 All right. Good evening. Welcome to the city of Montpelier development review board. It is October 4th. We are getting underway. My name is Kate McCarthy. I am the chair of this board. And I'd like to start by introducing the other members starting with to my right. Have you use your microphone now? Yeah, we couldn't hear you at all, Kevin. Kevin O'Connell board member. Great. And I'll go through based on who's on zoom and just have you introduce yourself starting with Rob, please. Lois Rob. Rob. Claire. This is Claire rock. Claire. Jean. Jean Leon. Remember, how are you? Abby. Hey, Abby white. And Michael. Good evening, Michael. Good evening. Thank you board members. Welcome. And I also would like to introduce and appreciate our staff to my left. To like to introduce yourself. Mike Miller planning director. And then joining us by zoom is Meredith, if you'd like to say hello. Meredith Crandall. Thank you for dealing with us. I'm going to be off camera tonight just to make sure I actually don't try to keep them bumping off. Okay. All right. Thank you for, for making, making a point of being here and we're glad to exercise flexibility. All right. So the first thing we are going to do because we are in this hybrid world that we're going to have the staff review of remote meeting procedures and process and I believe for that I'll turn it over to you Mike. Okay. Mike, you're going to have to get really close to the microphone. Especially with the mask on being slow. There we go. All right. So for those viewing this meeting via orca. You can participate in the development review board meeting via the zoom platform through either video and telephone access options. So the agenda and meeting materials you may. I'm just skipping that part, Mike, and just focusing on how to access and how to interface via zoom right now. Okay. So you can download and complete. So you just skipping right to the next one. Participate. Oh, for those viewing this meeting via orca. There's your contact information. If the guest, the key is if you have any problems accessing this meeting, please email Meredith Crandall at mcrandall at month pillier hyphen vt.org. So the agenda and meeting materials. You can download the meeting material packets at this site, which is at the city website. You can find tonight's meeting in the current and upcoming events. And then use the download to pull down the files column or click the link on the meeting and navigate between the agenda and meeting files using the tabs at the top of the new window. I guess that was it for that. I think the only other thing we typically like to say is that if for some reason someone is not able to access the meeting by the zoom platform then we are obligated to continue the meeting to a time and date certain to ensure that access. It would also be good to mention that participants can join. Yes, absolutely. Thank you. And we don't have anybody on remotely other than DRV members tonight. So I think that the key was to make sure orca member or people watching the orca could see how to log on tonight. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right, so the next item on the agenda is the approval of agenda. Is there a motion to approve the agenda as printed. There's a motion by Kevin is there a second. Second that second by Claire. I will call the roll, which we do when we're doing hybrid. Kevin. Yeah, Rob. Yes. Claire. Yes. Yes. Jean. Yes. Michael. Yes. And. And, and I also vote yes. You're on there twice. We've approved the agenda. Thank you. There are no comments from the chair this evening. What we'll do next is approve the minutes of September 30 or. No, I'm sorry. September 20, which was our last meeting. Are there any corrections or modifications to the minutes? There was one thing that I noticed and wanted to check on page three of the minutes. It talks about how the new residents proposed at zero Ewing could block in the minutes could block 81 Ewing solar panel. And I seem to recall that we talked about solar access, but not about solar panels. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. The board members recall what the discussion was. I want to have it reflected in the minutes. Properly. We talked about solar gain through the windows on the. East side of the house, I think. I can go back to the recording. Okay. And double check that. Okay. So Meredith will double check that. So pending. Confirmation of that piece. I'll make a motion to approve with that clarification made. Based on Meredith's review of the recording. Question by Claire. Is there a second? Second. Kevin. I'll call the roll. Kevin. Yes. Rob. Yes. Claire. Yes. Patty. Yes. So it wasn't there and I vote, I vote yes. So we have approved the minutes of September 20. Thank you. All right. We are going to move on to our only item of business this evening, which is zero Ewing street. This is a continuation from September 20th of a site plan review of a new three dwelling unit structure. Folks recall, there were some outstanding issues on which the board saw additional information after hearing from the applicant and other interested parties. So here's, here's how I'd like to proceed. I'd like to hear an overview of the status of the project from Meredith, kind of where we are procedurally and what issues we have left to cover. And then I want to go through each of the outstanding issues in the order that they appear in Meredith staff memo. And I'll give you a preview for those who don't have the memo handy. The order we're going to follow is access and circulation, solar access and shading, stormwater, landscaping and screening, outdoor lighting, steep slopes and fences and walls. And what I propose to do for each of these items in order to be thorough, but also efficient. I'd like to have Meredith briefly queue it up. Then have the applicant briefly present any new information. Board members will then get to ask questions to help understand how the relevant part of the zoning is or isn't met. And then those who've been sworn in and wish to see the board. And then those who've been sworn in and wish to speak may also do so briefly. So it'll be a little bit of a one, two, three, four, one, two, three, four. Everyone will get to participate at this point. I'm the board is really only looking for new information or new responses because of new information presented. We have a pretty comprehensive record from our last meeting and also a lot of evidence in our packet. So that's the approach I would like to take. Board members, does that work for you? Yes, it does. Okay. And does that make sense to other participants? Okay. And I'm going to confirm that there's no one who's joined us on the phone. Okay. Thanks for the thumbs up, Claire. Appreciate that. Okay. I was going to ask if there's anyone who wants to speak who was not sworn in last time, but there appears not to be. We'll keep an eye out. All right. Without further ado, Meredith, I'd like to turn it over for you. Over to you regarding to talk about where we are procedurally and where we are procedurally and what we have to cover. Okay. So procedurally, especially for any of the newer members, DRB members, or I don't know who's out in the audience, but people who haven't dealt with a continued hearing before. We are in a continued hearing. So we're still taking evidence. So everything new that came in between the. September 20th and now is. Additional evidence that gets put in the file. As well as anything that is presented during tonight's meeting. And that'll continue to be the case until the public hearing is officially closed by the board. It could be tonight. Hopefully it could be later. Well, we'll see how that all works out. Hopefully it'll be tonight. Okay. And for everybody who got my memo, which should be everybody here. We, I did reach out to the city's attorneys and got some guidance about. Dealing with conditions and the prior subdivision. Permit that the subdivision permit approval. And so that's in the, in the memo. I'm not going to go into the details because we'll do that later, but I did gather that information. We got additional information from. A butters from the applicants. From department of public work. So there's a lot more to chew on to hopefully fill in the gaps or questions that the board had at the September 20th hearing. A really important item I do want to make sure. And Kate, this is something that might mess with your schedule a little bit, but I don't think so. I just wanted to make sure that you guys have. New information that was, was provided today to city staff. So we weren't able to include it in the packet. It'll have to be introduced at tonight's hearing. Mike has that. And the applicants have that there. Kate, that works for you. I think maybe that they should introduce that. In the relevant portions. Cause it does seem to be broken out. It's however you want to deal with it. So I'm going to go ahead and do that. I'm going to go ahead and do the email that. All everything in one bunch to the DRB members. So that once you download it, you'll have it on your own computers. If you need to look at it a little bit later. Okay. Yes. Thank you. And you couldn't, can you include Dylan as well? Yes, I can include Dylan as well. Great. Thank you. And Dylan, do you have a copy of the staff report? The updated memo. Okay. Great. Thank you. Mike, you might have some extras there. Yeah, I think, yeah, I think they have taken them. Good. All right. Thank you. That was helpful. All right. So, um, let's, let's jump right in the first section on which we are. We have further discussion is section 3010 of the zoning access and circulation. Okay. And as Meredith mentioned, we've, we've gotten some guidance from city's attorney. So I will, as promised, we'll do here from Meredith, here from the applicant questions from the board. And then here from interested parties. So back to you, Meredith, please. Okay. So during the nine 20 hearing, there's some question about, um, the enforceability of the condition that was in the subdivision approval for subdividing this zero, zero viewing lot away from 81 North street. Um, about narrowing the curb cut on the 81 North street side. After conferring with attorney Rue. Um, that, that is something that is enforceable. It is an enforceable portion of the, um, Approval. Or at least it can be. However, that does not limit. The board's ability to approve alternative. Access options. As long as those alternatives still comply with the zoning plan, assuming that alternative plan could be come up with, could come up with that does not require 81 North street to narrow their side. So I mean, that's, that's really the gist of everything that went into here and the applicant has provided an alternative plan. That was just circulated. So I think it probably makes sense for, for us to switch to the applicant at this point, unless you have other things you wanted me to talk about Kate. Nope, that's, that's the overview we were looking for. Yeah, let's switch, let's switch over to, um, to the applicant. Please put up the revised site plan. Don, if you can make sure you're right in that microphone. I'm sorry, I was asking Mike to please, uh, Put the site plan up on the wall on the screen. Thank you, Mike. Maybe down just a little bit. Since with the issue is up in the, on the Ewing street side of the top, the other down the up that way, please. Um, after discussions with Cory line from DPW, um, his recommendation was and we've, uh, concur with, uh, creating a four foot wide grass island on the subject property just to the east of the common property line. And to the east of that would be a independent 12 foot wide access for the project. So that meets both the 12 foot minimum required drive. And it separates separates us by a four foot island that was Cory's, uh, minimum requirement based on, uh, the trans sort of guidance of separation. Okay. I'm going to get up and point at the diagram. So this is the island. Yes, exactly. Okay. And in that case, what we are, we've been hearing my microphone. Um, in that case, what we are affected, what, what you're effectively doing is. Assuring a 12 foot. Um, opening on the parcel you're proposing to develop. And, um, and that is the parcel we are focusing on. Yes. Okay. And the other issues are out of our control and offsite. Okay. And has the. Do I see correctly that the site plan has been updated. So that it does not. Draw any conclusions about what's going to be happening on the neighboring parcel. I didn't say that. Oh, that's still that residuals still there. I probably should have taken that off, but I was focusing on our project. So if, if the board will please consider it as a, the zero zero Ewing. Parcel solely. Thanks for, for that proposal. Um, board members. This is your chance to ask questions. And please pipe up because I can only see a few of you on the side there. I have a question about the four foot. Um, Island grass curved Island. Is that, is that in keeping with the V trans rules? I understand. Yes. The Corey line said that was the V trans preference for separating driveways is the minimum of four foot. Um, some sort of Island. And so we chose to use concrete curb with grass in the middle. Okay. Other board members. Another question. And so is the, is the full curb cut. Um, 28 feet then, or is there a curb that is in that four foot. Kind of Island area. The. There is curbing along. So that would be a 12 foot. Driveway cut. So that would be just the driveway access. 12 feet wide to the east of the. Curved Island. Okay. Sounds like the addition of the Island makes it so that it's two distinct. Driveway openings instead of. Two that are next to each other and function as one bigger. Opening. Exactly. So now we have to, we are reestablishing. You are reestablishing to curb cuts. Where currently there is one cut. Board members. Yeah. Yeah, it seems to make, make all sense to me. I guess the question is, are, are we cleaning up the. Requirement to do anything on the. Shall we say a lot one of the. Subdivision or the North street parcel. So. There's no. Oh, sorry. Did you want to. Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that. Because it seems like logically going forward. You know, this is going to remove the need for any of the changes on. The law. One parcel. I just wanted to confirm while we're here at this, if that was correct. Yeah. So I think. Meredith has her hand raised. And then I'll just. Yeah. So. Because this is an application for the zero Ewing street parcel. Yeah. It's not, it's not really in the DRVs. Per view to worry about whether or not. I just wanted to confirm while we're here at this, if that was correct. Yeah. So I think Meredith has her hand raised and then I'll. So here from Meredith in response to that question and then go to Claire. Whose hand is also. So Meredith, go ahead. Yeah. So for the, for the. For the, for the, for the. For the, for the. Pervue to worry about whether or not it's cleaning up lot one. Or anyone North Street. At this point, anything dealing with conditions. Under that subdivision permit. It's, it would be an enforcement action, which is all my office. Basically. So. You know, what this did is it solved the solution. It's self-solved. The problem of making sure that zero Ewing street has a conforming I'd like to, oh, Rob, did you want to follow up? Oh, thank you. Claire, go ahead. Piers, is it correct? Am I looking at the site plan correct that this curbing would then extend the length of the driveway? Is that correct? The answer is yes. And I was going to address that when we got to stormwater. OK, excuse me. Maybe you could give us a sneak preview. OK, so we understand the full context. The other concern was, from a stormwater related issue, the potential for runoff to leave, as those are ewing, and go on to the adjoining property. So what we've chosen to do there is we've got the grading that should take care of that. But to be more cautious, we have a proposed six foot, excuse me, six inch wide, six inch high concrete curb that will extend from the south of the property along the west property line all the way up to and connect to the curbed island up above. That would force any runoff to go to either the catch basins on either the north end or the south end of the parcel. Thanks, John. Claire, does that answer your question? Yes, it does. And I guess just my other just a kind of an observation. It's not necessarily a question is that. And maybe it's kind of for clarification is that there's no curbing anywhere else along this street. And so this would be the introduction of a new curb in this specific area. But it's not like it's kind of tying into kind of a uniform curbing that exists in an along Ewing Street and along the frontage of the subject parcel or along other front yards, right? Yes, sort of. There's certainly not concrete curbing on Ewing at all. There's sort of an asphalt lip, about an inch or two of asphalt that humps up along the edge that tends to direct water along Ewing. But it's not wouldn't really be called curb. OK, thank you. Yeah, it just seems like it's it seems like it's it's meeting the requirement. But I think kind of from a design perspective, seems a little bit random. But if it's meeting the public works requirement, then great. I think that adequately ascribes it. All right, thank you both. Any more questions or comments from D.I.B. members about this about this issue? OK, so Dylan, if you'd like to step up to the microphone, please, just since we're starting out the meeting, still just introduce your name and your address and then take about two to three minutes. We can't hear. Yeah, is Dylan's microphone on? We'll check that for you. Thanks for thanks for letting us know. It's good. Can you hear me now? Yes. OK, great. My name is Dylan Woodrow. I own and live at 81 North Street. And I'd like to thank Don and Gabe for being courteous and gracious to revise their plans. I like the creativity and I have nothing to say to combat this option. Just an observation, there is the curbing that runs along the northern boundary of the zero ewing property does have some curbing there. So I wouldn't say that it would be inconsistent with what currently exists. OK. That's all I have. Thanks. So we'll have you do the popcorn thing where you sit up and down as each one goes through, if that's OK, thanks. All right. In that case, let's move on to the next outstanding item, section 3206 of the zoning solar access and shading. And this is discussed on pages 16 and 17 of the September 20th staff report if you want to look. So as we did before, we'll start with an overview from Meredith, please. So this is a little bit of a mea culpa for me and that in the initial staff report, I made a mistake in how I was analyzing under this section. We haven't worked with this section much since it was drafted. And we definitely haven't worked with it where we're in a small residential area. I think one of the main places we looked at it was the new development out on River Street, where there was really nothing nearby. And so I, you know, we took a look at it after Mr. Woodrow's concerns that he raised about how we were analyzing it and send it back to the applicant. Because we didn't actually have the appropriate information to make this analysis in the initial application and they have actually submitted more information. But I think this is the time to hand it back over to the applicant. That is fine, thank you. Thank you, Meredith. All right, so is there a diagram that we're gonna have a look at? Is this the, could you get the shading plan, Mike? Yeah, I didn't know if you wanted to start here. Well, we could start there, that's probably, this is bigger scales, maybe it's right. So if you look at the project building, which is on the right hand side of the page, there are two heavy dashed lines to the left of that. The one sort of in the middle of the page is the shadow that would be cast by that building on the 21st of December at noon. The shadow to the left of that or the line. So basically you can see since the sun's coming over your shoulder and that's the line, there's no shadowing whatsoever at noon. However, at both nine and three, the left hand line would be the representation of the shadow impact. And that impacts about 36% of the side and I emphasize the side of 81 North Street. And then if we could please go to the other drawing. We have some cross sections that will be helpful. Don, while we're switching drawings, both of those lines are at noon on December 21st. No. No. The right hand one is at noon. The left hand one is at three and nine and three. I misspoke. I meant to confirm that they're both on the 21st of December. On 21st of December, yes. The shortest day of the year. Yes. So does that mean that we haven't done a lot of these analyses before? Does that mean that other days of the year when there is more sun, there will be less time that the side of the building is in shade? Absolutely. Significantly less. Okay, so actually I am actually there. Can we blow that up a little bit? Yeah. What we have here is the same drawing on the left, but if we can blow up the right side, the other. It's hard. How about that? That get us closer? Yeah. No, keep going to the right place. I'd like to show the two profiles. There you go. And if you go a little bit higher, a little bit to the left again, I'm trying to show. Nope, farther to the other way. Right? Well, we can't show it all. What we're trying to show is there's a hill to the south of the project. And I arbitrarily added a 20 foot tall tree on top that's really conservative. So as you look at the bottom of these two, in the middle of the project is the height of our, 34 feet, the height of our proposed building above ground. So the bottom is the shading from, the bottom is a shading from the trees. So there's really no shading on the building, on the building's property from the trees. So if you add our building, which is in the vertical line in the middle of the drawing, it shades about 60% of the side of his building on December 21st at the worst case. So that would be at, that'd be nine and three, less so of course at noon. And then if you go up above, so that, I'm sorry, this is just at noon. So at noon, it shades 60% of it. If you go up or down, I can't remember which, up I guess. Yeah. So here's the case where at nine and three on that same day, December 21, the trees on the hill to the south are more restrictive than the building. So you see the building, our building's in the shade, 81 North Street is in the shade at nine and three. So somewhere in between our impact, plus or minus an hour and a half either way or so, our impact, our project impacts it. But what we're trying to show here is that the impact is pretty negligible. And in fact, and it's an issue we talk about a little bit later. I mean, it's, we're trying to do an infill and actually the distance between these buildings are significant compared to what you'd expect many infills to be in Montpayer. So we think that there's some shading, but it's not, and it could be considered adverse, but it's not undue adverse impact. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Don. Are there questions from board members? Maybe to put it a different way and tell me if I'm right or wrong, Don, but so if, for instance, if you put the building closer to 81 North Street in the driveway on the other side, an alternative, there would be much more shading. So in a way, you have, by this alternative, reduced the amount of shading. Yes, we have, that's true. Are there other questions or comments from board members? And I guess the other thing is we should show that it, that the impact shows that there's never an impact on the roof. The project doesn't impact the roof of the project. Oh, excuse me, of the joining property. Thank you. All right, Dylan, if you'd like to comment, you're welcome to. Thank you, Dylan. All right, thank you all. We're gonna move on to the next item, which is section 3009, stormwater. There's information about this on pages eight and nine of our staff report. And it's Meredith. So I know there was a lot of discussion about the stormwater issues, particularly about how the catch basin and the grading port to the rear of the parking area, driveway was gonna be situated, as well as the water overflowing. And some of those concerns were addressed in the hearing, but as Don showed previously, because I asked him to, to bring back and give a little more detail on that. And he's done that. So I think it's up to, I don't know if the board needs to hear more on that at this point or not. I'm not sure if we talked about more details about the catch basin itself, but he did show the additional curbing that was gonna be put in to prevent any overflow from that catch basin running onto 81 North Street. Don, if you'd like to say anything about it. Basically, we've got the entire side curb. Gabe was willing to do that. And so, and we've had sort of a double slope on the driveway a little bit. So that makes sure that both the catch basins will accept that the water from behind the building itself and along the front of the wall is graded such that that will also go into the catch basin. And finally, with some mention, I believe of water coming maybe over the wall. And so we've added a couple of yard drains behind the wall and connected those to the catch basin. So even water coming off the hill behind rather than accumulating behind the wall, that will be caught and directed to the catch basin. So we think we've collected everything we can possibly collect on the site. Oh, and of course the roof, the roof water goes into the storm system anyway. Yeah. Thanks, great. Questions from the board? Yeah, I think what I see is a very clear plan addressing the concerns about storm water. You can see where everything's going and is accounted for. So thank you for the updates that makes me satisfied. Yeah, I would echo that. And then Rob, anyone else? Oh, and if you'd like to speak to storm water, you're welcome to. We'll move on to the next item. It's section 3203 landscaping and screening. You'll find it on pages 13 to 15 of our last staff report. Meredith, please. Yes, so during the September 20th hearing, there was some discussion about the request for fencing and applicants willing to put fencing up between the new parking area and 81 North Street, but we didn't actually see any plans for that. So since we were continuing the hearing anyway, it made sense to have that added on to the plans and the site plan that Don and Gabe just introduced into evidence actually showed that, but it might make, I don't know if any of the other DRB members got a chance to see that. Take a peek at that. Are you bringing that back up, Mike? Yeah. Yeah, that would be useful to just show that again. Thank you, we're so drawn to the curb. We forgot to look at the landscape. Maybe focus on the new parts. Okay, about halfway up the driveway, we run into Dylan's paved driveway, sort of about in between our two site shadowing lines. So what we've proposed and Gabe and Dylan talked about it, that a six foot tall wooden fence would be constructed along the property line from basically the retaining wall in the back 45 feet up to the point where it would intersect with the existing driveway. That will screen, generally screen the parking from most of the adjoining property, not all, but most. But by the time you get further north, it's sort of on a bleak angle. So we think that's a reasonable alternative. And we have a sample of that of a recommended wooden fence. If, I think it's called our fence in that disc. Do you see that, Mike? In that same set here? No, it's a separate photo PDF. I think it says our fence because it's an example of one in our backyard. We had a sample and hold it up. We had a sample of a new one, but I thought it'd be appropriate to show that it, they actually, the final grade will be, it's basically a six foot tall wooden fence with vertical boards on the bottom and then a lattice on the top. So it has a nice sort of look to it. And it grays, it's cedar and so it grays over time. So I think it blends in nicely with the landscape and will look nice. And it's, we have, oh, there it is. So I think that sort of would be the end result of a gray tone and it looks pretty nice on both sides. Thank you. Any questions from board members about the fence, the proposal? I would just say it looks thoughtfully done. I appreciate that. All right. Dylan, did you like to remark on this section? Thank you. That comment in a second, and I don't know what to do with it from there and Robert's rules that I appreciate it. All right, that's landscaping and screening folks. Thank you. The next section outstanding is section 3204, outdoor lighting, pages 15 to 16 of the staff report. Meredith, do you want to cue this up for us? Oh, sorry. Yep, it's a question my kids are now getting ready for bed and right outside my door. So the applicants have provided me and in this packet that they've provided me with additional materials, some information on lighting that they're gonna be proposing because we didn't have that before. They're right now what they've sent previously in between 920 and today was some really works out to four different lights, ceiling lights over the doors and under the porch. And this goes, there's two as well for the basement entrance area. So there's one like over where the stairwell goes down so people can see the stairs and then over the door, the entryway door. So they're really security lights. Those were the only two that showed on here. There was no lighting in the rear, which isn't required. And it looked like the aluminum standards all matched up. And I did follow up with Don and Gabe because I wasn't quite sure about whether what they said was fully shielded. There's a little bit of a diagram in there but it's teeny tiny. And I think trying to see if this was in my follow up emails that got attached to think it was. So I'm scrolling down. So at the almost near the end of the packet that I added for new information is the closer spec sheet that goes with the light that they're proposing. And it looks to me like there's some shielding there based on the way that the light is designed and built. But I was hoping that Don could confirm on that. And at this point, we don't think this, I think it's gonna come up to the board whether this still counts as a professional lighting plan. I'm not sure it does. So that might be something that would be a condition of approval as long as the board still feels like these are sufficiently shielded, which I think they are. But the board could, if they're happy with the plan, the information that's here, we could just make sure that we have a professionally put together lighting plan before the permit gets issued. We agree with that entirely. The lights that are shown are gonna be can lights. So either under the porches or under the overhang porch. And so for both entrances, the only, so those would be shielded and you'd barely see them. The only light that we've added is, and I think it was a suggestion in a way that is to add, it would be a, again, a downed shielded light, but in the rear near where the waste and recycling totes are. We have requested, but because of the fact we've requested, but because of your timely reconvening, we haven't been able to get a design. We've requested a light designer that typically does these for us to prepare a plan with all the photogrammetrics. And we just ask that that be a condition of, if the board approves the project, that it be a condition that we provide that to merit a satisfaction in priority as soon as owning permit. Great, questions from board members. I don't have any questions. I think that makes sense. That's a good plan. Claire, go ahead. Yeah, I guess I just had a question on the lighting plan. I guess I would put in a suggestion to make whatever that condition would be a little bit flexible. I'm just looking at the back parking area and thinking about in the event that the tenants move in and there is a request to put an additional light in the rear of the building in the parking area. If there would be an allowance that that wouldn't necessarily require like a site plan amendment to do a small thing like that. A small thing like that. It sounds like there is a proposal already to include a light back there from the description. So do you mean an additional light in the back beyond what was suggested? Because was there one proposed, there was one proposed on the building in the rear by the trash totes. Is that correct? Yes. Are you talking about another one? I guess I would just be curious if, you know, there is a level of flexibility there. If that wall, with that wall and that area in the back could be quite dark. Meredith has her hand up. So I think she is ready to answer this for us. Go ahead, Meredith. So during the building process, if they decide during the building process, as things are going up that they want additional lights because changes, as long as what they're proposing is within the realm of what I could approve administratively, then it would be something that I would be able to just make an amendment to the permit because it's not something that would change a condition or something on the permit just to say, hey, we're adding a light. It would just be an update to the lighting plan is the way I would look at that for this, as long as everything was in compliance. And then once the building's built and done, it's treated the same as any other, you know, three or more unit apartment building where they have to come to me for an administrative permit. I mean, it's just, we can't, can't really treat them any differently. So during the, like I said, during the construction, they can come to me for some administrative amendments, as long as it's not a material change, which in my mind adding one light that doesn't put them over and they're nowhere near the total lumen. You know, and this isn't something that, that anybody here is having issues with where we're restricting the lighting because of neighbor complaints or something like that. I wouldn't see that being an issue in most cases, as long as, you know, they're not putting some huge big light on top of the wall in the back or something. That's, so there's, there's processes for doing it. Thanks for that. Claire, do you have any, any follow up or anything? Okay. No, thanks, thanks for, thanks for your question. I know when we're talking about four to six lights and then we wonder if it becomes five to seven lights, what happens? Are you back before the board? I think it's, it's good for people to know what, what process is in place to help add up the lumens and make sure you don't go over. Great. Thank you for that. All right. Any other questions from the board about lighting? All right. So I'll invite Dylan to comment if you'd like. Okay. Thanks Dylan. All right. The next item is section 3007 steep slopes on pages five to seven of the staff report. And all this preview before Meredith does, we did walk through each of these standards last time as a group. And then Meredith had some analysis regarding removal of vegetation. Do you want to go ahead, Meredith? Yeah. So this is in response to some post hearing comments that Dylan sent expressing some more concerns about the removal of potentially mature trees from the site. And I just, I wanted to dig down a little bit so that everybody is clear about this requirement. I mean one, anything about removal or disturbance of vegetation that is within that section 3007. So the, the, the trees that are being removed to actually build a house. I didn't see that any of those were in the steep slopes area. And even if they were. The standard itself is to limit the amount of disturbance. And clearing of existing natural vegetation. It doesn't say that can't happen at all. So the, the trees that are being removed to actually build a house. I didn't see that any of those were in the steep slopes area. And even if they were. The natural vegetation, it doesn't say that can't happen at all. It's saying to, to, to limit it. It's not a strict ban. Same with the, you know, preserving the distinctive existing natural vegetation. It's not saying that that is something that, that you can't get rid of any of it. It's, it's doing your best to preserve where you can. You know, if we have to save every single tree on the site, it's not going to be a good thing. It's not going to be a good thing. It's not going to be a good thing. It's not going to be a good thing. Nothing, nothing is going to get developed at all. And they sort of imbalance built into this. Standard. Would either you like to comment on this as the applicant. There is, there is one small tree within the steep slopes. That would be removed. The other bigger. Nicer tree is out in the flat slopes. But that. That would have to go also. Okay. Questions or comments from board members. I have a question. Kate. I'm just curious about this. I don't have, I'm not asking because I have an opinion. I'm asking out of curiosity, but did, did the applicant look at other configurations of the building. The footprint of the building to avoid the steep slopes. I looked at a number of designs and Don and I in early stages, you know, tried to look at what we could do to site to get, you know, sort of maximum density on that site. And I think this was the best design. You know, we looked at multiple designs and this was the best that we could find. I mean, certainly you could do something smaller, but if you want to try to get max use out of it. Okay. Thanks, Abby. Other questions from board members. All right, Dylan, would you like to speak on this one? Okay. Thanks. All right. Our next and final item is section 3101. Senses and walls. Page four in the previous staff report. Meredith. Yeah, so this was just a quick little note. To clarify, because during the September 20th hearing. The applicant did. Did confirm that there was going to be a fence on top of the retaining wall. At the rear. Sorry for hearing my kids arguing. And I just wanted to make clear in here that that is something that the board is authorized to approve as part of the general waiver for a wall that's over six feet. Having the fence on top of it, especially because it's a safety feature does not suddenly create a situation where you're analyzing two different, you know, a wall and a fence. It's really all part of the same structure. That's all that notice. Thanks, Meredith. And that, that requirement for that particular safety feature, does that come from, I don't see it in our zoning. Is it a best practice from an engineering perspective? Or where does that standard come from? Um, I think it's building code. Okay. We've always the practices that any wall over 30 inches. You have to put a fence over it because it's a, it's a potential trip. True hazard. Right. But, you know, that's a common engineering practice. Okay. And what will that top fence look like? Is it going to be shiny and bronze? Is it going to be matte and brown? What do you expect the appearance to be roughly? What we typically, what we typically expect is a, is a, probably an inch square slats, four, five, four inches apart. And then maybe a little decorative part on the, the top, but it's sort of a standard black steel fence. I'm not sure where we have one like it, but. I saw one the other day and now I can't remember where I thought. Yup. Okay. Thanks. Um, board members, any questions or comments about this, this part? I have a question on the wall. This is a clarifying question so I can better visualize what this looks like. So if I was standing in the middle parking space, looking at the wall, the wall in front of me would be, is it eight feet tall? Is that correct? Well, it's about six. The highest is the, would be to your left at about 45 degrees at the corner. And then how tall would it be at the corner where it is meeting the fence on the joining property line? It's, um, that's where it's eight feet. At the, at the corner. And then it's down each direction from there. It steps down. I didn't bring, but there's a full set of. Drawings that have ever submitted. With the package. So that, so the wall is, is tallest in the. In the south. West. We'll almost do south. Right at that corner with the, with the fence and the neighboring property. No, it's in the middle of the project in the middle of the project. Would be the tallest. Oh, okay. He gets down to two feet down by that CB. Okay. CBB. And then as you go east from there, it gets higher. Because. If you can see the contours, we bump into the. Higher contours on the hill. Mike, is that, is that why I thought you had that wall up a little earlier. But then it drops down each direction. Let's think of when you scroll down, it was in that. Set. Gotcha. So eight feet in the middle kind of at the corner. And then it goes down to like two feet on one side and then. Like two feet on the other, on the other side. Yes. Gotcha. Okay. Just trying to wrap my brain by how all the pieces fit together in that back. Hillside. And the fence, the bull, the fence that will top the wall. And then it drops down each direction. I think when you scroll down, it was in that. And the fence, the bull, the fence that will top the wall. Will remain at the same height. Regardless of the height of the wall. Is that correct? No. The fence will go along with the wall. Okay. So it. So it'll be three, a three foot fence. In sections and it'll step along with the wall. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. Otherwise it would get, it would get pretty hot. Thanks Claire. Thank you for clarifying those things. Are there other questions or comments from board members about, about this section? All right. Dylan, would you like to comment? Yeah, I just had a question about the construction of it. Will it, will it involve any blasting or simply digging with an excavator? We don't anticipate any blasting there. It would just be. And you really, you're digging into the hill. We wouldn't expect to have legend. We don't know. But we wouldn't anticipate blasting. Great. Thank you. All right, folks. We've, we've made our way through the staff report. And at this point, what I'd like to do is invite just any concluding remarks from Meredith, the applicant. And board members and Dylan. So Meredith concluding remarks or last, last thing. Do you want to let us know. So I don't know if I have any concluding remarks, unless board members. Want a rundown of what I think at this point, or the open potential conditions of approval that are still sort of out there, but I can do that. Further down the line as well. Yeah. Let's, let's do that in a couple of minutes. Perfect. Thanks. Yeah. Thank you. We just thought to add a couple of things that were added to the site plan. As requested by Kurt, a DBW. He's requested that we maintain a silk barrier along the property lines on either side during construction. And that the other question that had come up one other time. That was a question of whether the potential for gravel driveway for soil to accumulate at the base of the wall. It's unlikely, but it's possible. And, but that would just be addressed in the normal routine maintenance that you'd expected the property. Thank you. Just like to say, thank the board, but especially the staff, you've got really amazing staff and Meredith has been incredibly timely. So thank you throughout the whole process. Thank you, Meredith. You're welcome. Thank you, Meredith. And thank you for working together. Thank you, everybody. Thank you for doing that. Thank you. I apologize if there's any comment for the board. Member, any last questions or comments? I just had one comment in regards to the lighting plan. And maybe just more of a. Request or recommendation to mitigate extraneous electricity usage and light pollution. By use of perhaps. Motion sensors. For. Triggering the. Lights turn on and off. Just to try to mitigate. to my property, but that's all that I would have to say on the lighting piece. I'm sorry Dylan, can you repeat what he said I had a hard time and since I'm part of drafting. Sure um I'll let Dylan speak for himself. Sure um just a uh a request or recommendation to mitigate light pollution and extraneous electricity usage to by utilizing motion sensors to turn on the lights when needed and have a timer to turn them off when not in use just to mitigate light spillover to other properties. Okay thank you. We've often done that um in which case we'd probably have the lights on uh the motion sensors would kick on it typically control them from 10 to 6 a.m. and then have like a uh if the motion sensor sensor triggers it typically to do a five or ten minute use time and then they shut off again that that's not difficult to do in the control sequence. Great all right um the only other comment we had in Meredith and I had a discussion on this and I just wanted to it's a separate issue but just wanted to put on the record. I know the planning commission is working on a rewrite of the zoning ordinance and we would urge that the board encouraged them to look at the inherent conflict of solar shading and infill housing. In it there was some impact here um we don't think significant but these properties are a ways apart and I think that as you try to do more more housing and infill that's going to be a conflict and if you have to pick your priorities and it I just we need to be aware of that that conflict. Yeah no thank you for that point thank you for bringing it to Meredith's attention and hopefully it's something that our legislative body can deliberate on um but no I appreciate that uh zoning ordinance is about decisions and priorities and optimization of community good and and individual property rights so um it's a dance and it's good to refine that based on our community's goal. Thank you for that. Um all right so Meredith at this point um I would unless board members have any other questions I'd welcome your overview of what you see as the conditions at this time and and for board members and others referenced you you recall that our staff report at the end pages 19 and 20 has a set of proposed conditions and that may be what Meredith is going from so if you want something to look at that's where to look. Yeah go ahead Meredith. Yep um so um I'm also I'm looking at above that as well where there were outstanding issues and things that the board had to make determinations on um and I do have to say that um I would feel better in drafting the decision um if the board made a formal determination about the solar axis and shading that is one thing where I just want to make sure that the board's clear about approving it or not in relation to the regulations and the provision the language that's there um so that's one item that is still outstanding I think for the board to be clear on um and then the other potential you know just about everything else I think there was enough information provided that a lot of those other one through eight determination issues are dealt with um and then for other conditions I think we still have the requiring a certificate of compliance um after the build that will among other things confirm the um obtaining that energy certificate so that was the um condition Roman numeral one and then out of the um within 30 days of the decision condition that was in there the only thing left there that has not been provided as of this evening is the formal outdoor lighting plan compliant with P204 um all of those submissions that I emailed everybody and that that got shown we have the final EPS um sea plan we have that proposed site plan that shows the internal pedestrian walkways as well as the new fence and the curbing and the other stormwater details so all of those other things got dealt with so right now I have really two conditions unapproval is what I have left and then the board making a clear determination about compliance under um 3206 I think it was okay yeah um the only other condition that I have noted is a modification of the site plan so that the conditions of 81 north reflect the actual conditions on the ground today rather oh yes yep so a final site plan thank you that's another thing that should happen before the permit is issued thank you very much Kate she brought up a problem if I may or an issue that was requested for by uh Kurt Modica and we added and I failed to bring it up it said out in the front walk just below the stairs we have a 90 degree turn to the west that would allow people to come down the walk continue on this walk to the driveway and get back otherwise I think Kurt pointed out that he was looking like people gonna have to walk out into the street and come back in so right that that roughly didn't make any sense so this gives us a connection to the parking to the driveway to the parking in the rear great and that is in the plan I just failed to note that for highlighting that that's helpful all right great so um at merit recommendation I would like to return to the solar access and shading section again pages 1617 the staff report um review the standards thoroughly so the the specific provision that we're looking at here is the 3206c that's specifically about the solar access and shading um that says the proposed development shall not shade existing yards walls or roofs oriented within 15 degrees of true north or sorry true south on a budding parcels to a greater than extent than a hypothetical 25 foot high wall constructed on the property line between the hours of 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. on December 21st and so Don and Gavis have come back um with their solar shading diagram and other information to try and show that the standard is not to shade existing yards walls or roofs we've confirmed that the roof is not shaded um forgive me if I miss this when you're presenting the diagram but the orientation within 15 degrees of true south that that's the angle that you were you showed us the shade angle but could you explain the 15 degrees of true south is are they overlapping in that way no I can't explain that it both build the way I interpret that that neither building is within 15 degrees of true south unless it's the shading I guess I don't understand that yeah relative to what I guess is the question I mean that I understand what 15 degrees is yeah but what's it mean does the building not be in there or is that the only place we're worried about shading I um we'll respond to it if we can understand it man if you have more information than Don or I um and this is why I misinterpreted it to begin with um I I think and Mike may have to step in here because he was part of the process in drafting all this I think the it's that 15 degrees of of true south aspect um gets a little odd I think what that means is that the 15 the oriented um sorry I'm scrolling back up sorry the exact oriented within 15 degrees of true south means that the building that is being shaded right the shadow is falling upon a structure that has a surface that is oriented in that prime area of within 15 degrees of true south to capture sunlight um it's something that gets really odd because just about any wall or any wall to the north of the new structure is going to be oriented within 15 degrees to of true south unless it's a different side of the building I think um let me see if I can I'm worried about sharing screen I'm going to try um if it bumps me off I'll be right back yeah well you share this the screen I will I will note that one of the terrified of this section is that proposed development does not unreasonably reduce the ability to use solar energy on neighboring properties and solar energy can be active as collected through a solar panel it can be passive gained through windows so as we interpret this I think we would do well to keep in mind the overall purpose that we are trying to achieve which is to not unreasonably reduce solar energy um Mike do you have what further insight on this uh not a whole lot more um other than what you see I was here when this was proposed it wasn't something that was abundantly clear but we thought the the picture kind of shows a lot it's kind of formulaic um so the idea is that you were meant to and if you had a parcel that was north south east west it's really easy for you to orient north um as far as I could see on our on what we were looking at for this this parcel I thought Ewing street was to that would have been to the north of the building and 81 north street would have been to the west but um and I think this diagram was intended to be looking at your northern property boundary now of course if you've got a kitty cornered property you're going to end up with a more difficult shading to to do but the idea is according to our consultant um you would put a hypothetical 25 foot um there'd be a 25 foot wall on the on the southern boundary and then you'd measure the distance back in this case in this example it's 20 it's 10 feet so there would be at 12 noon some shade that would eclipse a 25 foot um wall because the building in this case was 33 feet tall okay so you would do this formula to determine whether or not you met the requirement okay thanks Mike I think that all makes sense to me except that this building is to the east of the existing building not to the south of it so if the if the objective is to make sure we're not blocking southerly exposure I think that objective is not since the building is not south of 81 north street so maybe I'm going a little too far afield here well I think yeah I mean I I look at it that way I look at it regulation designed to protect um walls from being shaded that are within 15 degrees of true that true south that's what I see you have to have some restriction on which wall you're protecting you're not going to protect a a wall that's north facing I mean it's our job to determine that the purpose of this section is met we have received a solar shading diagram we have seen the impact on the east east wall of 81 north um I'm satisfied that the purpose of section 3206 is met um by the design by the site design and described by the analysis presented to us do other board members wish to add or comment I would prefer with your comments I agree I agree I'm satisfied with the applicant site design and analysis as well the presentation off the engineering plan thank you gene all right um Meredith I think that completes our analysis of that section thank you very much you're welcome thank you for highlighting it all right board members is there any further discussion okay hearing none um I would like to entertain a motion I would entertain a motion to close public hearing on double zero application Kevin if you're talking could you get closer to the microphone please we can't hear we can't hear I'm hard I'm hard to train I'd like to make the motion to close the public hearing on double zero viewing street and the board would reconvene in uh the deliberative session at the close of the public meeting yes because of the public meeting thank you Kevin we have a motion by Kevin is there a second the second second from gene is there any discussion reminder for newer board members this means that we will no longer collect evidence on this on this application but feel that we have what we need to issue a decision okay just a reminder we we are doing this with all applications be they small or large uh during this um there's no further discussion I'll call the role Kevin yes Rob yes Claire yes Abby yes Gene yes Michael yes I vote yes as well we will take this up in deliberative session at the close of the public meeting um I just want to thank everybody for participating it's work it's conversation it's relationship building it's time and I appreciate all of it thank you thank you um folks we're we're we're still in we're still in the meeting just the mics are still on so okay um thank you all right um item eight here is other business um the next meeting is October 18th is that confirmed Meredith uh yes sorry I'm I'm trying to do our deliberative session on zoom because I haven't set that up yet oh you need your stuff okay so Meredith will be sending us a deliberative session link for board members to participate and um do we have material uh do we have applications for October 18th yes we do we do okay so there will be a meeting on October 18th and I think people know that unless unless something transpires um this will be my last meeting um with the DRB I'm going to be uh taking a hiatus after about nine years of serving on this board in various capacities starting as an alternate moving up through the esteemed positions of regular member vice president and for the last or vice chair and for the last year and a half or so your chair which has been an excellent experience um and I look forward to sharing the glory with other members of the Montpelier community so um I'm gonna miss it thank you um so that's that um thank you all eight may I um just say a few words I don't have anything particularly prepared but I just wanted to thank you for your service and appreciate your leadership with the DRB you know it's a um unfortunate that we lose somebody like you serving on a local board but completely understand the circumstances and your reasons for doing so but just wanted to say publicly um thank you and I really appreciated um your service thank you Claire I really appreciate that thank you all right is there a motion to adjourn so moved second okay second by motion by Kevin second by Jean Kevin yes Rob yes Claire yes Abby yes