400 square foot structure that is a contributing structure but not terribly unique or? It hasn't ever been used. It's just kind of in the back of the property. Is it visible from any public vantage point? Not from the road, but if you're in a parking lot, you can see it. Okay. It looks like a small cabin. The parking lot on that property, right? The parking lot on that property. Okay. But so from the public road, from State Street, you can't really see it? No. It's way set back. Okay. The last item that we take under consideration is input from community organizations, preservation groups, other associations, and private citizens who may wish to evaluate and comment. And Bob McCullough has provided some information that we've received tonight. The design review committee has recommended that this be approved for demolition. Is there other input that you've received or feedback that you've received about how the structure should be dealt with? Nope. But I was pleasantly surprised that the committee, the previous hearing, they all went by and looked at it. Good to have visitors. One of the comments from the design review committee, I think, was a question mark as to whether anything was salvageable. Right. And have you thought about that? Most of the siding is rotten and the windows are broken. I mean, we could save the front door. That's pretty cute. I think the hope is that we would be able to potentially improve on the historic structure that's there in a couple of years and to add more to the property and maybe we could reuse that. So the front, are you amenable to kind of saving any features that are in fact salvageable, like if the front door is salvageable, then you're amenable to holding onto it and trying to reuse it? I think the front door definitely, yeah. And what about the chimney? Is that, it looks cool. I think it's taking the structure with it. I guess that makes it less cool when it's pulling down the rest of the structure. It takes the fun out of the chimney. It's in photo B, the big chimney. Is that part of this structure? Yep. Yes. Wow. Okay. Yeah, you can sort of see where the roof was. So I've walked through the criteria, but I invite other board members to ask other questions about the project in general or for the criteria themselves and any other evidence you might like to have to be convinced that they are met. I think I just like to highlight one of the findings of Robert McCulloch says it's certainly, as you can see in the photo, it's lost his historical integrity and thus no longer historically significant and I think that speaks volumes to what we're at and what fact, how much more are you related to discuss this? Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I mean, I think it is, it's noted in here that, you know, one of the considerations is, you know, you can't, if you buy a historic building and then just let it fall into the ground through your own neglect over many years that, you know, that's a different situation and that's something that we would strongly discourage by just saying, oh well, fell over, so I guess you can demolish it. It seems like it's pretty clear that's not the case that the current ownership is fairly recent. So yeah. I'm a champion for this building. I can tell you that much. It's a beautiful building. We've done a lot. Yeah. That's great. Thank you, Ryan, for highlighting that. Worth noting, but I certainly agree that. I think Robert McCulloch, you know, he seemed to think that the damage just dates back quite a long time because it's been in the shade of the trees for a long time right next to a water. There's like a stream on the side. Yep. Any other questions from the board members? The last item that was highlighted in the staff report pertains to landscaping, which is section 3203 of our zoning bylaw. Could you explain for us, Meredith, you highlighted the requirement for a landscaping plan and the fact that this one was not provided, but we have received testimony about how the site will be dealt with after the removal of the building and find that meets the standards. Yeah. So with the relatively recent final adoption of the new landscaping provisions, all applications, theoretically, are supposed to have landscaping plans submitted. We did get documentation of the current trees that are on site and just running calculations on those. It appears to me that there's more than enough natural landscaping on the site to meet the total landscaping requirements. And so it really doesn't make sense to ask for a formal landscaping plan at this point, especially considering we're dealing with changes to the back portion of the parcel. Not looking at trying to have new screening. There's nothing going on here. So it's just, unfortunately, it's one of those things where because I couldn't officially check a box, you're going to need to check that box for yourselves. Yeah. Seeing as the landscaping plan would show a grassed area where a building used to be, I think we can all substantially understand what that entails without the need for a written document. A fellow board member is amenable to that inclusion. Absolutely. Good. Okay. Thank you. We've checked that box. Very good. Was there any further discussion amongst board members or questions for the applicant? I had a question and maybe this is for Meredith. In the stop report on page four in the red, it notes, recommends the board consider the DRC's expertise in making the final determination. And I was just curious what was that in regard to the building materials being salvageable? It was, so that was in regard to, in general, just that the design review committee approved the demolition. And on the design review committee and at that particular hearing, we had two historic preservation professionals. But then in addition to that, also the ideas that they've reviewed it, they've okayed it. Yes, consider their notes about the preservation of some materials, if anything, can be saved, like the door has discussed. And then there was, I had seen that I couldn't submit the email from Bob McCullough and his comment about making sure that there's some photo documentation of the building before it's demolished the rest of the way. And maybe having that submitted to the zoning administrator's office is something to just put in the file, I think would be, there's some documentation here, but maybe more extensive photos before it's fully demolished. Is that amenable to the applicant to do some more documentation? Definitely. So I have a question about salvaging of materials. And maybe this is this is more kind of an administrative or enforceable aspect of it. And if that would be kind of a finding or if that would be a condition? It's kind of a hard one to enforce, right? Because, you know, being able to go out there and I don't have the expertise to say, yes, that's salvageable, that yes, that no, that's not. You know, a creative way to do it would be to, you know, maybe ask the applicant to have somebody go out and have a professional go out and look at the materials. Somebody other than just your standard contractor, but that's up to you and it's how much burden you want to put on the applicant. You know, it could be a finding that there could be a finding in here that applicant has agreed, if you do, to salvage maybe some of the key character defining features. If they're salvageable, the architectural features, such as the front door, but that's not necessarily something that's very enforceable. You know, but especially between, you know, who knows what's, these pictures were taken before we had lots of snow. You know, who knows what condition it's going to be in after this winter snow and ice and weight. I don't know that it would be a condition per se, but the findings could include encouragement to salvage whenever possible for eventual reuse on the property, ideally for eventual reuse on the property, which you've expressed some interest in, more so than a condition. I just noted that in the application, there was some information by the applicant just saying that all the materials would be removed off site. So I just wouldn't reconcile that information and just be clear about what the expectations would be. We can do that as a finding in the decision as to what was discussed here and what applicants said they would be trying to do. Yeah, I support that. All right. Is there any further discussion? If not, I would entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to approve the application for the demolition of a contributing historic structure as presented in the application materials and supporting materials provided at this hearing. Subject to the following conditions is a pretty standard condition that in the work, the applicant shall follow the erosion control practices outlined in section 3008D of the regulations and also by agreement of the applicant that there will be a more extensive photo documentation of the structure prior to demolition and those photographs will be provided to the zoning administrator to keep on file for the Historic Preservation Commission. Okay, motion by Ryan. Second. Second by Rob. Any further discussion? All those in favor, please raise your right hand. Opposed? Abstaining. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you very much. With that approval begins a 30-day window where people may appeal but that seems unlikely because they're kind of here. Well, I mean, some people argue it starts now. Some people argue it starts when the written decision is issued. Would that be the case? Yes. Okay. So there have been a couple of court cases where they say it's the verbal decision but sometimes that's based on the matter going into executive session and then somebody verbally explaining over the phone what that executive decision was. That's what I get for trying to be specific. Your permit will be granted at the closure of the appeal period which will be detailed in the written decision. Yeah. Sounds good. Well, well done. All right. What we typically do. So there's a 45-day window which this is not going to take 45 days to issue the written decision. We'll get you the written decision as soon as we can. The way we usually do it downstairs is we issue the written decision and the permit to you on the same day and that'll explain when your 30-day appeal window ends. It'll be flagged on there. It's usually 30 days from the date of the written decision that it signed. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mary. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Yana. All right. Thank you all. Moving on to agenda item seven, other business. The only piece of other business I have to note is the next meeting to March 16th, 2020 at which you will be supported by your vice chair because I will be absent for parental leave for the next couple of months. I look forward to rejoining you in May or June. Other items or other business that others wish to raise? Go ahead. Oh, I just had a question on if you have any additional applications and just kind of what you're seeing in the zoning department as far as kind of new applications coming in. But in case you don't look at the city manager's report, so we tallied this up the other day when we took a look and realized that the development review board hadn't met in many, many months. And so our planning director did a little review and were really on track for the number of permits issued out of the planning department. So 2017, which is under the old zoning, there were 148 permits in 2018 under the new zoning, there were 126. And last year in 2019, there were 145. So that's total permits issued. So that's both development review board, design review committee and things that only get reviewed by the zoning administrator. So those numbers aren't changing that much. But with the 2018 regulation rewrite, a lot more permits were funneled towards administrative review only or design review and just administrative under the old regulations. Everything that went to design review also had to come here. So those were wiped off your calendar. Unless we have a big uptick in large applications or like end of 2018, early 2019, a lot more subdivision applications, there just won't be as many development review board meetings because you won't have to deal with the small applications. So for example, those of you who've been doing this or tracking this for a while know that we used to have a consent agenda. We no longer have that. That was substantially to corroborate the decisions of the design review committee. Anecdotally, I feel as though we also used to do a lot of variances. And because the zoning districts are analyzed to make sure that more of what we have is considered conforming, that makes it so that those types of additions, the porches, the side yard things can be done, the sheds can be done administratively so that I think has removed some of the burden from us. Has it increased the burden for you? The thing is, I didn't come in until after the 2018 regulations went into effect. Things, you know, anecdotally, my understanding is things sped up back in 2016 and things got busy and it just didn't slow down until this past fall. So things have kind of evened out a little bit and even for the, you know, even for the administrative permits, it hasn't gotten crazy. So it's been good. It's been good. But so the development review board may not actually meet twice a month through the spring and somewhere. We don't know. We'll see what happens. We'll see which potential future big projects that keep popping up and not actually getting applications in actually. I was actually surprised that that project came to the DRB. But I mean, I understand that they're contributing structure component of it. But it made me wonder, is there an option to approve something like that administratively considering kind of the state of that structure? And how much of it is actually kind of applied, how much of it is actually relative to the standards that are in the regulation? So I don't know when, if this would actually happen. There is a push from the historic preservation commission to draft all new demolition provisions that would have more of a staged review. So that even if the development review board needed to make the decision whether or not something still has historical significance, that might be all you looked at in this particular situation. And you would say, this is, you make the final determination of it is no longer historically significant. We don't even need to look at the financial factors that doesn't come into play here with something this small that has already seen its integrity go down. And it was not, you know, an intentional or negligent act. So there's just I don't know if that's going to make it through planning commission even or what this is in early phases. But there's there's a lot of discussion about trying to figure out how to handle these demolition provisions a little better. They are complicated and there are factors including the size of the size of the structure, the state of decay of the structure, intent behind what led to the structure, all of which can be very hard to evaluate. So please do keep us apprised of that. It is a difficult provision of the zoning to administer. But the questions asked are important ones. So please keep us in the loop. We'll do. Thank you. Any other business? All right. Is there a motion to adjourn? A motion to adjourn. Motion by Rob. Second. Second by Claire. Any discussion? All those in favor? Raise your hand. Motion passes unanimously. We are adjourned. Thank you all very much.