 Okay, so let's get started. This is Development Review Board Burlington for June 15th. I'm assuming there's people here who are in attendance. So we take up items in the order they are on the agenda. And when we call each item, Scott will work to bring on board is to participate the applicant and anybody else who intends to speak at the meetings. And when appropriate, we will swear in people for each item at that time. And when you are participating, Scott asks that you provide a mailing address. Okay. Communications, I don't believe we have any communications. Everything's in the online packet. Yeah. And we actually do not have minutes posted this time, but maybe Alice just being kind to catch up. Well, they, yeah, they are posted. Are they? I didn't see them. They're in the June one, the most recent. From the last meetings. Well, then, oh, I see, they're not on the June 15th, they're on the June, I see. Yeah, they're under the meeting that they are from. Well, no for lunch here. Okay. Then we'll go right to the consent agenda. The first item is 15 Myrtle Street. Replace existing garage with a new detached accessory dwelling unit. Is the applicant here? That's a good question. Applicant is Andrew. Andrew, help us, I think. I don't see Andrew and the attendees less, but I see a couple of pseudonyms. So if you're Andrew ready to applicant for 15 Myrtle, raise your hand and we can talk to you. And if you're on the phone, I think that's probably Sharon, but if this is the applicant on the phone, you can press star nine to raise your hand. If they're not here right now, we can go to the next item. Yeah, I'm not seeing a hand be raised, Brad. So maybe on to six Alexis. Okay, so we'll come back to 15 Myrtle Street later. Next item on our consent agenda is six Alexis Drive. It's a tree clearing work on a vacant lot. Is the applicant here for that? So again, applicant, if you're here for six Alexis, raise your hand and I can let you speak. David Cohen. Yeah, I'm not seeing David either. Well, we'll... Moving right along then. Yeah, yeah, okay. So now we get to our first public hearing item, which is 81 Dunder Road, which is creation of an accessory dwelling unit to be used as a bed and breakfast unit use, amending previous application. And is the applicant here or anybody else who wishes to speak on 81 Dunder Road? Yeah, we have the applicant and we have Tom Walsh as well, who's a neighbor. Okay. I'll enable both to speak. Anybody else here on this one? Hi, can you hear me? Yeah. I'll start with asking Jonathan and Thomas Walsh to swear both of you in and swear to tell the truth and hold truth under pain and penalty of perjury. Yes. I do. Okay. So this is recommended for approval, but there are some questions that they ever had some comments. So Jonathan, do you want to make a brief presentation of any kind? No. No. Okay. I'll ask because it is something that was posted online. Was the question about a fence where some trees were taken down? Was that something that you like discussed with your neighbor? Yes, we discussed the fence. And where are you going to put one? On tree, not multiple trees. Yeah. Oh, no way. You're right. There was two trees. Okay. Okay. And so from your point of view, you've been doing this as a bed and breakfast for a while, right? Correct. And how has that been working from your point of view? Well. Been working well, is that what you're saying? And are people parking in your driveway or on the street? In my driveway. Okay. Okay. So Scott, I guess Mr. Heller, the application is for an accessory unit because it's adding kitchen facilities to the existing what was then proposed as just a bed and breakfast use in an existing room. Do I have that correct, Scott? That's not correct. That's incorrect. Okay. So the prior approval AJ was for a single room bed and breakfast. And then it seems that after the fact it's more about an accessory dwelling unit. So we're looking at an amendment to that previous permit to be a full ADU, to be used as your terminal. So what was incorrect? Just that it's as it was when you inspected it. The kitchen facility was there on the first inspection. But that was not what was permitted at the last application. That's what was. Not under the, I was under the impression that what they inspected was permitted. Who's they inspected? The inspector that the town sent over. She was a heavy set woman. I forget her name. I guess there was a few inspectors. They're all town inspectors. What were they inspecting for? Bed and breakfast. Was it zoning compliance? I don't know exactly. Well, just to be clear here, I just will point out that we have a copy of what was approved by us in 2018. And it was just a guest room. There was no, nothing else. So we're, we're now trying to, you may think it was approved, but that's what you're asking for now is, is really an accessory dwelling unit with a kitchen and a bathroom, right? Correct. And you've been renting it out with this kitchen bathroom for a while anyways, right? Correct. Any other questions for the applicant before we move on to the comments from the neighbor? I just wanted a little bit of clarification on the plan. I guess the proposed plan document and the detail that's on there. So it looks like the goal here is just to make sure that we're delineating where the little kitchenette is, the bathroom. And then I guess where I got confused is there's an entry room listed, but not what the actual bedroom is. So I just wanted to make sure I understood since this was part of the issue the first time around is that the plan didn't have the detail that we... I didn't put in a second permit for the Airbnb. All I, or maybe I made a mistake. What I thought I did was applied for a zoning permit, just the zoning, but not, I didn't change my Airbnb permit. That's what I thought I applied for. Do you want me to show you the permit that I have applied for? I applied for a zoning permit to make an accessory dwelling unit. That's what we have in front of us. And I think what Caitlin may be referring to is on the application in front of us, we have a sketch that shows a sink and a stove and a bathroom has dimensions on it. And it doesn't really show a bedroom, it just calls an entry room. There is no bedroom, there's just a bed. It's one room. Okay. Well, actually what I'd like to do is I'd like to make it into two rooms. So I haven't put in the application for that yet though. I believe that that's probably true. Are there steps within this? Yeah. ADU? Yes. And where do the steps go? From the door that you entered to five steps up. So it's from the entry to the whole unit? No, it's within the unit. So the original permit was for just the room over the garage. And so in my new permit, I'd like to add the entry room that was a shared space. I'd like to make that part of the Airbnb completely. So we have a space that's 34 feet by 16 feet, if that's what you're applying for. Does that sound right? For the auxiliary dwelling unit, correct. And then for the Airbnb, I'd also like to increase the Airbnb from one room to two rooms to include that where foot is. This is what we have in front of us. This is the Airbnb. The Airbnb. But it's not increasing the roomage. Right, not increasing the bedroom count. And there's only one Airbnb here. That's the accessory dwelling unit as a Airbnb. Correct. Two, okay. And if you wanted to have two bedrooms, I think we'd... No, I'm not looking to add two bedrooms. Oh. So, hold on a second. The way it's set up is there's a shared entry room. So the people walk into a shared space, which is the downstairs space. And then from there, there's a door to their space, which is upstairs, which is not shared space. Shared with you. Excuse me? Shared with you. Correct. Okay. Is there a floor plan that we can screen share? Sure, do you guys want me to screen share what the applicant submitted? Yeah, please. Sure. Good idea. See it? Yeah, can you see that, Jonathan? Yeah. Okay. So that's what we have in front of us. Okay, so the entry room, I would like to make into private for the Airbnb. Isn't that's what we're looking at? No, that's shared, but that's shared space. The entry room, that was shared space on that permit I thought. Anyway, I shared the space. So what's confusing to me right now when I look at this is where is their room for a bed? Between the stairs and the bathroom. Okay. So above the stairs on this sheet is where the sleeping area, that's really the whole. Correct. And this entry room is on this, up the five steps. No, that entry room is connected to my living room. Yeah. And it's on the left of my house. And that's shared. Correct. And you want to continue to share it? No, I'd like to make that part of the Airbnb. So then it would be included in the ADU, which it looks like that's indicated here. I figured it in the ADU, figuring once I got that that I would apply to make it into an Airbnb, part of the Airbnb as complete for them. Correct me if I'm wrong Scott, but from our permitting process, there's no difference between a B&B and an Airbnb, correct? That's correct for now. Okay, so we're just, it's a B&B, that's what we're looking at. And it's basically a one bedroom. Yes. That's your dwelling area that we're looking at. Yes. Okay. And this is the size of it. Correct. Okay. Good. Any other questions for the applicant? Yeah, I have one, Brad. Yeah. What is the distance from the entry door to your property line on that side of the house? The distance from the entry door to the property, I have no idea. Like 10 feet, 15 feet, under 10 feet. What were the choices? Can you estimate it for us? We don't have a... Do you want me to walk out and measure it for you? With a tape measure? I'm just looking for an estimate, so I understand. I really don't want to make an estimate under oath without a tape measure. I'm going to get a tape measure. And is, why you're doing that? Is that the side that you took down the trees along the property line? Say that once more. Is that the side of the property where you took down the tree? Is that the side of the property line, what? Where you removed trees? Yes. Okay. And it looks like there's a request if we approve the permit to acquire a privacy fence along that property line. Is that acceptable? I did not request that. I know you didn't request that. Is that an acceptable condition to you? No, I'm not going to take... I'm not going to have any sort of... Hold on, let me get your measurement. It looks like it's 15 to 20 feet. Okay. And so you're saying it's not acceptable to you to construct a privacy fence along that side of the property line? I'm willing to do it as a courtesy for Tom, but I'm not willing to put it as any sort of a prerequisite for my Airbnb. Okay. I'm not sure I understand the difference there, but it sounds like you are agreeing to put up a privacy fence. Not under oath. I'm not agreeing to put up a privacy fence, no. So I will do my best to put up a privacy fence, but I'm not going to like go under oath in front of a judge and say I'm going to do something that he can then sue me for. Okay. Well, it's really us looking at the... Your application is determined that it meets the standards. And one of the standards is that it doesn't result in any nuisance impacts from noise, odor, et cetera. If you guys... What I'm trying to understand, Mr. Heller, is just whether that's a reasonable condition to install a fence along that property line to avoid that type of adverse impact. It is reasonable and I want to do it. Right now, lumber prices are through the roof. Labor is hard to come by. I can't promise when it's going to get done. Finances are always uncertain. You know, if it takes me longer than Tom is happy with, I'm not having it be a prerequisite for my Airbnb. Okay. I understand your position. Let's go. I have a couple of other questions. I'm 100% willing and wanting to put up a fence. Okay. I think we've got that. AJ, you had some questions. Yeah. When you were here last time in April, I think, we had some discussions about what the Airbnb guests can use and what they can't use. And I want to know, are they allowed to use your pool? Are you proposing to let them use your pool as part of this or not? They've been using my pool and my hot tub. Are there any limits to those hours? Yes. What are those limits? I can change them anytime I want. Currently, the limit is 10 p.m. How do you enforce that? It's never needed to be enforced since I've put it into the house rules. And if I did need to enforce it, I would just walk outside and tell people, hey, it's 10 p.m. and you have to go inside. Are you there all the time guests are there? Yes. And we talked about some exterior lighting, none as proposed as part of this. Is there exterior lighting on the, I suppose it's the south side of the project? Well, I changed the blue lights because somebody complained about it. There's, yeah, there's light. It's necessary for safety. What kind of light is it? It's a light bulb. No, I appreciate that's what makes light in today's modern society. There are a variety of light bulbs. What kind of light bulb is it? Where does it point? It's a standard LED probably, you know, in the 60 watt power range located about six feet up facing down to the ground. There are also two other lights that I have not been using located at the roof line. Again, standard floodlights facing down. Those are the ones that were colored blue that people complained about. And so you've turned those off. Yeah, I turned those off the day somebody mentioned that they didn't like it. Okay. And you don't need to turn those back on? No, I would like to for, because I think they look cool, but if people have a problem with it, I'm happy to change them to white. They will be on white as soon as I get a chance to change those light bulbs out. Eli, come here, come, come. Good boy. Okay. If there's no other questions right now for the applicant and if the applicant's okay, I think we'll hear from Tom Walsh or I believe it's a neighbor. Sounds good. Are you here, Mr. Walsh? Yes, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you. I did provide my comments during a neighbor impact review. I think it was two months ago and I've provided a copy just for your convenience. I also summarized the impacts that are ongoing. This use has existed for more than two years. As renters come daily, they park in the parking driveway, which is less than 10 feet from my common boundary. They walk along the common boundary and go in the entry door that is listed on the site map. When they leave that entry door to go to the hot tub, they come closer to my property and right where the entry door was or is was one of the large trees that Mr. Heller asked for permission to take down, which I granted that permission. And with that tree gone, there's much less buffer of this intense activity. I'm asking that if you approve this use that you require a privacy fence so that I can privately and quietly enjoy the use of my property. I have changed my activities at my house to go out the other side of my house and around because I can't go to that side of my house without being imposed by people coming and going. If it's not the tenants, it's the house cleaner and it's constant. So as I've stated in my opinion letter, the Burlington regulations require your consideration of whether or not the proposed use creates a nuisance and I offer that it does. It's a significant interference with my daily enjoyment of my property. So either in my mind, your choices are to not approve the application or approve it with reasonable conditions and a reasonable condition would be a privacy fence along the common boundary because the use has been going on for more than a couple of years. I think a deadline of reasonable nature should be imposed. I did talk to Mr. Heller about this a month or so ago to understand if I had to be present today. His comment was what he said today. It would be a courtesy, but he can't promise when it'll happen. I shouldn't have to endure this nuisance for months on end. So I appreciate your consideration and that's my perspective. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Wall from the board? Okay, good. Okay, then are there any further questions from the board for the applicant? I'm not seeing anything. All right, and I see a few more folks in the attendees but so maybe you wanna ask if there's anyone else? Are there others who are wanting to speak on this 81 Dunder Road? So raise your hand. Okay, let's not be here for this one. Okay, so unless there's anything else that the applicant wants to add at this point, okay, we will probably deliver at the end of the day today at the end of our meeting. But at best point, I'll close public hearing. Thank you for participating. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, next application. So let me just double check 15 Murdoch Street or Six Alexis Drive. Anybody show up from either of those two? I've not seen the applicant appear for a 15 Murdoch. I did shoot him an email. Okay. In the meantime, is there anyone here for Six Alexis? Yes. I don't see anyone. Okay, we'll move on. 57 South William Street. Shabbat of Vermont. Change of views from dormitory rooms to an elementary school. Is the applicant here for that? Could you have the applicant? Yes, I am. Hi, I'm Elia Huyanic. Hello. Anybody else here to speak on this application? Anybody from public or anything? I think we have Sharon push her on the phone. Yeah, we also have architect Ed Wolfe's team. Okay. To answer any questions that might come up. Anybody else in the public for this? No one else. And Sharon, we have your address memorized at this point, I think. Okay, so I'll ask the applicant, the architect and the Sharon push of the public to swear that you tell the truth and hold truth on the pain and penalty of perjury. I do. I do. Yeah. Okay. So, this has taken a long time to seem to get here. We had a, this seemed to have been on the agenda for a while. So there's a presentation that you would like to make or things you would like to say about this application? We have a community center at 57 South William Street where we have a preschool and we are, we want to start a day school. So we want to zone it, the third for, I guess we would call it for that purpose. So it will continue at being occupied as I would do at this time. That would just be on the fifth floor. The fourth floor, we will gradually change it over four classrooms. Okay. Is recommended for approval. Let me go back to the plans here. So are there any plan exterior changes that you're planning to make for this? No, we love the building the way it looks. We will just change a few walls in the inside eventually to make some rooms bigger, but nothing on the outside. Okay. Seems fairly straightforward. How many students do you see having, attending this at one time? We were starting gradually, so we don't know. We're asking for four classrooms. We would hope maybe to have 10 students in each classroom. So maybe 35, 40, something like that. And do the students arrive through their own transportation? Is that how it's gonna work? Meanwhile, we're talking about first grade, second grade. So they'll probably be dropped off with their parents and most of them, as we put in our waiver would have siblings in the preschool, et cetera. So I guess the parents would drop them off like, I have kids that going into the first grade and I also have kids in the preschool. Brad, about that, can we just touch on the request for a parking waiver? I think we need a little testimony on that. So when I read the staff comments, I saw that you had gotten a parking waiver for the addition in the back, is that correct? Yes, I think so. And has that been going well? Have you had any issues with that reduced amount of parking? No, we're actually still a bit under construction. So it's not fully done yet. So I cannot fully answer your question, but even with a lot less parking because we're still under construction, there hasn't been an issue. As I explained in the waiver, basically, the school is from Monday to Friday and there's no, even though the building serves as a synagogue, but we don't have services in those times. So they don't conflict at all. Services, if we would have services in the weekday, it would end at eight, school starts around 8.39. So those two things don't conflict at all. Okay, and Scott, so I'm clear, we're only approving a two additional space waiver over what was already approved, right? Correct. Okay. Any other questions from the board for this applicant? No. The same thing, you want to add Ed, we're not done yet? Nothing really. I mean, there's no changes on the outside of the building. It's just shuffling around some interior partitions. That's it. Sharon, did you have comments? You want to make? I do. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay, thank you for hearing my comments. My name is Sharon Busher and I live on East Avenue, but I'm familiar with South Williams and the property and have watched the evolution. I have no objection to the expanded use of this as a school. My issue is one that I just need to verbalize, although I know that the DRB really can't do much about this, but I wanted the applicant to hear this also. This structure is historic and everybody always focuses on the exterior. And my understanding, having talked to staff, is that at the state level, and certainly I know at the city level, there's never been any regulations regarding the interior of historic structures, which I find sad. So my point is, as this evolves into a school, I heard the applicant say that they might need to change the dimensions of some of these rooms. And I was hoping that there would be an ability to create petitions like they did in Macy's, so that the integrity, the internal integrity of the structure could potentially be preserved if indeed it no longer was going to be utilized as a school. I think that we are short-sighted when we don't have at least minimum preservation of interior, like stairwells and stairways, et cetera, for really significant historic structures. So that's my only comment. Thank you very much. Thank you, Sarah. I'll ask the applicant your thoughts on that. Thank you. Yeah, I actually agree with what Sandy just said. We've a little bit fixed over the bottom floor, and we kept everything the way it is. We're not planning on moving any essential walls or reconstructing what we're proposing for the classrooms is really just walls that happen to have been put there and to expand a little bit, but not taking any of the brick wall that's within the building and keeping that intact to preserve. The building has a lot of character to it, and we plan on keeping it like that. Okay, any other questions from the board? Unless there's anything else that the applicant would like to add at this point? We will... Yeah. No, thank you, Hans. Okay, good. We will close the public hearing, and we will probably deliberate at the end of today's meeting. Thank you. Okay, thank you so much. Okay, we're going on to two related projects, boundary line adjustment for 6870 Conger Avenue and 7880 Harrison Avenue. These are appealing a denial of a lot of line adjustment. We have the appellants here tonight, Brad, Michelle Bushie and Andrew Delinas. Yep. And is there anybody else from the public to speak on this? If so, raise your hand. Oh, I do see someone. Celeste Crowley. Who would have thought? Celeste, you can have two. Hi, Scott. So was there somebody else with Michelle? Is there another person? And brother Andrew? Michelle and Andrew Bushie. Yeah, okay. Delinas. Michelle Bushie and Andrew Delinas are in the same room. And Scott, do you have everybody's addresses? Yeah, yeah. Okay, okay. So then I'm gonna ask the three folks who are participating in the applicant and the member of the public to swear that you will tell the truth and hold truth and the pain and penalty of perjury. I swear. I swear. I swear. I swear. And just as a process thing, this is appealing, a ruling of, is this something that you present first on, Scott? Or is this? Sure. I think so. Okay. We'll have Scott go first and we'll have the applicant. Oh, the appeal come next. Okay. Scott. All right. I'll do a, let me do a quick share screen. That would be helpful. I'll look at what we're talking about. So what we have here is a boundary line adjustment in the Lakeside neighborhood. It's in the waterfront residential low density zone. So that has a few dimensional standards to keep in mind. So the standing minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet, but considering that both properties are duplexes, the CDO says the minimum lot size in that case is 10,000 square feet. In either event, both lots are smaller than that, but both lots are also bigger than 4,000 square feet, which puts them into the existing small lots box, which in plain English means you can develop them as intended for the zoning district subject to design review. So you could have a residence on them and deal with setbacks, lot coverage and high requirements. So both lots are a substandard in terms of lot size and they're also both over the permissible lot coverage limit. So the appellants and I had talked a few times before they ultimately applied and we tried to find a way to do an even swap to change the boundary line. And the intent here is to put the garage on the Conger Avenue property, whereas it currently sits on the Harrison Ave property. And conceptually, it would be possible to do a boundary line adjustment. It would just have to be an even trade. In my even trade, I mean, square footage would remain the same for both lots, right? And that way you wouldn't affect the degree of non-confirmity for the lot size and you also wouldn't affect the degree of non-confirmity for lot coverage. Ultimately what was applied for wasn't an even trade. The Harrison Avenue property became even smaller. So that increases the degree of non-confirmity for lot size. And because it became smaller, the percentage of lot coverage went up, which also increases the degree of non-confirmity. So even though Conger Avenue necessarily becomes less non-confirming as a result of that, it drives up the non-confirmity on the Harrison Ave property. One can't happen without the other, so both were denied. So in some, the basis for the denial is pretty basic. The degree of non-confirmity increases and the CEO said, you can't do that. So they were denied. The appellants and I talked about options moving forward and they opted to appeal it and see what you all say. And the driveway is used by the Conger Avenue house. Is that right? The garage? That's true. I mean, it was part of the Conger Avenue. I think we'll give it a minute here. This is still sort of Scott and I'll switch to everybody else. Just give us a minute here. Well, I would have deferred to Michelle, but yeah, I think that's the case. So, this seems like one of those kind of conundrums, Scott. Where the boundary line adjustment, was there such a thing that would meet your geometry? Well, so again, conceptually, could you do an even trade, right? I'm sure it doesn't work in practice. It seems like perhaps not because they didn't apply for it. Well, conceptually it seems it doesn't work because you're taking a garage, which is a lot of lot coverage, one property and adding it to the other. So, the lot coverages has to increase on one and decrease on the other when you make this swap. So that even if you end up with the same square footages on both, your lot coverages can't stay consistent. Yeah, I mean, you make a very good point there, Brad, about accounting for the coverage switching from one property to the other. Again, maybe in a mathematical exercise it works, but in practicality it doesn't. But if you're, this is sort of a theoretical question. If you have two properties there, one of the garages is a non, what do you call this, a pre-existing non-conforming? Basically, yeah. Pre-existing non-conforming structure. If one is that, I'm just gonna throw a number out there, one is at 37%, the other is at 41%. If they swap and go the other way around from your logic, that increases the non-conforming on one of the lots. That might be so. And I think the punchline remains the same that it wouldn't be possible to do a boundary adjustment without affecting the non-conformity. Right. You'd have to find some other empty land somewhere else to add to this, basically. Right, could it brought into a third lot? Yeah, that's what you'd have to do. Right. If you didn't wanna get involved in easements, which we have no jurisdiction over, you'd have to bring in some empty land to fix the lot coverage issues. Well, at this point, maybe I should have the appellant comment speak. So it's Michelle and Andrew. Yeah. Do you wanna say what you have to say on this? So the garage was permitted 41 years ago by our father who owned both properties and Burlington approved the garage 41 years ago. You can see where it's built. It's always been there. It's never moved. It's actually a pretty substantial structure. Also the garage, if you look at the Burlington land records has always been part of Conger Ave. It has never been annotated or measured as part of Harrison's land or use. So in the eyes of the city of Burlington, that garage has always, since the beginning, since they approved the permit, has always belonged to Conger Ave. So, go ahead. Well, when you say that, where are these property lines coming from? The property lines were drawn back in 1937 when Queen City Cotton Company first devied up the land. So these were already non-conforming lots of 1937 and now we're being forced to uphold the standard to today's new standards. Well, maybe I don't understand the background and trust me, not an uncommon experience what you're seeing here, but this didn't come through a notice of violation. Was this through one of those certifications for sale? Scott, can you give us some background on this? No, it wasn't a violation. That's not at all my understanding and Michelle can elaborate, was they're looking to sell the properties separately and the garage is practically associated with Conger, but it sits on the Harrison Ave property, which gets them into doing easements between the two. And as I understand from Michelle, that complicates things for selling them. We've already lost five offers on the house on Harrison because of a temporary easement. And if we don't accommodate for this boundary line adjustment then whether we sell, we would be forced to sell both properties together and then whoever buys them from us would have to continue to sell both properties together. Or you'd be forced to take down a substantially sized garage, which actually brings up the property value and taking down that garage would be a big mistake. I mean, I completely understand what you're saying. I though I strongly, I'm very confused as to why a simple easement like that would drive away a buyer. There's something that's disconnecting that's unfortunately not in our wheelhouse. That has to do with liability for the banks. Right. It's a liability issue for anybody taking out a loan. Underwriting. Right. It's not their garage for say, and an easement would just be a nightmare for them for financing and insurance reasons. So that's why we're trying to move the line to even up a lot some. I'm gonna put it back. Scott, I keep going back to the, is there an intent in the zoning that is not met by adjusting these so that these two properties, so that the lot coverage on the Conger Avenue goes up and a lot coverage on Harrison Avenue goes down? That's what's gonna happen. Scott, I have another question for you. I'm sorry to do this. Okay. If they were to remove some lot coverage from the Conger, an equivalent portion of what they're adding, like some of that gravel drive or whatnot, would that correct it? It's conceivable. But again, we're looking at the even trade. Is that possible? And as Brad's pointed out, it's more complicated when we consider the lot coverage effects of the garage switching from one property to the other. Sure, could you remove existing coverage to offset that? Yeah, you could. It comes down to, does the percentage stay the same? I think it's geometrically impossible for the percentages to stay the same. You know, swap. So if you take the two properties and average them both out, the average today and the average tomorrow will be the same. Right. But the each individual property will change. What if you did a P? Right. Is a PUD available in this neighborhood? It is if you have two acres and they don't have that. Okay. I'll go back to the applicant. You can see we're puzzling over this. I don't know if we understand the history, I think to some extent. Is there a driveway that goes up to the garage? No. No, it's okay. And there's one of the person here. I'm sort of curious to see what they have to say. And that's Celeste Crowley. Yep. Yes, hi. Hi. I'm actually Michelle and Andrew's cousin. The Conger Ave was our grandparents home. Yeah. So, you know, down the road, I may be interested in buying it. So that's part of why I'm here. The other piece is I just have a hard time getting my head around the city approving a permit for Conger Avenue knowing that the structure sits on Harrison. And I think it makes me believe that was because my uncle owned both properties, so they allowed it. So why can't there be some sort of variance or allowance because the city approved it. And then now, when the last couple of years changed the lock coverage guidelines with that there, I guess that's where my confusion is why why is this so difficult to adjust when it was approved to be built on a separate property than it's permitted for, even though he owned both, because eventually as we see today, they're gonna be sold. So now they're stuck in a conundrum of how to fix it. Scott, is there a site plan from when the garage was approved? Was it approved for that location specifically where it is now or we don't have the records on that? There was not a site plan. There was a single piece of paper for garage associated with Conger Avenue. I think Michelle, you included that in your appeal stuff. Yes, everything should be there. Our father submitted the permit for the garage and he had a sketch of his piece of property along with a sketch of Harrison's property lines. And it showed exactly where the garage was going to go and Burlington approved it. I don't see anything happening, Michelle. Well, I submitted it multiple times. I don't know if maybe it didn't go to the DRB, but it should have been in your packet, Scott, that I thought you were sending a whole packet of everything that was worked through this. But isn't that an issue as to preexisting nonconformity which isn't really what we're dealing with now? Correct, right? We couldn't say move the garage. We couldn't say the subdivision. I mean, that's cast in stone, that's been there forever. That wouldn't be a violation at this point, but we're dealing with something else which is a desire to alter the property lines because of the garage. Yeah, but you're not saying I want to move the garage, you're not saying the city's not telling you to move it. No. The problem is somewhere along the way when someone built it or subdivided it, they didn't do it right. No, the problem is the new lock coverage guidelines is the problem. It didn't come into play as a problem until the lock coverage guidelines changed. When did they change Scott? But it's over the property line. I mean, that's the big concern that you have is that it's over the property line. Well, it's sort of both things there. Well, no, because it wouldn't be before us. If the garage wasn't over the property line, there would be no dispute on the resale. Right, and if the lock coverage were in an issue, they could do a lot of things with boundary lines. So when does the lock coverage issues change Scott? Do I know? I don't know. The garage is 41 years. When it in the early 80s, there was a comprehensive rewrite in, I believe it was 83, 84, then they changed again in 94. So this 1980 is when this was built? Correct, 1981, the garage was built and permitted and approved. I have a question, just functionally, because I don't see a picture of the garage, I'm assuming the doors and all the access on the Congress app and there's not a way to just, to use it from Harrison Ave. That is true. Yeah, you're correct. It was never intended for use for Harrison. Is it a concrete slab? Could the garage be moved? I know that's not in front of us. Oh, it's on a slab. It's a concrete slab and it's a... 20 by 20. Yeah, it's a good size garage with a... So that's what it was submitted and approved. This is a permit from the 80s. There's not much to it. But again, I mean, it went through to City of Burlington. Wait, what does that say about lock coverage? 35% lock coverage. So it's the same lock coverage as when they applied. I think today's lock coverage is actually different. That was noted in the report, the existing conditionally. Right. You say there was a sketch also, Scott? No, there was some sort of sketch. I don't see that. I don't see a sketch here, Michelle. It wasn't one of the files. Keep going, keep going. Go down. There you go. And that's... It doesn't show where the garage is. A garage. That's the two properties. So this is the two properties, but it doesn't show where the garage would be. So at the time when Burlington approved it, they didn't go down and double check anything to go down any permits, which was a standard back then. It didn't really matter. And again, we're being held to today's standards for something way back then. Also, I want to mention the fact that you had said something about them being a duplex and it has to have a minimum of 10,000 square feet. That was never discussed or annotated in any of our discussions that we had. So I'm not sure where that's coming from all of a sudden. And I just have to research that. But the standard that you always pushed us to was, can't be anything less than 6,000 square feet. Neither one of these lots from the date of existence back in 1937 were ever 6,000 square feet. So I understand that's where your non-conformity slash degree of non-conformity comes in. But then you also have in your citywide general regulations that says anything pre 1973, minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet. So we're over 4,000 square feet. Even if we move the property lines, they're still gonna be both over 4,000 square feet. So because these were lines drawn up way back in 1937, I'm not clear as to why we can't, I mean, we're really not asking for a whole lot, just a property line move between two properties that we own that have been in our family since 1937. I mean, for, is the concern that the garage is permitted for the Conger Avenue property and not the Harrison Avenue property? Is that what you're hearing back from the financing side? Cause all you wanna do is sell it, right? Like you don't, that's what your ultimate goal, and this is not bad. I'm just trying to understand. All right, so we had Harrison Ave on the market for about five months. Yeah, for sure. I've run by it a hundred times. Yeah, we had a cash offer walk away because of the boundary lines. We had four other offers after that that walked away because not only we had a temporary easement drawn up from our lawyer stating that Conger would use the garage until Conger got sold and then so on and so on. But then those people in signing their contracts to us said, you have until six o'clock tonight to sign this paper of contract and you're gonna take the garage down upon closing. Like no one has taken a hold of that easement with any clarity whatsoever. They keep pushing back on us. And we talked to the realtor about it multiple times and he said the problem with an easement and the problem with something like this is the underwriters, unless you have a cash offer the underwriters are not going to approve anybody's mortgage on something like this. It's a liability to them. It's a liability to whoever spoke up for money. I have many, many thoughts. And many thoughts that I would save but I think your problem can be solved in a much more expeditious way than what we're trying to do here. Anyway, so have you looked at whether or not, just look, leave aside some of the arguments about preexisting and whatnot. Have you looked at the idea of taking some lot of coverage away so that you could add the garage's lot coverage to the Harrison Ave property. Taking out one of those gravel drives. Because you only need to move a sliver. I don't know how you would do that. You shrink up the driveway on the 78 on the Harrison. Yeah. Sure it could be done to turn that into a more of a side backyard type deal. Because you're looking for about 100 square feet. Well, whatever the difference is that you would need to create. It might be a way for you to solve Scott's lot coverage problem. I would point out, AJ, that there is a minimum parking requirement. And then- Well, we have at least the ability to waive some of that, don't we? You can waive some of it, yep. Yeah, 50%. Well, we can't waive lot coverage. Right, how can we waive one and not the other? Because the ordinance allows us to do that for one and not the other. So you would take away a driveway. You would take away a portion of a driveway for the sake of a backyard. When you look at the sketch that Scott's got up here, the backyard, I mean, the way that we have the red line drawn, it makes both yards still usable to either family that would buy them. And the drivers are you- Right, and then you're not taking away driveway when, and then you got, where are they gonna park in the wintertime? I just don't, I mean, yeah, the problem is we don't have a lot of flexibility on this. I mean, it's increasing in non-conformity otherwise. All the arguments you're making make sense and they're logical. And I think we're sympathetic, but we only have the authority granted by the zoning ordinance. And this is a challenging conundrum. If we have to shrink up the driveway a little on 78 and 80, Harrison and I haven't, I'm sure we could shrink it up to, but they both be one-car drives. Yeah, I mean- That's the way it is now. One's a one-car, the other one's a two-car drive. Well, I mean- It wouldn't be where we'd need to remove driveway is on. Conger app, not here. Yeah, it's on con, it's on con. Yeah. So you wanna, Ed, I'm trying to look at the site plan and try to figure this out for a second. You own both properties, right? Yep. Is the garage that valuable to the con graph property? It's valuable to me because that's my workshop. Yeah. And it'd be valued by somebody else whoever ends up buying it down the road. Yeah. And if not, both these lots will have to be sold as a pair for a ridiculous amount of money. And just to be clear, you're attempting to only sell Harrison app at this point, congrats on the road. At this point, yes. I have to say, I have a lot of trouble with what we're going through gymnastics to do that would result in destroying property for some mathematical thing that makes no difference to the rest of the city. You know, given this non-compliance with something from 1937 and 1980, I just have a lot of trouble with this. And I know that, you know, we are bound by the CDL and everything else, but there's so many, so much history to this before we get to where we are today that I just wonder in that history is just something that gives us some way to look at these two properties together and say, in total, they remain the same. It's just the non-conformity of one becomes a non-conformity of the other. Vice versa. And then the overall degree of not, you know, we are looking at them as a pair, as dual applications. So the overall degree of non-conformity doesn't really change. No, the boundary line can achieve that. It can't achieve no change on Conger Avenue, but it can make the total on the two properties stay the same. And it just seems to me that it's a wrong-headed thing and the zoning ordinance. In this particular case, I know there's other times where we do have to do things that seem a little challenging for some properties, but this is, they're not building anything that change anything. It's been, the properties have existed for 80 years, 90 years, and the garage, they've been there for 41 years. I just have a lot of trouble not trying to find a way to make this work with what they're doing. Brad, we do have the city attorney in attendance if you care to ask a question. Maybe in deliberation. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Well, I think we have, we understand the applicant's position. We understand, I think the history of the parcel, we have some understanding of the history of the zoning ordinance. Is there anything that the applicant wants to add at this point before we close this hearing? I just wanted to make sure that, so we did in our review appeal process, submitted a letter, and it pretty much outlines everything that we felt was pertinent to the case. And I just want to reiterate the fact, and I understand that, you know, laws are laws, but when it comes right down to it, our men and puppies own this land since the late 30s since it was divided. And it's been in our family ever since. My father has owned both properties since his father passed away. And we own it, our kids will probably own it, our cousin wants to buy it. So it's, and we've talked to our neighbors, our neighbors are all, no one's got a hair across there, you know what's about anything that we're trying to do. So we're just trying to do the right thing, you know. Just trying to make it right. Yep. And move on. Move on, we're tired. We appreciate that. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. We'll close the public hearing. Thank you. Thank you. And we will probably delivery at the end of the day. Okay, we have one more item. Well, do we have to go back to the consent items, Brad? Okay. Anybody here on the consent items? 15 Myrtle or six Alexis? Not yet. Well, can we, do we want to act on them or do we want to do something with them? They're both recommended for consent. Okay. Okay. We have a second on that. Jeff. Any discussion? Okay. All in favor. Okay. Can you just communicate to the applicants that even though it's on consent, we'd love them to be here. Yes, I will. And let me request that you amend your motion. To specify. A date. The next, the next available DRB meeting. Okay. So that's okay with you, Jeff. Yes. It sounds like you're looking for a date certain. July 6th. July 6th. That's what I'm getting at. Yeah. Okay. Good. Okay. Yeah. 362 Riverside Avenue. Okay. Okay. Yeah. 362 Riverside Avenue. 64 unit senior housing. This is a reopened public hearing. We were really mainly looking at site related issues. Yes. Thank you, Brad. This has been every with black rock construction. I just want to get every, I want to get everybody here first. Yeah. Is there anybody else besides you who's here to present? Yeah. Sean Kelly from Sanborn head. Yeah. We have a Jeff's waiver from BHB. And Cleary Buckley. Is here as well. Okay. And are there any members of the public here? We have Sharon here. Okay. Is that it? Anybody else from public on this? Okay. So we're good. So I'll ask everybody who's participating to swear that you tell the truth and whole truth on the pain and penalty of perjury. I do. I will. Yes. Yes. I thought the dog was going to answer that. No. Okay. Do you see a dog? Is that something? Yes. That's just that's a screenshot. We're seeing it for you right now. Okay. Okay. That's new to you. I'm sorry. I'm on my wife's computer, but I'm not quite sure how to change that. It's okay. I mean, it's just not an offensive picture by any means. It's fine. Okay. So. Benjamin. Do you want to read off here where we are interested in the. Sight related issues. Yes. So, um, as, as you all know, it's been, uh, a number of months, um, as we really decided, uh, we looked at different ways to address this and, and as opposed to sort of the battle of the talking heads, we took the route of doing the actual drilling, geotechnical review, um, environmental, uh, you know, the whole shoot match. And then we looked at some of the other things that we were going to need to do anyway. And took the time for the whole team review, uh, make sure that our initial concepts for the building were still solid as well as have a memo prepared. Um, for, uh, addressing the slope analysis concerns. And additionally, the one other item that the board, uh, had to input on was, was the sort of, um, the sort of, the sort of, the, the, the, the work that we were doing at the, um, demonstration on the rear of the building. It was, it was a little flat, um, admittedly. So, um, cleary set about, uh, jazzing that up a bit more. Excited about, uh, what the back of that looks like, including changing up some of the windows, um, to be, uh, more functional for the folks who are living there. So, um, sort of in the interest of, uh, discuss those architectural changes, and then we can have Sean go over a sort of a Q&A on his geotechnical memo, if that makes sense. That seems like a good way to start. Okay. It's all you, Clary. Okay. So, and somebody can, we can put something up if you want to share your screen, or Scott can put something up. If you guys want to present, or should I, Clary? Why don't you, Scott? Okay. But the elevation drawings, that'd be good, right? Yeah, good. So, we received feedback last time that the back of the building was a little too monochromatic and not broken up enough. And so, if you go to, I don't recall any critique of the front, so if, Scott, you could move to the back. If you recall before, it was, it was- Claren? Yes? If I recall, one of the things we did just briefly discuss on the front, if you just want to go to the front, I recall this, we talked about pedestrian access and front facing on that. Can you just remind us of how that, what the space is right along the street? Sure. So, the tower that has the numbers on it is the primary pedestrian entrance from Riverside Ave for the residential component of this. Just to the right of that, there will be a dining function that will be, will serve residents if they choose to use it. It may also be opened up to outside chefs or catering companies and the thought is that the community could access that as well. So, the door that's the smaller door would be into a dining area and there's a kitchen in the back. The functions to the left of the vertical tower in the middle are sort of common functions for the residents of this. There's a small physical therapy office or at least that's the plan. There's some sort of group activity space over there. So, that's the idea. The day-to-day residents and visitors will use the entrance that's underneath the building at the next level up most of the time. Okay. Thanks. I just remember discussing that before. So, sure. So, if you remember the last plan had largely sort of gray siding on the back and we got comments that it was too monochromatic, too plain. And so, we've done a couple of things. We considered adding balconies back here. We also considered French balconies. Both have some issues in terms of running the facility and sort of weather issues. What we landed on was installing paired large casement windows. You know, they're about three feet by four feet tall. You can see them in the corner on the right, which when opened up give people a lot of access to the outdoors and also, you know, you can stand at them similar to a French balcony, but without some of the sort of weather and maintenance issues. We've added a lot of color back here. You know, whether these, well, this is a computer rendering, so it won't be the exact color, but the intent is to try to brighten up the facade and give it a lot more rhythm so that people, you know, when they're looking out or seeing something that's a little more colorful. And that was the primary architectural What's the material here, Terry? It's all fiber cement siding. So some sort of joint pattern happening in there. Yeah, it's, you know, Yeah, I understand. In the model, you can see it, but it's lap siding. It's clavars. And I believe, yeah, well, I know, we have two different exposures. So the green is a smaller exposure, you know, in the sort of three and a half to four inch range. And then the blue would be a larger exposure, eight to nine inches. And just remind us on the front of the reddish color you have, what is that material? That is a panel product. Not a cement board? A cement board, but a panel. So, you know, it comes more like sheets of plywood. Yeah. Good. I think my comments were maybe a little cruder than you described them, but I think it is an improvement. I think that's better. Thank you. Good. I have one question for you. And that is, and maybe, well, right in the photograph, the rendering that's up, that gray wall in front, is that a concrete retaining wall? The low wall right in front? Yeah. Yes, it is. Okay. And that's what, because that's going to, I guess, be more relevant once we talk about the other issues, but that's what's really wrapping around this side of the property or the parking area. Is that right? Yeah. Yes, it is. Yeah, it's concrete. And the, you didn't ask, but the gray tower on the left would be corrugated metal siding. It's a stair tower. Good. Any questions from the board on the exterior materials? Or building? I don't have a question on the materials. I think one of the other concerns that we had brought up was just some screening for the loading dock, and it doesn't look, there's any changes to the landscaping plan. Is that true? Well, so this is not the landscape plan, the architects rendering, but I remember talking about the loading dock, and there's been a lot of discussion, a lot of thought into putting the loading dock where it is, and I really think it makes sense. But no, the screening has not changed. It's plantings and it's elevated pretty significantly from Riverside. I think it's unlikely that the public using Riverside would even be aware of it, to be honest. Well, we do have, we have trees planned for either side of the entry and shrubbery surrounding both sides. So, I mean, my concern would be if we forego those trees in favor of some sort of, you know, tall screening, arborvite, it's likely to stick out, almost to stick out more than, you know, the loading dock itself. Because in the end, the loading dock is not a place of high activity. So, for 23 hours and 50 minutes a day, or whatever it is, you know, it's just going to be a low driveway with appropriate landscaping around it that sort of mirrors the rest of the landscape plan as you go around the building. There is fencing around the trash and recycling area, which is just to the south of that drive. You can see kind of a gate in the plan that's up there now. And to chime in on, there's a previous question about the retaining walls and most of the retaining walls that are not part of the building structure along the parking will be the ready rock style concrete block walls that have a little more texture to them than the cast and place walls. And that's what we're seeing around the parking area in this slide right here, right? Correct. And they go above grade by a certain distance, at least in rendering they do. Yeah, a nominal amount. You know, they kind of step in increments, so you might see a few inches in the back of each one as we go up. But I think that was intent to the rendering. It didn't, you know, the limited pallet didn't necessarily capture those discrete block elements. And that, they're right up on your property line, is that right? Correct. And the property line to the right, it's a part of the brilliant housing authority to the properties to the south. So there's a sliver of property that they really can't use that goes between hillside terrace on the right side of the project in the easterly property line. Any issues with protection on top of that retaining wall? There will be protection on the one just to the right, to the southeast corner of the building where it's kind of the tower portion up on the top of the T. The other walls, it actually transitions from, you know, a cut to a fill. So they're going to be low walls. We're generally trying to match that grade. It's just, you know, the parking is in close proximity to the property line. So, but there's not much huge cuts and fills. Okay. Should we move on to the issues with the soil and the retention of the bank? If the board is satisfied? I think so. Please do. Yeah. I'm going to chime in, Ben. Do you want to start us out? Go for it, Sean. Just give us sort of the quick overview. Great. So as Ben alluded to, we, thanks Scott. So we did three soil boring so far and what we were looking for at this stage of the project was will this project negatively impact what's on the northern side of Riverside Ave toward the Manuski? And we performed a slope stability analysis using the site grades that we have for this project, as well as the grading that we have from across the street. And through that analysis, we can show, and it's at the end of the memo here that we wrote up, we can show that the property location where we're putting the building does not negatively impact the existing conditions along Riverside Avenue. So again, what we did was we did three soil borings and got a soil profile, vertical profile of the conditions below grade, used that information, put it into a slope modeling program, inputted the grounds and showed on the section view where the proposed building is and through that work was able to show and Scott's actually showing there a table that was just, if you move up a little bit there, Scott, that was just showing the table where we calculated factors of safety and we could show that the existing conditions versus the proposed conditions don't change what the site, how the site exists today. So we have enough setback that we're not negatively impacting any of the slope stability issues that Riverside has seen over the years. John, this is Jeff Ham. Can you, the table we're looking at right now and then there's a paragraph below it. Can you just explain what the factor of safety is and then there's a statement that says it's slightly lower than ideal because of the unprotected slope across the way that so when we, sure, Jeff, so when we look at slope stability, we look at what we call a factor of safety and so what that is is looking at resisting forces divided by the driving force and we want to make sure that our resisting force is greater than the driving force. So the resisting force is the stability of the soil itself. We look at shear strength of the soil, the friction angle of the soil, and then the driving force is gravity. So if we all go back to our undergraduate degrees and think about just standard statics, this is a statics problem. So we want to make sure that the slope can resist the driving force from gravity and what makes slopes move. Obviously there are a number of things that could make a slope move. The angle of the slope, if it's too steep, the slope won't stay up on its own. If there's poor soils, the soils that are really soft are really loose. Slopes have problems standing up on their own or if there's uncontrolled water, water conditions also have issues with resisting forces which would also make slopes move. So in terms of the comment in regards to factors of safety, what we do for design, so if there's a failed slope and we want to repair that slope, we would use standard of practice, we would use a factor of safety of 1.5 when there's a critical structure at the crest or at the top or at the toe or the bottom of the slope. We would want to design a repair that has a factor of safety of 1.5. If there's not a structure that's critical at the top or bottom, we would design for a factor of safety of 1.3. So in our situation, the location of the project building, the proposed building is just at the edge of where the slip surfaces are entering the slope. So when I talk about a slip surface, I talk about the shape of what the slope failure would look like if there was a catastrophic failure. So those slip surfaces are a geometry. We usually have a point up in space and an arc is created and that slip surface follows a shear within the soil. So I'm trying to explain this as blame in terms as possible. I don't want to get super, super technical with everybody, but I'm hoping that the concept is coming through, right? I think you're on mute. It's pouring here so there's no noise even the roof. Are these the charts of the back of your report? Correct. Those are the output from the slope modeling program. Right. And they're showing that slip analysis sort of. Yep. So the arcs that you see there are computer generated slip surfaces that are created by the parameters that I talked about before, meaning I have to put into the program the geometry of the slope, which comes from the topography from survey. I put in any driving forces. So the driving force would be the weight of the building of the road. For example, V-trans has a standard use of what we would put down for pressures of the road or the weight of the road and the traffic going over it. So that's 280 pounds per square foot. So we added that weight or that load onto the top of the slope, which again is a driving force. And then just the weight of the soil itself, the unit weight of the soil. For the resisting forces, we added the friction angle of the soil, which is the resistance to movement. Soil has a naturally occurring friction angle. It's not frictionless like water. Soil has friction and depending on the density and this type of soil, that friction angle or shear strength will change. And so we used somewhat conservative values, given the analysis that we did out in the field in terms of collecting field information. And that output now that we have a factor of safety before and a factor of safety after, when I say before and after, I'm referring to the proposed building. And we can see that there's not a change in that stability, meaning the weight of the building, the footing loads that we're applying to the top of the slope don't negatively impact the existing conditions. And I'll put the top of slope in quotes. I'm pretty sure you can't see me right now. My camera's not working. So I'm doing some air quotes for you. We have a significant setback from the actual crest of slope. The actual top of slope from a geometry standpoint is on the north side of Riverside Ave. It's not on the south side of Riverside Ave. But we still show, given the geometry that we've selected, a slip surface A exists that far south. And I'll put may exist because what we're doing is a computer model. And we're inputting parameters that are somewhat conservative and sort of standard of practice. This is what we have to go by. And with that said, I'll make reference to in our memo, some of the language that's in the International Building Code. That's what we have to follow when we get to the design, when we start to design the building, we have to follow the building code. And in that building code, it does talk about setbacks for new construction. And we are well beyond the IBC setback for any new construction with this project. So I'll just, if there's any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them. There's a curiosity question. So in the design of the footings for this building, have they, is there anything unusual in them to address the soil conditions? Nope, the soils are actually pretty good here. In Vermont, we love to build on glacial till. That's not our condition. The site profile I'll talk about here in this memo and we'll elaborate a little bit more when we go through the design process for the building. But the soil profile right now has some fill at the surface. Below that is a sand material which then transitions to a silty clay. And below that is our dense sand and gravel slash glacial till. There's some discussion in terms of are we, is it truly a sand and gravel or glacial till, regardless that the lower level, lower layer is very dense. So our footings are going to be, you know, influenced by that silty clay. And most likely this will probably be a shallow foundation project, but we still have to go through that analysis. I don't see given the size of the building and the expected loads that we're going to get into any sort of elaborate type of foundation system for this building. There's no big cuts. We're not doing a basement. So there's not a lot of earth work that's going to be happening there. There's no retention systems that we're going to need for the building. So it's pretty straightforward in terms of how the foundation system will work out for this one. And on those assumptions, just to double check this, earlier in your memo, I think you basically said you're you're putting in an assumed pressure for the building. Is that a conservative figure? How does it compare to what? It is. Yep, yep, yep, that is. Actually, when we, when we did the first analysis, we put a uniform weight across the entire building, which doesn't really mimic what's going to actually happen, right? So in a typical building, all the load is going down to the, down the foundation walls to the footings of those walls. And depending on the construct, how the building lays out, there may be some interior columns, but in the middle of the building where there's slab on grade, that, you know, that weight is not really any, anything that's significant. So all the loads are going to be on those footings and our assumed soil bearing pressures are conservative for the soil profile that we have. So what is next for your presentation here? So from my standpoint, I'm all set. If there's any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them from the board. And yeah, we're pretty confident in terms of how the analysis came out for us, slip stability concerns. Okay. Questions from the board for any of the, any part of the application? You know, and I think we have one member of the public here, Sharon. Yes, can you hear me? We can. Okay. Yes. Thank you. My name is Sharon Busher and I lived in this ward on East Avenue and I've been following this project and one of my concerns has been addressed by the applicant and I'm appreciative of that regarding the stability study. And I listened carefully because it was at the end, but the weight of the structure and the fact that it's for, for separate structures being torn down and then one larger structure and that massing, I didn't hear that till the end that that was evaluated and had no impact on the stability of that impact on the stability of the slope across the street on the Wynuski River. So I wanted to ask, I had been checking for information and I just, the DRB at the time that I looked, there was no report from the city as far as under major impact, soil erosion, reduction in land to hold water. I didn't see a report from the stormwater program saying that the, that this was adequate. And I was hoping since this had been a relatively long process that, that would have occurred. So there would be agreement that, that there was no further action needed. And so I couldn't evaluate that. Once again under section 5.5.3, stormwater and erosion control, my same question is the, is the plan put forward adequate and has DR, is the STPW reviewed that? So those are my main concerns. I did want to look at one other thing. Because the lot is going to be about 80% covered, I understand the fact that there will be clear cutting of trees. But I'm just, I'm in, in a mode where I want to challenge the city and ourselves that with the environmental crisis, I, I really think more careful, we have to be more cautious and really look at, as to whether or not any trees can be retained, probably not on this site. But I just think in the future, it's just been a practice to make development easier. But I think mature trees have mature trees have such value. I don't think it's a good practice. And I had one other question for the applicant. Because there is the, the number of units is 64 and the number of parking spaces, which is acceptable is 57. I, and that accounts for residents and visitors. I was hoping that that would be realized. And I just wanted to share with the DRB and the applicant that in my past life, I used to knock on a lot of doors. And at Macaulay Square, when I would go there, they would say that we did not, and that's a senior housing, that we did not provide them with enough parking. And they were taking over visitor spaces on their little roundabout. And that was one of their major complaints. And so I, I want to make sure that if the people that live there have visitors, there will be, that they can be addressed in the parking lot. If not, then my question to the applicant and the DRB, is the road, the access road that goes to Hillside, is there parking allowed on that street, if indeed they run, run out of room underground or in the lot? Thank you very much. That's it. I'm happy to answer the parking count piece. We're taking some data from looking at other projects around the city. We're drawing a lot from, we have 154 unit development in Essex that was recently built and in particular, our independent living facility that we do own, they're looking at what the parking counts out there are there. And we're seeing independent living today really tends to skew a little older. So we have an average age in our Essex facility of 78. And our parking runs around 50%. So we have an, and that's in Essex Center. So that's in an area without public transportation. And in an area that even pedestrian access, I mean, yes, we have good pedestrian access, but it's a bit of a hike to get anywhere, and particularly if you're in your late 70s. So given the location on Riverside Avenue, given the access to public transportation, and given the access to nearby services, we're relatively comfortable with the assumption that the parking demand in this facility would run at worst case, what we're seeing in other facilities, which is again, around 50%. There is public parking or street side parking on hillside terrace that does provide an overflow opportunity. We would not do assigned parking in a facility like this. So we would not have a structure where a resident would be assigned a spot and then it would sit empty. So it is designed with the idea of flexible parking to accommodate both residents and visitors alike as, you know, as the daily traffic flow ebbs and flows. Does that help? Pretty clear. Thank you. Brad, may I just follow up? Sure. Thank you. Yes, that does help. I'm glad that there is that relief in case parking exceeds what the anticipated need is. I just want to let you know I'm 74 and I walk a lot and I can handle a really mean pitchfork for gardening. So I think 78 doesn't seem like that, you know, I'm ready for the rocking chair. So I just wanted to let you know that I was a city counselor and the people in Macaulay square are what I would have considered older and I would have thought that they wouldn't have needed vehicles, but I got that feedback all the time. In fact, I just got that two years ago. So I was just sharing that with you and I hope that you're right. I hope that we have better public transportation and better pedestrian access. So thank you very much for answering my question. I appreciate it. No problem. Thank you. And if the board would like I could follow up on specifics related to the city's stormwater review? Yeah, that's going to be a question I was going to ask. Have we had an official review from DPW on this? Yeah, I'm looking at an email right now dated December 9th from James Sherard, the stormwater program coordinator addressed to me and been copying Ben Avery and Scott Gustin. And it states afternoon, I have no other questions prior to signing off on the EPSC plan. The final item needed is a signature from the owner contractor. I have compiled my EPSC approval attached and it would be best if the owner contractor could sign this copy and send it back to me directly. At that time, I will approve the application and enter it into the city's database. Thanks all. So I believe that's been submitted and should be in the city's database. And Scott, that's sort of not in our packages. That was really part of the previous review. Is that why that's not an update? That was correct at the time of the previous review. Thanks, Jeff, for the update there. I did look in the permit system and James hasn't pressed the button yet. Maybe he's okay with it, but I was just looking for the approval and I didn't see it. But if he's all but officially blessed it, great. I know you had followed up with me and Scott, I'm sorry, me and Ben requesting to get that signed. It might have taken a couple of weeks to get it signed, but I'm pretty sure I saw the signature come through, so it should have been entered. Yeah, I think I was tardy in my execution of that document. Okay, well, it's in our probably enough conditions of approval. Anything, any other questions from the board on this application? Anything that the applicant wants to add at this point? Okay, well, it looks good. I think most of our concerns I think have been addressed, I believe, and we will probably deliberate shortly on this one, no close public hearing. So, Brad, we have applicants for 15 Myrtle and six Alexis Drive now. Well, thank you very much, everyone. Thank you. Does this conflict with our motion previous? Well, no one in the public was here to attend, so I don't think there's any harm or foul if you wish to take it up now. I guess it'll be fairly quick by as well. Yeah, let's take it up. Let's do it. Okay, so we'll do 15 Myrtle Street. Andrew Feltos is here. Andrew, so this is recommended for approval by the staff, and have you seen the staff's recommendations and conditions of approval? Yes, I saw Scott Guston's right up. Okay, and are you okay with that? Yes, I am. Yeah, all the conditions are good. I think I've resolved all of them in drawing updates, and then the one open item is the wastewater letter from the city. Well, that'll stay as a condition. That's correct. I did post the revised plans and all the conditions about the wastewater have been blessed. Anybody on the board have trouble with treating this as a consent item? If not, can I have a motion from somebody on this? So moved. Second. Jeff, okay. Any discussion? All in favor? Oh, it's okay. We're done with that one. And Six Alexis Drive. David Cohen is the applicant here for that one. Yes, David Cohen here. Yes, I am. And have you seen the staff report and recommended conditions of approval? I have not. You have not. Uh-oh, I'm going to blame that on Ryan. Basically, they're expecting you to cut everything on that law. It's pretty much it, isn't it? Very. Similar to the other lots that have been cleared. Yes. Yes. So the, let me tell you what the conditions of approval are, is just the standard conditions, 1 to 15. So basically, you're getting approval to do as requested. So I will add this. Mm-hmm. Yes. Okay. So anyone want to make a motion on this one? Move. Jeff does. Second. AJ. Discussion? All in favor? Opposed? Okay. Well, go forth and cut. Thank you. Okay. So we have one more item as part of the hearing here, Scott, on the, how we're going to conduct future meetings. And you can do it as part of the hearing or separately? No, we're here right now. So the city is authorizing in-person meetings from now on. Is that true? Right. Today at midnight, the state of emergency expires. So we go back to standard public meeting law tomorrow. So our next meeting is July 6th. How do members of the board feel about attending in person versus virtual? I'm fine. I mean, I love being in my office, but it's time to go back. I think I like being in person with the meetings, but I haven't been in person. So I noticed that. I've never met you in the flesh here. I was thinking that too, Caitlin. I don't think I've met you in person. I'm not going to be here July 6th, but I'm happy to start meeting after that point. What about the public though? There may be members of the public who are reluctant to participate. So we have two options. One is we go back 100% in person, no Zoom. The other option is the board meets in person, either in whole or in part. And Zoom continues to be part of that. And folks could participate remotely if they wanted to. You recall the tablets we had for the board. Those are all equipped with cameras. So each board member could be on a Zoom call if need be. And staff could provide another laptop or tablet for folks to participate either remotely or in person for the meeting. Yeah, I think it's a strong accessibility to provide options. And I would hope that it would only help as well with having the quorum that we need on the board to have it. So I think since we have learned how to do it this way, it would benefit everyone for us to learn how to do a hybrid. I basically agree. At least for the next, I would suggest for the next two or three months to see how it goes up, but to offer that Zoom platform for members of the public. I would hope the board that we would convene in person actually. I think a hybrid makes sense. Yeah. Okay. So is that something you're going to put into the announcement for the upcoming meeting, Scott? Yeah, well, we actually had to amend the July 6th hearing notice to include the physical space. So we'll meet at Pine Street, 645 Pine Street in the main media room as opposed to Contoy's moving forward. And we could say that we are meeting in person, but for those who wish they could still bail themselves out. Right. Okay. Good. And with that, our development review board meeting of June 15th is closed. So now we deliberate. So I'm going to pause the recording. I did look at this. Caitlyn knows this. Apparently it's a new add-on to make it abundantly clear to participants that you're being recorded and you can get off if you don't want to be recorded, except that you're board members and you need to stay on. So we're going to hear the little announcement going on and off. Oh, the recording has stopped. There it is. And we don't, I guess that forces us. Okay. So approve the application and adopt staff patients with the following changes. In the site plan, we're going to submit a updated site plan that shows the location of a hot tub in addition to the location of the pool. We're also going to require that the applicant install within 90 days of the decision a privacy fence on the southern boundary to run the length of the boundary line, unless the applicant can come to a written agreement with the adjoining landowner for a different size fence. That'll be wood at least six feet high. Plan for that to be included on the site plan and submitted to staff for administrative approval. And that submission should also include the pictures or cut sheets of the lights that are installed on the exterior of the house. We'll include a condition that use of the hot tub and the pool by BNB residents shall be limited to no later than second on this. Okay. Sounds like we're going to cover any discussion on favor. Okay. The recording has been recorded 57 South Williams street, which is 21 dash 0785 CA. I move that we accept the staff recommendations and approve the application. There's a second on that. Okay. I might have to look at it again. Is the two parking space waiver approved in that conditions of approval? Do we have to add that to it? The findings. It's in the findings. So we don't have to add it to the conditions. Okay. Any other discussion? All in favor? Opposed? The recording has stopped. So the only question, I don't know if they're still here, whether they understand that we see there is a solution that, and I don't know if we can put this into the, that there is a solution that resolves this without tearing down the garage. If the garage stays on the property that it is, they can do a bound line adjustment for that. Yeah. I think we could, we can't encourage them to do anything, but I think we'd be open to entertaining a different boundary line adjustment along the lines. All in favor? AJ, are you voting? AJ? AJ is distracted. All right. No, something was happening in my background. Are you in favor of the motion? Yes. Sorry. Okay. Follow us. Okay. Go ahead. Oh, wow. We have one more. The recording. To push that button, Scott, or does that happen automatically? No, I have to push the button. I'll make a motion on this one. On 210409 CAMA362 Riverside Avenue, I move that we approve the application, adopt staff's findings and recommendations. I'll second that. I'll second that. Any discussion? All in favor? Jeff, are you? I'm in favor. Okay. So it's 40. Okay. Good. The recording has stopped.