 So this is Development Review Board for Burlington July 6th, I mean, and we will get started. We take up items that as they are on the agenda. And when we call each item, we ask those who are going to participate either as public or as the applicant to indicate to Scott and he will admit people to the meeting. As needed, I will swear people in. Communications are all online at this point. Actually, on the agenda, I should say one thing that the 139 Forster Street is withdrawn. Is that right? Yeah. If anybody's here for 139 Forster Street, we won't be talking about that tonight. Okay. Minutes, I think, I don't see Joe here right now, but I think I did sign most of the, as Joseph, I think I did sign most of the old minutes. Maybe you could have a backlog. I know he's working on it, Brad. All right. I thought we're pretty close. Well, we'll see. Okay. So then with that, we get to our first item, which is a Consent Agenda Item 160 Flynn Avenue, a Switchback Beer Works for External Brain Siloes. Is that the applicant? Tyler? Yes. Tyler Barnard is here. I don't know if Gretchen Langfeld is on webinar, is on Zoom or not. Yes, I'm here as well, Tyler. Okay. So this is recommended for consent. Did you see the staff's recommendations? I think we did. I reviewed them. I don't see any issue with them. I'll let Gretchen speak if she has any. Yeah, no, everything looks good to me. We'll object to treating this as a consent item. And is anybody in the public here to speak on this item, Scott? I'd like to speak on this item. Raise your hand now. 160 Flynn Avenue. 160 Flynn. Nope, it's just the applicant. Okay. So would somebody make a motion on 160 Flynn Avenue? So moved that we approve the application at 160 Flynn Avenue and adopts desk findings and recommendations. Seconds, seconds. Any discussion? All in favor? And do we lose Chase? Chase go. He said, where did Chase go? Yeah, I know. So it's approved for zero, but I don't know what happened to Chase. Okay. Well, anyway, Tyler, you're all set. You're approved. Thank you, Brad. I did have one quick question. The zoning application mentions that there might be a third silo that goes in at some point in the future. I was wondering if there's any, if you have any advice about that, if it would be like a quick zoning approval, like administrative approval for that, or if we'd have to come back through this whole process? I would say talk to Scott or who did you deal with this application? Okay. Ryan, when you're ready to do that. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Okay. And I see Brooks is here. Okay. Welcome, Brooks. Okay. The next application is 58 Hyde Street. Converted one duplex unit with an existing residence to establish a bed and breakfast is the applicant here. I see McCallan Atkins. Is that right? Yes. Yes. I'm present. Okay. Is anybody else here to speak on this application? Just myself. Okay. Anybody from the public? Scott? I'd like to speak on this application. Raise your hand please. I think it's just Mac. Okay. Mac, you need to swear in and affirm that you will tell the truth and hold truth on the pain and penalty of perjury. I swear in. This way you say I do. I do. Okay. I think this is recommended for approval on this. Okay. And I think you have a revised site plan that you submitted on this which shows that you can park that looks like four cars from reading this, right? Yes. That's correct. And I think you also had some comment on when you're not on site. It's the same as the last meeting is that there always be someone on site. And I think you mentioned that when you're not there, you'll have somebody else staying there. Is that the idea? Well, I live there with my girlfriend. So one of us isn't there. One would be present at the residence. And if both of us were gone, we would just not have the upstairs unit available. I see. So if nobody's there to do the parking, you won't be renting it out. Yeah. Brad, the parking became a non-issue with the revised site plan showing two pairs of tandem as opposed to the prior site plan, which showed a longer, a single-width driveway. So they don't need to have... Oh, I thought on-site was just a requirement, but regarding parking, it's not required for someone to be on site for our current layout of the lot, which you'll see on the revised site plan. There can be up to two cars on the left side, which both my girlfriend and I's car would not affect. Okay. Any questions from the board for the applicant? This is sounding fairly straightforward. And unless there's something else that you want to add, we'll close public hearing, and we will probably deliberate on this item at the end of the meeting. Okay? Sounds good. Thank you. Okay, next item is 203 South Cove Road, a Peel of a Zoning Permit, a Decision of Denial. And you are recused on this one, AJ? Yeah. Wait, the South Cove? Yeah. Yeah. This is Stan Weinberger. And is anybody else here besides Stan Weinberger to speak on this? My wife, Christine Weinberger, will be joining momentarily. And nobody from the public, Scott? Jeff Shulman is good as hand up. Anyone else wants to speak on this item? Raise your hand, and I can let you talk as well. So your wife isn't here yet, Stan? She's in the room, Scott. Okay. So I would just swear in, and what's your wife's name, Stan? Oh, there she is. Okay. Christine, is that right? Okay. The thing why we're getting Jeff Shulman, if you would all affirm that you will tell the truth and hold truth on the pain of penalty and perjury. I do. I do. I do. Okay. So... Not seem to be correct. I can only see, okay, all of you. I can't see Stan or Jeff. I'm not seeing them either. I can't see your names. All right. And you're not supposed to see me. Sorry, I've got my camera enabled, but... It's okay. Okay. So, Scott, I always get confused on this one. Is this where you went first? Yeah, it's an appeal of a city decision. So, Ryan would overview it first and then the appellates. Okay. With either thing, and then you guys get into questions. Okay, Ryan, do you want to present? Happy to. Absolutely. So the application to demolish and attached garage at the forefront of the structure was denied based on two reasons. One being the garage itself as it exists is, you know, foremost of the structure, which is, doesn't meet the zoning code for Article 6 and the design standards, which requires that the garage be set back from the front wall of the longest street-facing portion of the principal structure. So there's a lot of garages in this neighborhood, and probably more city-wide, that have old existing garages that are foremost of the main residents toward the street. The proposal to demolish and rebuild in a larger footprint and even closer to the street represents a confliction with the setback standards. And, you know, the setbacks are determined with the four neighboring lots, two on either side. The location is located on a bend in the street, and there are some anomalies with one home in particular that throws the setback standards or requirements pretty far back regardless. But the code requires that the calculation be based on those four neighboring properties. The second reason is that, again, the garage has to be set back behind the longest street-facing wall of the principal structure, which is the house. The proposal to rebuild with a larger two-story with living space upstairs still does not address the fact that it's foremost toward the street than the main residence. The residence behind the garage, as proposed, still has a longer street-facing wall, so that is in conflict with that section as well. So it's denied on those two reasons. The applicants actually submitted, all right, the appellants, just submitted additional petition for your consideration, which I uploaded this morning. It's got today's date on there, so if you want to peruse that, it's there online. I think that covers it. The expanding the footprint is expanding the non-conforming structure. Correct. That's correct. The house. Correct. Is there any, it's a very strange street frontage, I would say. When you look at it, I mean, you know, it's, I mean, just trying to figure out what the setbacks are of the neighboring houses seems, it's difficult. The other side of the street is actually quite regular. Once you get around the corner, this side of the street, is there anything in the zoning ordinance that says something when you don't have enough neighboring houses to evaluate? There is. In this case, there's three, as opposed to four, because one of the four vacant lots, neighboring vacant lots, is vacant. So you take the average of the three neighboring homes. Is that straight out of the zoning rights? Yeah. Is there a limit to, with DRB approval, can we do a variance up to a certain amount on this? Variances go through the DRB. So, yeah, that's true. So, the CDO doesn't have any provision for waiver. Maybe it should, but it doesn't, except for parking waivers. Your variance is a high bar and they could apply for a variance. I raised my hand, but I don't know if you could see it. Yeah, we can, but it's not, we're not up to your part yet. Got it. Thank you. The variance is dedicated on not being able to do anything in compliance. And we've seen those, I think exclusively, where setbacks actually overlap, which can happen, especially on the lakeshore with the regular shoreline versus front-tier setbacks. You know, it's actually impossible in that case to build in compliance, which is not the case here. That's a long answer to a sure, they could apply for a variance. I don't think they meet the criteria. Well, isn't that part of the criteria is, I guess, some of you have none of their Omega, but I guess it's having a two-car garage that makes the setback an issue, the one-car garage. Well, the present configuration is an issue, and I think it's Ryan pointed out in the staff report that could be replaced, as is, with no problem. And the problem arises by making it bigger and closer. It can be replaced as is, and they can put the second floor on it within the footprint. The single-family home, I think it's only on the side and rear setback, Brad. I don't think that applies to the front. Yeah, it's just the side and rear that allows you to go up within the setback. It's the side and rear setbacks. That's an issue. You can go up with the single-family home, not the front. It doesn't specify the front and the zoning ordinance. But that is an issue of still the setback is what you're saying. The other question that I had for you, Ryan, is do we have any different consideration given the orientation of the garage doors? These are the garage doors are not facing the street side, so it doesn't, from this view, it doesn't look like a garage. It's not necessarily taking away from the inviting street edge. They address design standards, addresses when there's not street-facing garage doors, but that's particularly to make the garage itself and in that particular instance to look like not a garage essentially, which they do in the application, but as far as placement of the structure, that's not addressed. Does the board have any more questions for Ryan at this point? So then Jeff or Christine, any of you or as you stand or Christine, if you want to. So specifically, it was brought to our attention by one of our neighbors who had actually worked on helping the property at 185 South Cove get approved because apparently they're very long driveway telescoping their house to the lake shore or lake shore vantage point was the result of a previous DRB variance that was granted. And so we feel that that's not a fair property to include in the average. So Stan went around and measured every single on the South Cove loop, which we've attached and found out that the average is 55.8 feet. So we have this very anomalous neighborhood curve, as has been pointed out, that we've hopefully done a better job detailing in this newly uploaded information. Specifically, the issue with 185 was brought to our attention and we wanted to have that acknowledged if possible. And what is the setback that you're looking for with the plan that you have proposed? We would like to go to 50 feet. So within a five foot variance, I'm sorry, a five foot. Right, five or variance from the average setback. And from our current garage, it just makes the garage slightly wider. The main goal of the build actually is to add living space above the garage. And I appreciate that. Right, as Ryan pointed out, the garage is kind of a preexisting non conforming structure. It does that and right, we could certainly take down the garage and we build it on the same footprint, although I guess the primary goal is the living space above. It does back up against and is kind of integrated with living space. So there's not a good way to move it back if we took down a garage and rebuilt a garage on the side of the house. Pretty certain we run into side setbacks with our neighbors. One question I had, Brian had noted that 125 South Cove had requested to take down their home and garage and rebuild a home and garage with a garage in front of the primary structure. And I guess the only comment I would have to that is we were not intending to take down our home. That would be a whole different scale of construction than we are prepared to do. It would be an undue hardship for us. Yeah, I do. I mean, we would like to incorporate design elements to make it consistent with the street and not a, you know, obvious garage that didn't look appropriate for the street. But yeah, so there were a number of issues that we wondered if, because of them, you know, made sense to have some DRB flexibility in interpreting this provision. So I know I wrote out the petition, but please, if there's any questions, happy to answer any questions. Just one point of clarity. You had on the new plans, there's a garage that shows these doors. Was that just to illustrate the seat or doors you wanted to use? Yeah, yeah, I think so. Because, you know, when we submitted the plans to Ryan, we had to, I believe, specify, you know, that level of detail, right? Yeah. But the more we just included that to give a picture of sort of, you know, what we are intended in the scale of, you know, the house. And, really, you're looking to go five feet wider, if I'm understanding you. Say you're 55 feet now and you want to go five feet wider. Am I understanding your dimensions correctly? Yeah, yeah, frankly, you know, when the garage was built, it's fairly tight to accommodate cars currently, with, you know, we don't have terribly big cars, but it's just a rather tight space. 20 and a half feet type garage. And we're hoping also to incorporate some EV chargers with the goal to eventually convert to EVs. And right now, it's tight enough that that's very difficult to think about putting into that space. And we know that's part of the city's kind of larger goal also is to move towards reduction of reliance on fossil fuels. So we're hoping this is also in keeping with sort of the city's ultimate goals. Any questions from the board for the applicant? I think there's one other person. Is that a neighbor who's on? Hi, I'm Jeff Shulman, 170 South Cove, and I'm across the street from Stan and Christine. And I just, you know, I'm not not in a position to give a technical report, but I can speak on behalf of, I think, my neighbors and saying that we're supportive of this appeal. We've reviewed their plans and if there's, I think it's already been mentioned, but it is a very odd sort of, you know, curvature of the road. And the neighborhood in general is a little bit odd. I would say, you know, if there's one thing that's consistent about the architecture and design of homes in our neighborhood is that they're pretty inconsistent. So I don't think there's anything about their plan that would be disruptive to the neighborhood. And again, I live right across the street. And I think what they presented ultimately would be far less disruptive than what they might have to do if this isn't supported. So I'll leave it at that. I think certainly of my support and I think the support of our neighborhood as well. Thank you, Jeff. We did submit signatures from 34 residences represented of the 43 around the loop that we've been able to contact so far. We haven't received any negative feedback or opposition and we have full signed support, verbal support of our plans from our neighbors, three houses on either side of us and directly on the inner loop. So anybody who could actually cite the house from their house is fully supportive in writing as well, if that's helpful. Okay. Just give us a couple more hands up in the audience from William Calfee and Ben Travers. Okay. Do you want to admit them? Ben Travers and William Calfee. Ben Travers and William Calfee. Do you have to swear you in? Do you swear to tell the truth and the whole truth on the pain and penalty of perjury? Yes, sir. I do. I do. Okay. So I'll have William Calfee. Do you want to speak first? Yeah. Thanks. Thanks for letting me in. I'm also a neighbor down the road just a little bit and I've reviewed these plans also. I've met 147 South Covert and the plans look great to me. So I'm in support. Okay. And Ben Travers. Thank you very much, Ben Travers. Hope you can hear me all right. I'm actually up in Canada right now on vacation, but I live at 29 South Crest Drive and I am the City Councilor for award five as well. I've also reviewed the plans and understand from a number of neighbors that they are supportive out here. If the board is unable to find a way within the four corners of the law, I would fully support you all granting the applicant a variance here. You know, I think that the applicant here is the precise kind of young family that Burlington is looking to promote and to keep here. And, you know, they presented a plan in my opinion is a plan that's necessary for their family to continue to stay and to live and to be in Burlington. And frankly, I just don't want to give a family like the applicants another reason to be looking to move outside Burlington. So if you can't find a path forward within the four corners of the law, I do truly hope that there's a variance here, especially given sort of the housing crisis and the circumstances we're facing now. So thank you very much. Thank you. Any other questions for the board for the applicant? I want for Ryan. Ryan, so 185 was also used as one of the setbacks. No, no, no, 185. Yes, that's correct. That was at the end of the corner, I guess, if you look the map, I guess, but it'll show this along driveway. I don't know the years built between that house and neighboring. So I don't know if they had the same conflict with setback requirements or even if they exist. Was that one of the setbacks you used to determine the setback for this house? Correct. Yeah. And it's keep going, Scott. It's almost to the left towards the water. It's that one. I mean, there's no provision in the zoning ordinance when there's such an anomaly. I mean, that's an anomaly for the whole neighborhood. There's no such short instance where there, it just speaks specifically to two on either side of the subject lot. So that's the second one away from the appellant's property. Even if it is an outlier in the neighborhood. The appellant mentioned that that long driveway was itself a variance, approved variance. Do we have support for that? I have to pull the files. I'm not sure. I don't recall, but very well, it could be. Sorry, it was in 2002 and we have the details that were emailed to us by the neighbor who helped with that particular case. If we can forward it, it happily do that. I didn't upload it. I apologize. Well, in 2002, that way predates the current front yard setback standard. At that time, the 95 ordinance was in effect. And the front yard setback was either 15 feet, 20 feet or 25, depending if you were on a local collector or arterial road. This was probably a local road. Probably had a minimum of 15 foot setback. And it was a minimum. It's not a bill too long like we have now. You go much further. Right. Still seems like something for our ordinance committee to ponder here. Okay. Ryan, if I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that once the front yard setback is established, that becomes the limit for any height restriction on that side of the house? The front yard specifically. Yeah, that's accurate, I believe. You base the front yard setbacks off your neighbors. If they're within the setback, which the majority of the existing garage is, so that the front yard setback based on the neighboring lots pushes their setback line probably closer to their front wall of their house. So the majority of the house is in the set, almost the entire garage is in the setback. To go up within the setback isn't allowed because there's only provision for increase in height within the setback if it's in the side or rear yard setback. So that does create an issue. That's one of the reasons for denial. And you don't have the option of expanding the houses that you use to generate the setback? As far as like going a few extra lots in either direction, you mean? The code doesn't address that? I just want to say, Brad, what it does address is when there's fewer than two basic centers, use what's there if there's less than two on each side. Okay, so in this case, when you have one that's way back, you can't go and do more of them to get a more average average. That's correct. Okay. Okay. I think we sort of understand this. So that for Christine and Stan, I think we understand the issues here and what you're trying to do. I think it's something we have to discuss at the deliberative. If there's anything else you want to add at this point? Stan? Yeah, this is Stan. I would just add, yeah, thank you for considering and discussing. We look forward to hearing. And I think it would be helpful to know, Ryan, you've explained it pretty well, but what should this denial continue? One next steps are what it's a little hard for us to figure out what would be allowed. So for example, it sounds like potentially nothing, neither up to the side or forward. But yeah, any kind of clarity around if not our original plan, if there's any things that are options that's helpful for us in moving forward. Yeah, I'm happy to chat with you at any time. Obviously, I don't know if you want me to get into that now or if that's even pertinent. No, I mean, that sounds like after our discussion. Yeah, totally. Absolutely. And Christine, I see your hands up. I don't know if you wanted to say anything else, sir. So at this point, it sounds like you'll plan to have further discussion. Do we leave the Zoom meeting? Do you have it among yourselves and then let us know? At the end of this meeting, we will deliberate on the project that will be for us tonight. And you can listen in on that, but you just can't participate in it. I see. I just wanted to make sure that everyone had the chance to read through the newly submitted material. That's all. Thank you for your consideration. Okay. Thank you. With that, I will close this public hearing and move on to our last item, which is 69 Orchard Terrace. Is the applicant here for that one? I don't see the applicants here for that one. If you're here under a different name and you're the applicant, raise your hand, please. I see Mary here. I'll promote Mary. We cannot grill her, see what the story is. Being promoted to a panelist has such a positive ring to it. So are we expecting the applicants here or are they just submitting their request in the board or thumbs up or thumbs down? I had indicated to them that there would no longer be any testimony taken. This is simply a request for reconsideration. It's not to be based on the merits and it's the time for the DRB to decide if they would like to reconsider the decision for 69 Orchard Terrace. And I indicated to the applicant that he did not have to be present. Because there wouldn't be any testimony taken. It's a request and I give a couple reasons why they're making this request to reconsider. The staff have a position on it. This is a discretionary on the board's part, whether you would like to take the matter up again. Parking and B&B issue. And we make the decision now or in deliberation? I think it's a gender item, so I think we make the decision now if we're going to consider it. We're not, we're not that. Well, no, I think we, Mary, I think we can talk about the reconsideration in deliberation. The applicant could argue, could have, I don't want to get into this too much. You know, whenever the request for reconsideration, they can argue why we should reconsider it and then we can reconsider the merit changes. I'm looking at this and they're not really saying we got something wrong. They're sort of saying that they've adjusted the application to address some of our concerns. Perhaps I'm being too generous to the applicant with this one. Well, requests in the past for reconsideration have been two part. The first is, do we want to reconsider? And for what reason? And then we would schedule it for an agenda item for that reconsideration. The, the gist of the request is the applicant doesn't feel that the DRB heard their offer in response to how they would address stacked parking. Anybody have on the issue of reconsidering the request, reopening the hearing, I guess is what we would do. Any sentiment on that? My initial reaction is I would not move to reconsider it. They're not saying we got anything particularly wrong or that we got a fact wrong or applied a wrong piece of law. They just don't think we heard them well enough. Whether we disagree with that or not. It doesn't seem like a reasonable basis for reconsideration and reopening. I would deny the request. Is the appellate process and frustrating as it may be that is there for a reason? So he made a motion, right? Right. Take it out of that motion, Brooks. And Mary, they could reapply with their reasoning here if they think it's substantially different. And we got a, you know, they, that they can make these changes that will then bring them into compliance to address their issues. Right. They, they understand that this request for reconsideration is still within their appeal period. So they will have the option if they choose to appeal. Alternately changing regulations may offer them a different avenue. Confusing landscape here. Okay. So we have a motion to not reconsider and discussion on that. All in favor of not reconsidering. Okay. Okay. So that was our last agenda item. And we don't have any other business tonight. So we will end the DRB meeting and move into our deliberative session. Recording in progress. On ZP 22175 58 Hyde Street that we approve the application and about staff's findings and recommendations. Second on that takes. Okay. Any discussion on this one? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? No. So unanimous. Okay. Now. Recording in progress on ZAP 22-3203 South Cove road. I move that we overturn the denial of the application and approve the application. So second on that. I'll second it. Do we want to add the clarity of what we're talking about in terms of the setback? I don't think we need to. Are we going to have to make, I mean, we're going to have to make edits to the staff findings not to support that is the only thing, right? Scott? Yeah. So you're going to need to point to something that is on a basis. What language? Yeah. Go ahead, Kalen. So yeah, I think if we want to go with section 5.2.5 stepbacks, the introductory language there, and then the introductory language in 6.2.2 H, the introduction of new buildings in addition so maintain the existing development pattern and rhythm of structures along the existing streetscape. Those are the two pieces of language that I think we could point to. I have a problem with that. Yeah. Okay. Any other discussion on this? I guess I think I see the logic of it's certainly every law has an intended reason and then it's written as to best address that reason and it's never perfect and they're always going to be mistakes and that's why it's good to have the intro part. I guess this is a new process for me and I just guess I want to say that it's a new process for me. So that's all I have to say. It's not technically variants that we're giving them where we're saying how the establishment of the setback is created is inconsistent with the ordinance in terms of meeting the pattern of the neighborhood. We got a cliffhanger. Oh, sort of it. Hello. Can you hear me okay? Have we gone off the deep edge, Kim? Well, I'm a little concerned. I have to admit I'm not fully familiar with this project. I was just listening in because I was still working and figured I'd listen in. And now I'm trying to kind of come up to speed and read the report as you guys are talking. But I just wanted to make sure I was clear because I keep hearing the word variants come up, but you're not approving a variance because there's no variance application. No, right. We were making an interpretation of the ordinance based on the intent section versus the language in the actual ordinance itself. Right. We're disagreeing with the conclusion about what the setback is. And we think that the conclusion I came up with is creates a setback that's inconsistent with the pattern of the neighborhood, which is the goal of the ordinance is to maintain the pattern of the neighborhood. Right. Based on the measurements of how the ordinance tells you to make them. That's right. And there's, I mean, there's one obvious anomaly, you know, where you go on this four or five times the setback of anything else. And that, that, you know, it just throws the whole thing off. Okay. Modest ice. Okay. So we have a motion and a second and all in favor. Opposed. So it's four to one Leo objecting. Okay. Recording stopped.