 So good evening. Today is January 3rd, and I am calling to order the Tuesday, January 3rd, 2023 DRB meeting for the city of Burlington. We have a quorum. Jeff is recused from two matters. So hopefully we get our fourth member for that at this time. If not, we'll have to deal with that when it comes up. But as of now, we've got a quorum, and we can commence working through our agenda. First item is communications. I think all current or recent communications have been posted online. There's no additional ones for us tonight. Right, Mary? Or Scott? Joe? I posted something for 800 Pine Street this afternoon. There is just some supplemental information from the applicant for that. Yeah, posted. Minutes. I have to sign the last set of minutes, but I don't have any changes for that. I think we should move those to our deliberations from now on. We don't have any consent items. So the first item on our agenda is 170 Park Street, ZP 22596 Arena, and I'm going to say the name incorrectly. I apologize for that. So I'll let you do it when you come up to testify. And there's ZP 22596 and ZAP 22-5, both concerning 170 Park Street. And so we'll hear those together. One is a variance for additional lot coverage, and the other is an appeal of a zoning application denial to install gravel extension to existing driveway and rear parking lot. Well, no. Yeah, it's not. Scott, do you want to clarify that for us? So the appeal, let's see. I think the appeal has moved. But the quick back story is the administrative firm was denied because it exceeded lot coverage. The appeal went to the DRP. Maybe a month there or so ago. Right. Yeah, it's a revised site plan that I haven't looked at yet. DRP continued the hearing to allow time to look at that. I looked at the site plan. It was approvable. So the administrative denial turned into an approval. The appeal period has run on that approval. The applicant initially requested withdrawal of the appeal, which made sense to me, but shortly thereafter requested leaving and pending. I don't know why, but it's on the agenda. So you have an appeal for you tonight. OK. I remember this, and I remember the continuance to try to figure this out. Is the applicant here? Where are we having the testimony over there? Do you want to step up and I'll swear you in? We'll take testimony on this. So do you raise your right hand, please? Do you swear that the testimony you are going to give in this matter under consideration is true to the best of your knowledge under the pains and penalties of perjury? I do. OK. So could you just explain to us the revised site plan and tell us what's going on? Well, I think what I was thinking is let's see the revised site plan and understand that to see if we're OK with it. And then I think we can talk about whether or not the appeal is moved. That's what I was thinking. Well, that's a good question. We can start from here. I guess I want to ask it this way. What site plan would you ask us to approve tonight? This one. This one. Variance, yes. OK. Start with that one. OK. So we did get the, and also I want to say that it initially was submitted as gravel parking extensions, but congratulations to everyone. There is no more gravel. Gravel has been removed. So as we speak, someone is leveling the soil now, and then it will be seeded in the spring. Gravel is no longer there. I wanted to do that. We got very lucky with the weather in January that we were able to do this, which is a blessing. And I wanted to do that prior to this hearing because I have felt that gravel as a material was shifting focus from what we are trying to do here. It doesn't have to be gravel at all. What we are trying to solve is the unsafe parking situation in the back of the house and kind of in between two houses. The plan that did get approved, that we are very grateful that it got approved, I still have concerns. It is still very tight. On that plan, I'm sure you can see that on your computers, the car A is at 90 degree angle, very close to the house. And my concern is that it can be sticking out too far, blocking the passage for the other cars. Also, what is not shown on this plan, is it okay if I walk up there or not? Okay, I'll stay sitting. You can walk up there, for sure. So this side plan, I actually- I always have a laser pointer. I actually had a professional archivist share with eight of yours on my blog. So it's not a private account. I own eight and they own four. This private is eight, so you have to also do private in my blog are really gravel, which is not your coverage. It's not shown on this plan, but it's actually a little tighter to get in, challenging and it's not shown Okay, is that touch screen? It's nice. About further blocks with stride. Again, it's just, I mentioned last time, the one problem we saw is that the car and the challenging angle still remain and cars still have to back up. We are making our reports straight and this is the block where cars just get all of the hybrid. And so even though there is speed bump there, they go very fast. They go way faster than just that. Ideally, they're efficient everyone. They drive fast as they go. Every time we make out, we pick it up. We share them of the damage. It's very significant, just two weeks we had two weeks ago, we had to install because it's not enough space to reverse right now. Or you can see where you're going, which is very steep. Yeah, so that's the neighbor's house. It's got a little damage. And then there is one in my house. So, oh, thank you. Thank you. So I guess we can go back to the plan. Thank you. I think I've listed all main reasons while Scott is pulling that up. I wanna say that I went through a couple of iterations. I've been thinking how to make this work for three years since I've owned the property. Right now, because this pavement is taking away a lot of our lot coverage. And we really have pretty much no room to work with, no percentage to work with. Basically, no matter what you do here, you have three cars, which is a minimum because we have three, four bedrooms and actually four cars, but only three here. No matter what you do, it's too short here in order for the cars to reverse or at least have more space, right? So, right now, if this variance doesn't get approved, the only kind of legal way to make this happen is to remove this asphalt, right? And that will give us lot coverage. To remove this asphalt, replace it with ribbon driveway and that will give us extra 200 square feet. So wait, can I ask about that? And this, I think is also something that Scott will wanna comment on, but ZP 22-505 was, we heard this, our member back in December and then you submitted a revised site plan that staff approved, Scott approved it. That seems to have 40% lot coverage in three spaces. Scott, am I right about that, right? Yeah, you're correct. And so that would address the lot coverage issue and the prior appeal that we were dealing with, right? But that's not that site plan that you're dealing with and the one that you're referencing, Irina, Irina, sorry, has more than 40% lot coverage? Correct, this is the question. Yeah, yeah. Just to verify, the reason for this other plan is that it's better to maneuver than the other plans. Yeah, yeah, correct. So I listed the reasons here, is that it's safer, it gives the ability to reverse, it eliminates the risk of further property damage. It also saves the tree. Here is the lovely lilac tree that I love and we'll have to cut it if with the current plan, which is fine, we won't be able to move it entirely or talk to someone. We'll just have to cut like half of it. So we'll keep the tree and mainly we will eliminate the need for the unnecessary earth disturbance of 600 square feet here because this is something I have to consider right now. I did take quotes from excavations, from excavation people, how much this would cost because right now, this seems to be the only approved by the city solution to kind of, in order to push the cars a little bit further here and we only need 47.5 square feet is what I'm asking in this variance. So in order to get that, right now the only way to do that is to excavate 600 square feet of perfectly fine asphalt that can be there for another decade and we really don't wanna do that. We have very high standards in approving variances. Traditionally, I'm looking at your plan. I have to ask, I feel like I have to ask the shed. What, I mean, if that wasn't there, you'd have your lot coverage and we wouldn't have the issue of variance, right? I do my math right? No, but I mean like, it's just a high standard for us. So I'm, yeah. Okay, essentially the theory is this plan, you have, trying to summarize, a legal three space parking plan that was approved with lot coverage but this lot coverage plan, this plan that you're showing us now, you believe is better for safety ingress and egress and overall maintenance of the site. I would, as I have learned, requested more. So with this 12 feet and I tried not to allow you to, how do you recognize it, use the contracts and that's what did you create that thing last time? With Scott approving the previous one. So here if you follow the purple tracks, you can see how the C car can go like this and then reverse. It might take an extra turn, like a K turn and that's totally fine. Then same with the blue car, it'll go like this, straighten out, use this as a back out, back out, at reverse. And the car A is the easiest because once it pulls back then it has all this space to reverse so it can do this, this and now the K turn and move forward instead of moving back with no visibility. Now, I understand everyone discouraged me of coming here and asking for the variance, including Scott who told me this is not gonna get approved. However, as he talked to William Ward and he said that if it's small enough the board might approve it. And so we're basically at a choice whether we're allowed to push the cars a little bit further and I wanna say that my backyard is giant. It's huge. There's plenty of green space. Like I said, all of this will be resided in the spring. We have more large trees than any other yard I can see. And before you deny, I would like to hear from the board what is the rationale behind the 40% lot coverage and what we can do, how we can compensate for it. I've been trying to understand this for a very long time. So if it's stormwater, we can talk about solutions. If it's green space, we can talk about solutions. We have plenty of that. We are currently planting a whole new tree. Please don't tell me I needed a zoning permit for that. But it's happening. So what else could be the rationale? I'm not sure. But once I know it, I'm sure we can have a conversation. I think the rationale passing lot coverage requirements is to ensure that, in this case, 60% of the lot is impervious green space. And the rationale is to create a uniform look in certain districts between how much yard or lawn exists and how much building or pavement exists. Where that was originally put into the zoning ordinance, I don't know. But the rationale for lot coverage is to maintain a certain ratio between pavement building and lawn and green space. I mean, I appreciate your presentation. I think it's well said and certainly gives us anything to think about. Is there any questions from members of the board? I have a place where I drive and hide, tour my cars around, drive out. And it's tight. Sometimes when you have coming cars down there, it's like a 28 point turn to get on the driveway. The issue is the 40% is there and you have options that you actually don't have to exceed the 40%. There are options that you don't like, but there are options. You don't think out six, I'm just gonna think out, I'm just gonna think out the right way. So is this the option to see people without their life? That's what we're gonna have. We have a question of life, we're not like this. What applies with zoning ordinance? Is this what we're bound to? We have very limited abilities and we'll debate it, we'll discuss it in our deliberation. It's not always a decision that many times we're constrained by those ordinance and it gives us something to think about as to how to move forward and deal with. Could see an inclusion in the ordinance that allows us some ability to vary lot coverage for safety reasons, but it's not quite there today. Yeah, that only. So yeah, I hear you. This, yeah, this is an existing option. It's not good because it's between two houses. It's shared right away, but not clear how legally. This is doable and also when I made a mistake, one of the biggest mistakes in my life is dumping that gravel in my backyard. Because your website doesn't say you can't. And the main concern that I heard with that was the climate change and how unsustainable it is, which is not necessarily true for the gravel because gravel actually has some benefits, definitely benefits over pavement, but either way. So it sounds like with current ordinance, the city would rather have us dump 600 square feet of perfectly fine asphalt on the landfill, then let us push the cars three feet deeper into the green backyard, which I repeat again, the gravel is gone. So this will be stormwater friendly plastic grid favors or turf favors, whatever the city prefers. There can be moths under the cars that will grow even under the cars. There can be grass, we can see it whatever the city wants us to see it. I'm just putting it out there that I'm open for negotiation and I've been trying. This started September 1st and I haven't had a lot of third partnering, unfortunately. Drop Scott specifically, high spot. The only solution I was offered was to withdraw the application, take everything back and live with it. But I'm trying to have a conversation here and to find a solution that will truly satisfy everyone. And I believe that it is somewhere on the surface and we can find it. And yeah, I would love to hear what the city and the board may mean, what suggestions you may have. You mean with the owners or here? Just you. Yeah, I did hear and with the owners, by the way, who are supportive, they said, they attached their comments, by the way, we have six comments and one big letter from the neighbors supporting this extension because I'll further say that these neighbors actually, by the way, have about 95% load coverage. I'm trying to understand why that is allowed right next to me. They have a garage and they have one over here. And this car, when it backs out, it loses our backyard to back up. Which I find it, I'm not bad about it at all. So they're lucky because they have, they've got more room than they did. And especially given that they have this application. All right, well with that, we'll close the public hearing on these items. Thank you. I appreciate your presentation tonight. About this application? Oh, yes, that would be when I asked for public comment. Yeah, that would be the public. Go ahead, hold on, hold on. Come on up to the microphone. I have to swear you in. Would you raise your right hand? Do you state that the testimony you're about to give under this item is true and correct under the pains and penalties of perjury? I need to memorize that. Okay, so please introduce yourself till I'll see who you are. So my name is Carol Zina, C-Z-I-N-A. I live at 14 Myrtle Street and I live in the property on Myrtle Street. It goes back and runs along the edge of Neighbor's Garage and it's a very small line. Okay. So there are actually two lots on Myrtle Street from Neighbor's Garage to the East Edge where the shed is. Does that make any sense? Yeah. So where it says legend, divide that in two. There's two lots there. I'm the one closest to the Neighbor's Garage. So my concern has been that a car that is parked that close to my garden and apple tree, and I eat the food from those, that car fluids will come into my yard, which is a composted yard. And it's hard to keep grass growing in the old earth that it's all sand. And I've spent 20 years living there putting composted soil into that property. And I am very concerned about car fluids coming onto my property. That car number C is, it's practically in my yard. It's like, how wide is that little area there? It's five feet. Five feet. So that car is five feet from my gardens, my apple tree, which I eat. I have a concern about that. You said car C? Car C, that one where your arrow is right now, that's my property. Yeah, so where that white thing is, I believe that was an airstream trailer that was illegally parked there for a period of time. I believe the car C would be where that white object is, which I believe is the airstream trailer. And that airstream trailer was right in my face. I mean, I look out my back window, there's the airstream trailer. Probably should have complained about it at the time. I knew it was a temporary situation and didn't complain at that time. It was also during the winter, so different. Where's that apple tree you're talking about? The apple tree is right where your arrow is now. There was a big pine tree there that was taken down and replaced with an apple tree. And the soil was dramatically amended. It was dug up. It was, I mean, the amount of compost I put in there is massive. So that apple tree, I guess this is in 2020? It's been there about 15 years now. Are you aware of what's going on there? I wonder if I'm at the house. Yeah. The tree might be small there. It probably wouldn't have shown up if that was 10 or 12 years ago. Yeah, that tree would have been tiny then. Anyway, so I'm happy to hear that there's less gravel. There was still gravel, a ton of it out there this morning. And I took photos. So I do hope it's gone. I have been very disturbed by the way this whole thing has come about. We just don't do this in my neighborhood. We all know each other. We all care about each other. We all share vegetables and apples over the fence. And actually, I've shared with her as well. And it's just very. I'm sorry. I'm going to, I don't think I'm going to go down that road. All right. I think that's sort of unfair on how this came about. I'm just going to stop that because we've had an applicant come before us several times, trying to make a good faith effort to deal with her problems. I wasn't allowed to speak the last time either, which I was very disappointed in. Just want to point that out. That's because we continued it to this meeting to let the applicant. I think I'm done speaking. Thank you. Which concern briefly? And I do live very sustainably. And I do understand my neighbor's concern. I am actually right now in the market of buying a car. And the reason I'm not is because I have nowhere to park it at the moment. And I am actually looking at the electric car. And the specifically spot C would be ideal for the electric car because further down the line, this is the spot that would allow to build a solar carport, which my neighbor will probably complain about as well. However, it is a very sustainable solution if fossil fuels is the concern. And also, there are cars parked on every other property very close by. And I know that Carol drives a gas car herself. So this can be solved with the electric car. And also, I know that Carol won't be happy about that. But we tried to talk about this earlier, that I can see a lot of personal frustration. And I do think that a lot of that has to do with the taste. For example, I was told that everything is ugly. I have to take it out. But at the same time, the immediate neighbor next to Carol's house on the Myrtle Street actually complimented my yard and said he was standing there taking it in. So it's clearly the matter of taste. And I think that a nice privacy fence will solve that problem once and for all. It is not an active zoning application right now. But eventually, it will have to happen because being harassed on my property is not something that is a pleasure to take. Yeah, I just wanted to keep the testimony focused on the issues that we have. Neighbor relations are very important. But I did ask your neighbor not to go down that path. And so I'm going to do the same for you. True. So the fossil fuels can be solved with the electric car in the spot seat. And the visual can be solved with the privacy fence. Public here to comment on this application? No? All right, well then I will close the public hearing on these two agenda items. Yeah, Jeff, you're recused. Hang out, you'll hang out. All right, so we will deliberate after this meeting on this agenda item. So we have, and I guess this is a question that I'll deal with on the agenda item. Next up are two certificate of appropriateness items. I can't read tonight. ZP 22608 and ZP 22611. I'm assuming they'll be handled separately once for 800 Pine Street after the factory cutting associated with ongoing maintenance of stormwater pond by the city school department with Mr. Sherrod as the listed contact. And ZP 22611 is for 834-922 North Avenue after the factory cutting associated with stormwater outfall repair. And that's the city of department of public works with Mr. Schramm as the contact. So Scott, we handle these separately. Is that right? Right, related, yes. So I guess we'll do the school district, the city school department first. Is that Mr. Sherrod? See here? Jeff, want to come up? Will you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you will give today under the matter in consideration is true and correct under the panes of penalties of perjury? Yes. All right. Would you just introduce yourself and explain what we're being asked to approve tonight? My name is James Sherrod. I'm the stormwater program coordinator for the city of Burlington. Nice to meet you all. This is my first DRB. This specifically is with regards to maintenance that's happening at what we call the 08 pond. It's a stormwater treatment pond here in the city. I do just want to mention, I think, the school department was listed. This is on school department property, but the stormwater program was the one facilitating the work. When this pond was built, there was not as much vegetation on the northern side. That purple rectangle is what we asked the contractor to clear. The reason we asked the contractor to clear that is because there's a fence line along the private property boundary with, let's say, around nine parcels. That fences the stormwater program's responsibility to maintain an upkeep as part of the 08 pond stormwater system. And it had overgrown to a point where we couldn't access it. So we're planning and still in the process of implementing or moving forward with a dredging effort, the removal of the sediments that built up in the pond over time. And as part of that effort, we're going to have contractors on site. We're going to be having a lot of heavy equipment. It was a good time to also do vegetation removal. So we're here because we awarded the project and the contractor was supposed to start in October and did this tree cutting in early September. I will just say again, and I've said this to a number of the adjacent parcel owners, we're really sorry we didn't reach out. It was every intention of the stormwater program to reach out. But the contractor moving up the date didn't facilitate that, so that's unfortunate. So we're here today for us to get the after-the-fact approval for the vegetation clearing. Yeah. I know this question is for Scott. We have also a citywide pre-magnet plan that sets criteria for you to be able to do this kind of work. So is this before the plan is inspired or is this not within the guidelines that that plan only has? I'll answer your question, but kind of indirectly. When we realized that the tree maintenance approval was required, I started contacting Mary, my go-to, the zoning. And she said there is this tree maintenance plan that used to cover this sort of work universally. That's actually where I discovered the plan and within our water resources division, Mike being part of that team, we started pulling together an updated tree maintenance plan which had expired 2021, I believe. So once we realized this was something we had to do and that the old way of doing it had expired, we started the process of updating that. So two years from now, if this happened, you wouldn't have to come before us because this would have happened? We wouldn't have to come to you. According to the way we've laid out the tree maintenance plan, which we can talk about in more detail together later, we would work with the city arborist and once they gave the go-ahead, we could move forward with this maintenance. One to get the other. This is a question for Scott. So Scott, your staff notes talk about some missing information, wildlife habitat, riparian buffer, those kinds of questions. Have that supplemental information been provided to you? James provided a little extra information through the permit system earlier today that I've posted. That's the applicant comment supplemental. This is James as well as the board's opportunity to get into those criteria. I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. When you get into that criteria, can we get into it? Because we've got these three interconnected applications before us. Can we get into it with this application or can we get into it when we're actually talking about the maintenance plan and what sort of remedy? So the maintenance plan is totally independent to back up a little bit, Brad, to answer your question in the short. The short way is these two applications are in front of you tonight because the fire plan expired. So each tree cutting at 800 pine and then the one on North Avenue, each type of zoning permits. And each one requires the RV review under the criteria of whatever section that is in Article 5. The one on North Avenue is pretty pet dry and spelled out. This one, the application didn't have a whole lot of detail as to why the clearing was necessary for the stormwater bond maintenance. James, I found that a little bit tonight. It's really up to you as to how much detail you want to get into for addressing those criteria. And Scott, I want to understand that tree clearing, incidental to a development that is approved, doesn't need its own zoning permit, right? So if you get a permit for a house or a garage and that requires cutting down 20 trees, that doesn't require a separate permit. It's when the clearing is done. So James, you talked about the pond going through some upgrades or improvements. Does that need a zoning permit? Is this clearing incidental to that? I'm a little confused. The bond maintenance doesn't require zoning approval. It's just maintenance. So it's not like an expansion of the pond or redevelopment of the pond. It's just normal maintenance that you would hire a contractor to do. And then they got to aggressive, exciting. It's not like you're rebuilding the pond, making it 4 to 8. No, none of that was part of this particular effort. However, the pond being completely encircled and fencing was part of the original needs for the pond. It is adjacent to Champlain Elementary, which is one of the sides of fencing. But then for the homeowners, it was fenced off as well. So thinking of this system as one contiguous unit of in order for the pond to be there, we needed a fence. We need to maintain the fence. We couldn't maintain the fence. That's why we partnered the two together regarding both the dredging effort and the fence maintenance. It's not a wetland. It's a stormwater facility, which often can look like. Or it can become. Can become functionally with an expansion of wildlife. I've been out there a lot, seen frogs and raccoons and a number of other things, including herons. Stormwater ponds have that benefit. But they never become a wetland in the eyes of the state nor the city, to my understanding. Is there any ability to replant some of that after the work is done to put more privacy between the neighbors? Yep. Actually, we've already started that process. So once the tree clearing happened, I believe started on September 8. I got there September 9. Actually held off cutting a couple of the more mature trees, although most of the damage was done. Since that time, I brought the city arborist out, walked the site so he could get an understanding for the particular soils and what sort of trees would do best back there. Got a list of appropriate trees to be replanted, sent that list to the neighboring parcels. Again, the nine or seven or eight or nine parcels directly north that share a fence line and asked them all to pick a tree to be planted behind their home. We did have a deadline for them to respond, not all responded. But those who did have picked a tree that will be planted ideally this coming spring after we replace that fence. That fence has gotten to a point where it needs to be fully replaced. We'll do so in kind. Yep, yep. So that process has started. If more needs to happen with outreach, we'll happily take a suggestion, but I think we've done what we can at the moment. One was swamp oak. I didn't bring that info. I could pull it up in this meeting. Not to my knowledge. Again, Vijay Kamayana, the city arborist, he listed about five common ones he thought would do well in this particular area. I don't know enough about. Another good question. So what we discovered when we got back there was that at the time of this pond construction, someone did have the foresight to plant what I believe were red maples. They planted maybe eight or nine of them. When they were planted, they had the two posts stuck in on one side with metal wiring holding them up and upright. Those were never removed. So most of the most mature trees were those maples and the tree service that was on site said they were confident the girdling would kill the tree. One of those girdled trees was still there on site and I asked them to save that. When the city arborist got out there, he thought the tree had a better chance of surviving than the arborist did. So a little bit of disagreement, but that being said, most of those red maples were planted as part of this pond original construction. Most of those, if not all of those were girdled. So when we do this again the next time around, we'll be sure to plant trees and then not have them girdled in time. The city arborist? No, I don't want to speak for BJ, but he seemed agreeable to, for instance, one neighbor asked for a conifer to not have a conifer because they were gonna have a sore pinnals up there eventually. BJ didn't have any additional comments. Most of the stuff back there was kind of shrubby trees, but those large mature ones were a bit of a loss. And it's pretty flat. Relatively flat. There's a berm that works this way up to the pond berm, but that's relatively flat. There's a public hearing speak on this application. I'm gonna close the public hearing on 800 Pine Street. Thank you. Thank you. We have Mr. Schram here for 834-922. This, before I begin with that one. Testimony. Scott, this was marked in your staff notes as for consent approval, but not on the consent agenda. Okay, so I'll do this way. Does any members of the board have any questions for on this application? Okay. We warned a public hearing, so I'm gonna ask you to raise your right hand and swear that the testimony you're about to give in this matter under consideration is true and correct under the pains of penalties of perjury. Do you have anything else to add? Seeing that this was brought to consent. I'm prepared to provide as much background on the project as you may want, but I'd be happy to follow your lead and give you much more information. No, I think, and the reason I'm opening this is we're gonna probably deliberate on all of these together as one sort of combined package, and do you wanna ask if there's anyone in the public here to speak on this application? Okay, well, you should probably identify yourself for the record. And so why don't you do that and just state your name for the record and raise your right hand. Swear that the testimony you're about to give is true and correct on the pains of penalties. It is true. My name is Linda Bassick. I live at 838 North Avenue. And do you have any questions for the applicant? Okay. I'm curious about what's happening. I've watched the work and I'm happy that they got in there to handle it right away because there was a huge sinkhole behind my house. Great, all right. Okay, well, all right. Well, with that, if anyone has any other questions, I'll close the public hearing. We'll deliberate on that tonight with the rest of these items. Thank you. Yeah, I think you're up for the next one. So the next item is ZP 22-617-53 LaValley Lane, City Department of Public Works, wastewater department, Citywide Tree Maintenance Plan. And Mr. Schramm, you're here for this. You're still under oath. And I have a question for staff. Scott, can you walk, the last tree maintenance plan we approved was 2016. And are they good? How long are they good for? Five years? We don't often get many of these. So would you just briefly explain what your new tree maintenance plan is and how it differs from your old? Back around, James hit on this earlier, but in dealing with the North Ave sinkhole, the ZP 22-611 that we just closed on, and that was done under an emergency situation that was an emergency repair of an existing failed stormwater structure. The fact that the earlier tree maintenance plan being expired came to light. And the need to renew it was front and center. So that's why these, you know, the North Ave project and the plan are sort of coming forward at the same time, as well as the 08 pond. Probably not a big surprise when we started the drafting of this revised plan. We started with the one from 2016. Primarily, it has a lot of the same language in it. One of the main points I'll bring your attention to is the identification of emergency projects as a category for emergency projects. As you might see how it links back to that earlier project we referred to. Page five of the new plan says that if there's an emergency projects as determined by the director of public works, the project can consult with the city arborist and there wouldn't be a need for a project specific tree maintenance plan. So I think that is the largest change, substantive change in this plan compared to the one that was approved in 2016. It's emergency repair slash replacement projects. I'm assuming that's emergency repair slash emergency replacement, not just generally replacement projects. One can see how there's a difference. Is the board of any questions on the tree maintenance plan? I mean, I like that we have one. Right, we didn't have one for a while, didn't we? Another change that comes to mind, the earlier plan I believe had an attachment that was pre-approved arborists. There was a short list of other private arborists that were sort of identified as an applicant could reach out to directly as if they had some type of pre-approval by the city. We chose to drop that from this version. So that's another change. If you went back and compared it side-by-side with the 2016 version, you would see. I believe it also listed the current arborist by name. That's correct. We pulled up the name and it was that city arborist. The city doesn't have an arborist in its five years. I don't think I can answer that. I haven't thought through that. So the arborist name, it's my understanding that may even be language that says what a city arborist designate. I did see that. I can't speak for VPRW. I imagine someone will be responsible for all the street trees in the absence of a city arborist and that's likely the staff will reach out to. Yeah. I don't think that level of use that was codified in this plan. I think it addresses the question, the way it's verified. The designee will be a certified arborist approved by the city arborist. So I'm assuming if somebody leaves, that'll get an address or we'll have to deal with that. Other questions? No. Anybody in the public here to speak on this generally? No, you're good? All right. So with that, I'll close the hearing on this item. And so those are our agenda items for the evening. The public hearing agenda items for the evening is also my agenda. So Scott, I have a question about the agenda. You have listed the executive session before the adjournment and deliberation. Do we have to do it that way? Or can we do deliberate, can we adjourn, deliberate and then have the executive session during a meeting? Yeah. Okay. We can do deliberative during the meeting. We can do deliberative. I think it would be good to do deliberative and then the executive session. Yeah. Yeah, I understand that. Hence part of the reason. That's 6-0-1. Okay. You can stay, you just can't participate in deliberative. So we'll close the public hearings and I say we deliberate on the agenda items. Right, no. So first thing to deliberate on is the 170 Park Streets. I mean, I think the action is that it's, it's a move. Yeah. We deny it as a move. I think, well, it's just disability dodgements, right? When we move, right? You get dismissed as a move, right? It's approved, we're not denying anything. Just recognizing that. Well, there's an approval after. Right? Yeah. This is that, this actually came up the other week as a funny area where we can get an appeal. That renders the appeal substance. Yeah. Well, I'm happy to make a motion. Yeah, I think we should. Just so it's. So I'll move on. Recording in progress. This is ZP-2205, I think. 505 is the approval. I think this is ZP-22-5. Okay. Thank you. So in that matter, I move that we dismiss the appeal as move as the underlying application was ultimately approved by the zoning administrator. Second game on, all those in favor? ZP-22596 is the variance. I think the applicant made a very good presentation. However, I don't think it meets the standards for variance as I understand the law of variances. And I, no, no, no, it's fine. I think the law of variance is essentially, the lot has to be, and I think this is the way the zoning ordinance is written, the lot has to be such that it is undevelopable without the variance being granted. And as much as I think the design presented in the variance request might be better, better is not the standards, basically. There's no alternative to grant the variance. And unfortunately, there is an alternative on the variance offer, unfortunately, and that's ZP-22505, which shows three parking spaces and lot coverage of 40%. It's not what the applicant desires, but it satisfies the ordinance. And there are options. So that was the issue of this year. I don't think so because I don't think it is one of those really extreme lot conditions to prevent development such that variance would be upheld under the long track, so, a lot of coverage. Well, traditionally, this is essentially the way that I see it is, this is a paid space that will necessarily contribute 40% but cannot be paid. Yes, also because one property... I think that helps. I think that actually hurts the .9 because I think it's... The recording stopped. I've seen start trimming, start rounding corners, start doing a few different things. I'm not criticizing, you know, that, but I've just seen that happen. You know, suddenly that parking driveway, there's a planted strip along this, there's a planted strip along that. It's frustrating, but at 100 square feet, you find the corners where that's the case. Yeah, I agree. I mean, even if they're not... It goes to something there. And 40% lot coverage in this neighborhood is, I mean, somewhat low, to be honest. I mean, probably very few properties that come to that, so that's something that probably... I think it's a point that the neighbor has more and that's probably historic and... Yeah, it's historic, nonconformity. So I'll make a motion on ZP 22596. Recording in progress. 170 Park Street, we deny the request for variance. Jeff seconds, all those in favor? All those opposed? Five more, so that's that. It's a good try. It's a good try, look. Good presentation. Thank you. I would reach out to a member of the Planning Commission and discuss how the ordinance could be addressed to better clarify this and present some opportunities in your neighborhood for lot coverage exceedances for parking and transport. Members of the Planning Commission, Planning Commission, there's a recording as well. Thank you all. We appreciate it, thank you. All right, we have three tree cutting items. One is ZP 22608, one is ZP 22611 and that's the North Avenue one and there's the Pine Street one and then we have the overall master plan. I think it's helpful that we have all three of these together, I don't actually think that we need to consider them together necessarily but they're helpful examples because the first one was for 608 at 800 Pine Street, that would not be an emergency one. The other one would be emergency. And I thought that the master plan made sense and I'm glad you clarified what if there is no... Yeah, I'm just gonna barbarous. And we'll repair slash burn the seat. Yeah, when I read replacement I was like, well that doesn't really, yeah, so. That would be my only concern is if someone can just, if there's incentive to just declare something emergency to make it easier but either way the arborist is involved on all of those scenarios. And they still have to provide those to the makers under the tree wood extension. So, on ZP 22611, that was on a consent agenda item. I'll make a motion to approve that. That's the North Avenue one, Brad seconds. Recording in progress. I made a motion, Brad seconded. All those in favor, that's 611. On ZP 22608, Scott had put it on to continue because there was some missing information. I think the applicant provided that information under testimony. Yeah, Leo, you guys. I was addressed that to C2. So I think he's addressed the information so with the testimony provided and I will add one thing that I'm gonna add this to the approval that he testified that they were gonna do some replanting along the fence line. And I think a condition of our approval should be that replanting along the fence line is done. And that's right and provide a tree planting plan to staff for replanting along the fence line. So I'll make that motion on ZP 22608, 800 Pine Street. I move that we approve the application with the condition that they replant the area by the fence as testified to and provide a replanting plan to staff. Brad seconds. All those in favor? All right, tree master. Recording stopped. You wanna keep talking? Recording in progress. ZP 22617, that's 53 Valley Line tree planting plan. Yeah, yeah I was gonna say I think it's emergency repairs slash emergency replacement in the plan. But otherwise I'll move that we approve it. Yeah, let's keep it going. Second. Caitlin seconds. All those in favor? Aye, all right. So with that we have wrapped up our deliberative and we'll enter executive session on motion to receive advice from our council on other matters before us. So the recording stops, we're not on video. And we're in a restaurant before. Yeah, yeah I'm gonna do that too. This is what you have to make. You have to make it. Thank you though. Otherwise you could stay in.