 It doesn't care. Can you tell if Mark is signed in? Welcome. So are you ready, Charlie? Yes. Okay, thanks. Welcome to the South Burlington Development Review Board, South Burlington Development Review Board, Tuesday, March 20th, 2018. First item on the agenda is directions on emergency evacuation procedures. In case of emergency, there are two ways out of this room. One is these two doors here, and the other is the way you came in to the front. And if there's an emergency, we'll all meet in the South Parking Lot. So we'll make sure that everyone get out safely in the South Parking Lot if there is an emergency. Number two, additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items. Anybody want to change anything around? Number three, comments or questions from the public not related to the agenda. Anything have anyone to say not related to the agenda? Hearing none. Announcements. Just briefly, we are... That's the whole thing. Anybody else have announcements? Okay. Number five, continued preliminary and final clarification, SD 1806 of Milit Larkin Partnership LLP to amend a planned unit development consisting of 210 residential units, a 60-unit multifamily dwelling with 17,976 square feet commercial space. All this reading, and they want it continued. Okay. A 20,000 square foot movie theater building, 1,000 seats, a 22,500 square foot restaurant medical office, a 3,500 square foot restaurant with drive-thru service, and a bank with drive-thru service. The amendment consists of constructing a four-story, 47-unit residential building, 115 Fayette Road. Applicant has requested this item be continued to April 3rd, 2017. That's okay with us? Okay. I'll entertain a motion to continue. I want to move that we continue preliminary and final application, SD 1806 to April 3rd. Second. It's been moved and seconded. We continue this. 2018. Sorry? 2018. That's a good idea. Yes. 2018. It's been moved and seconded. It will be continued as 2000 to April 3rd, 2018. All in favor? Say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? It is continued. Item number six, conditional use application, CU 1802 of Paul J. Washburn to construct a 14 by 17 detached accessory structure to be used as a 186 square foot accessory residential unit at 30 Myers Court, who is here for the applicant. Okay. Thank you very much for being here. Continued preliminary and final application. So continued. No. Conditional use. Application. Thank you. Conditional use applications. This is a swearing. You please raise your right hand. I promise you all the truth. The whole truth is nothing but the truth. I'm a penalty of perjury. I do. Thank you very much. Please describe the project. Pardon? Please describe the project. Okay. So the project is an accessory dwelling unit in the size of a tiny house, approximately 14 by 17 foot footprint. The structure will have kind of two rooms in the back, which would be a kitchen and bathroom type thing. They'd be relatively small. And then the front would be a living space with convertible to sleeping space. Sort of a trendy thing to do these days is to build a tiny house. And this one's what they call ground bound, rather than being on wheels. So it'll be hooked up to sewer and water and utilities and be a little wider, be more like a regular house being wider, rather than like a shotgun, like the one's on trailer. So that's the plan. Going to run a gas line out to it? Probably not. I think we're going to do it with electric. Okay. The builder doesn't seem to think we need that much power or gas, and it's not going to have an oven. It's just going to have a stove top, which would be electric anyway. So I don't think we're going to run gas 95% not gas. I mean, I thought we should, but he doesn't think so. So I think that's probably the way it's going to go. Will the roof be pitched? It will be. It'll be a pretty, actually pretty steep pitch. One of the things about tiny house design is they say that you should exaggerate features like you have a lot of extra windows, a lot of extra pitch makes it seem more like a house than a shed. So that's, that's what we're doing. Go ahead. Other questions? A plan I'm using as a rental? No, actually, my girlfriend's in the process of selling her house. And this is, it's really her project, but it's on my property. So I get to show up. I won't have much say other than the size and where it goes. But yeah, so that's, that's the plan for the, for the short term. Right. And I see for her to want to move into my space. So. Several of us, several of us are in that same. Other questions? Mark, John, Matt, Jennifer, Brian. Yeah, I think this is one of those pretty standard, typical specifications of standard. I didn't, I think I saw in the notes, but I remember obviously if it's an accessory rental or accessory residential, you know, that you have the primary owner has to be on site. Is that correct? Really? Yes. Yeah. Yeah. I'm not, I'm not moving. I'm staying in the, staying in the house that's there. There is one on the, on the, I noticed this. The findings of fact, the front sat back on the proposed. I think there's a typo cause there's no way I can get at 335 feet back from the front of my property. But other than that, I don't look good. I just want to point that out. Thank you. Windy. Right. It's exactly tape, I guess, maybe. Comments from the public. Anybody have anything to say? Questions? Okay. Oh, I'm going to turn the motion to clothes. I move that we close conditional use application CU-1802 of Paul J. Washburn. Second. We're moving second. We'll close this application. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you very much. Thanks. Hope it goes well. I do too. Thanks. Thanks for all of you. Thank you. Next, on the agenda, design review application GR-1801 of Mitchell-Schwarz to amend a previously approved master's science permit, MSP. The amendment consists of adding a freestanding sign to the MSP and changing the allowable sign colors to gold, white, green, and black at 372 Dorset Street. Can we see over the applicant? Exactly. And if you state your name, please. Laura Putnam. Okay. And if you raise your right hand, you promise all the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but truth under penalty of pleasure? I do. Thank you very much. And please describe the project. We are temporarily relocating as we do construction on our property, Dorset Street Dermatology. So we lease agreement for 372 Dorset Street, and we want to take our existing sign at 325 and put it at 372. Sounds nice and simple. Comments? Questions? One quick question. It looks like that sign is blue, and I noticed in the proposed findings it talked about it being green. It is. It's a lighter green color. So that's just... I think the coloring on there is... Okay. Anybody else? Mark, anybody? Questions? Maybe this was asked, and again, I'm kind of broken up, the picture that we're showing, that's proposed that's not existing? That is currently existing at our current property at 325 Dorset Street. So we just want to pick it up and move it. And then you're going to move it back to 325? Probably not, because the building property line is going to go up straight to the sidewalk, what they've proposed for their new building. So we'll take it down from 372 when we leave there, so our patients don't get confused and then come back here to get a new one. Okay. One question, is there anything they can do now, color-wise, size-wise, to meet the expectations of what they might have, or is it... Would you change it drastically between now and when you finally move to the ultimate location? To the ultimate location, we probably... That's the boss's stuff. I'm his office manager, so I don't know exactly what he's planning for the new building. He's working, wants to work with you guys really well and make sure everything's there. Okay. So I don't know what his exact plan is for the permanent home will be. Okay. I think right now his plan is to... We have this nice functioning sign, but use what we have. Okay. Thanks. And the permanent home is a different property, so they would have to get a different sign permit from the different property. Gotcha. Okay. Thanks. All right. Comments, questions? The ward. From the public, anybody comments, questions? During that, entertain a motion to close. A move that we close, design review application DR-1801 of Mitchell-Schwarz. Second. It's been moved in a second. We close this application. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you, Mark. Thanks very much. Thank you, Laura. Take care. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next on the agenda, design review application at DR-1802 of Vermont Pool and Bar to amend the previously approved master signage permit. The amendment consists of changing allowable sign colors to white and black at 35 San Nemo Drive, who is here for the applicant. State your name, please. Jeff Santoro. Jeff Santor. And if you'd raise your right hand, you promised all the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury. I do. Thank you very much. Please describe the project. Putting up new signs on the existing free standing sign posts, the colors and the materials on the existing permit were pretty restrictive, so. So the current sign is wood with natural, the natural colored wood with metal showing through. It's very specific. Yeah. It's very what? Specific. Specific. To what the prior business was. Jeff's business is the only business in the building, so there isn't any sort of other businesses that have to share this scheme. This is his sign alone. Looks good to me. Comments, questions from the board. Mark, Jennifer. Nope. Nope. Looks good. Comments, questions from the public. Hearing none. Entertain a motion to close. Move that we close. Design review application DR 1802 over Montpool and Barr. Second. Second. We close this application. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed. Thank you very much. Thanks, Jeff. Take care. Thanks. Next on the agenda. Item number eight. Nope. Design review application SD 1803 of Heather Trumblay to, I hope I pronounced that correctly. To amend the previously approved master signers permit. The amendment consists of allowing the colors orange and purple to be located on the freestanding signs at the main entrances to the property. 155 Dorset Street. Heather Trumblay. Okay. Raise your right hand. Do you promise to build the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth unrepentantly? Yes. We have two existing pylon signs that we would like to upgrade with tenant logos. And one of the logos party city has a orange and a purple color that are not currently allowed other than on their building. So we'd like to also have them allowed to be on the pylon sign in four different panels. The smaller panel you can see on the bottom there. And it looks like this is the staff is happy. So you meet all of the criteria. The actual applicant is not you, is it? That's how it's written. It's university mall. Just the way the application is filled out. Okay. Not that you haven't been there for 25 years. I don't want to pay for the pylon sign. So everything is happy. Questions coming from the board. Everything going well? Yes, very well. Okay. There's a lot of funding and noise and construction. And these signs are completely different from what's out there today, right? No, they're the same signs. The bare bones are the same. The panels themselves are new. The panels themselves are totally different, yeah. Right now it just says university mall. No toys are on the signs. Probably a good thing. Okay. Comments, questions from the board. From the public. Okay. So, we have a motion to close. We closed design review application. Dr 1803 of Heather. Second. We oppose this application. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed. Thank you very much. Okay, now we have minutes of January 30th. This was the group meeting, which was our joint meeting with. The planning commission, so they're on the bottom of the first page bottom of the first page the fourth letter from the end Just missing a you Some cold looked like an overlay Spellchecker will never catch that I missed it Right, it is the first day of spring we do need as much cold as possible Anyone else have any corrections or modifications proposed to you minutes looks like I talked a lot Sorry John, I said it looks like I talked a lot Had a good time Do it again next year, let's do the Barlow Charlie I move that we approve the minutes from joint meeting minutes from January 30th 2018 Second the movement second we approve these minutes. All in favor say aye. Aye. All right opposed Okay, other business here we go All right, so two items on other business the first is discussion of technical review authority a brief refresher course And the second is illegal opinion on violations created by LDR changes as Brian asked for the last hearing so the board's technical review authority is Granted by state both state statute and local regulation It's fairly non-specific as to what technical review means But it does state that the applicant That the city's authorized to each bill the applicant for technical review This is the only mention of technical review in the state statutes or in the land development regulations So it falls on us to interpret what technical review can mean So what a technical review I guess Technical review is typically invoked by the board on occasion staff will Suggest to the applicant that technical review is extremely likely and recommend They proceed with that prior to the hearing so that the board can have the technical review If the applicant doesn't want to we would never force them But occasionally that that does happen. I guess it happened on which one Ray. What are you saying? Which one but it does happen traffic usually a traffic thing. It's gonna take some time We'll work with the applicant and they're willing to pay for it before the board invokes it Then we'll go forward and then it will ask the board to to make a motion at the next meeting to invoke it Right, so that's the only catch there is we would ask the board to officially sort of invoke it at the hearing Technical review is invoked to Verify compliance with the LDRs in some cases as everybody knows the LDRs are a bit qualitative it can be Used to invoke technical review of quantitative things or of qualitative things if it wants if the standard is to Be visually compatible. We can have a technical review of that or it could be a technical review of A noise study showing that you know, it can't be heard above 50 feet away or whatever the standard is for that When So the process for technical review is the board first moves to invoke it The staff would then select an expert. We look for somebody who doesn't have a conflict of interest Then we run by the applicant who the consultant is to confirm no conflict of interest Then we'd get an estimate from the expert and collect the fee from the applicant and authorize the Technical review to proceed the technical reviewer Typically presents a written document for the board's review the tech the reviewer can also come before the board and Present if it seems to be more of a qualitative thing. I think we'll we're more inclined to have them present if it's purely quantitative Sometimes written documents are fine So the things that Technical review are done for You know fairly straightforward wetland delineation is the line in the right place Wild life, I think Ray was saying there was a the long drive subdivision. Yes because it was a wooded area and it was deemed to be a sort of a spot where animals traveling north and south could stop to for food and For a place to hide while it travels Traverses open areas, so it's a place that they can sort of like a median in a road for pedestrians So it was a qualitative review of impacts to wildlife Estimated how much food there was what kind of food what kind of animals would go there how often so it was very informative Air quality and odors are pretty straightforward Design a couple cities have done this and it's typically related to the layout of the property It's often in areas where we have design review authorities So form-based code area would be an area where staff would invoke technical review Southeast quadrant is a design review area the board can vote technical review and The examples that I've seen of that. It's a very specific set of questions like is this layout Compliant or does this layout address the comp plan goals? It tends to be a little softer and sometimes the product of that can be an alternative design not just a Technical review, but also alternative suggestions Similarly architectural review. There's all the design standards about You know variety between the homes you could get something somewhat qualitative from that Traffic or a street design one place we could have invoked that people review lately for street design would be in O'Brien the O'Brien development where we did the roads that had no sidewalks For safety reasons Noises fairly quantitative Long-term impacts over time thinking about maybe a quarry that was Going to have a final condition and the applicant showed us the final condition And we know what the current condition is, but what's it going to look like in that 25-year excavation period Height and shadows you were saying that we did a shadow study and could have invoked technical review Yeah, in the Queen City Park District, for instance, there was a provision that asked the board to evaluate an application for addition to a home that doesn't comply with the current requirements for its impact on views and sunlight to adjacent properties and A shadow study could be something that could be invoked For that kind of an application to see what the impact would be on the neighbor And the final category that we did brainstorm was legal review is technically a technical review, you know, it's it's a little more Paperwork heavy, but of affordability criteria what TDRs or the language for shoot acceptance and then finally anything that You as the board would like more expertise, you know, if there's a gap in somebody No one on the board is a lighting expert and we need a review of lighting impacts There's something like that so I Don't know if other people have things that they've thought about time to lower view and weren't comfortable with or Anyone on the board doesn't have to be, you know, just the chair that suggests that anyone on the board can suggest it Can I ask a question? I assume that when you're talking about legal review You're talking about review of legal criteria rather than Getting a lawyer to perform a review that the applicant pays for Is that would seem to me to have some conflict of interest issues? Well, sometimes there's some legal issues around affordability criteria for affordable housing So we might have an attorney review legal documents. We're usually talking about legal documents For a technical review The attorney does advise this board, but we don't charge the applicant for advice that the board asked the city attorney for cities But we do Many projects require a bunch of legal documents to be reviewed before they're recorded Herocable offers of dedication warranty deeds easement these things are going to end up being in the city's ownership so we have the The city attorney review those documents and the applicant does have to pay for his time reviewing their documents They draft them their attorney drafts them our attorney Comments and suggestions for changes So that's a legal review that the board doesn't get involved in but it is technically legal review We don't have to invoke a technical review for that to occur Not for that. No, unless it's part of a review process that you don't want to move forward on a affordability plan unless you have some Technical review by the city attorney, for instance on the project, right? TDRs that's Maybe the need for our city attorney to review an applicant's proposal for some TDR They may propose a or show an offer An option to purchase and the board may say how do we know this is written properly? Do you doesn't sound like it's maybe written properly? We have our attorney review it at their dime to make sure that it's an actual option Monty ours are required to be reviewed anyway That's a legal document. That's again after the approval their legal documents that also have to be reviewed That to me sounds a little different than the kind of technical review. We're talking about with the other things Yeah, because you know, I can imagine with a project that impacts wetlands The city might want to get a wetlands consultant that the applicant pays for to essentially render an independent opinion Excuse me, but that's not what we're talking about with the legal review. We're having the city attorney Act in the interests of the city and in some cases the applicant has to pay for that It is the same authority, which is why we sort of lumped it here Yeah, one of one of my problems with technical review This is just an internal problem is is I don't know what it costs before we invoke it right and if and if a traffic study costs a thousand dollars versus thirty thousand dollars It would have a difference in my head as to whether we would invoke it and and I Mean I because I'm sort of in the business I have an idea what some of these things cost, but I I don't have a You know things change. I don't have a clear idea. I certainly have no idea You know if somebody wanted to do an architectural review that that's to me that's almost as simple or almost as as vague as as An archaeological review which can get to be huge amounts of money for and potentially with no results We typically get an estimate from the technical review person, but you don't get it You don't get it till after we invoke What would be helpful if we just did a little like after the fact so you can build your knowledge base? Yes Yeah I guess that's what I'm saying is if you had a history of of things that had been done and what they cost It would be great What I was going with this is that the Once we run it by the applicant is what the estimate would be if they feel is too high They certainly could come back to the board and say invoke technical review It's gonna cost six dollars. It's way too much and then you guys could decide to go with it or change your mind about it too, so Do we make that clear to them? We don't because it's never happened before. Oh, okay Perhaps ever bought at what the cost because it usually costs a lot less than the initial Report friends because they're really just reviewing your report. There's some exceptions like With with odors if you remember some of you on the board when we had a crematorium There's concern about odors and dust and smoke from that So we did hire somebody to come and provide Word of information about what that would be like so that wasn't a review of a study that was done Yeah, that's rare I Just feel I guess my point is that that I'm not I'm not enough of an expert to feel comfortable on what we're approving when we do this So was our recent invocation of technical review Okay, did you do it? Okay? Yeah, okay, and the estimate was $1,200. Oh, yeah Which is less than an application fee for the permit. Well, which project? Traffic the traffic was $1,200 and I thought that could have been five grand. So, you know that It's going in the notes bill Just wrote that down Okay, all right out of number two on other business Before we go on can can you send that to us? Yes, absolutely great. It came up in in response to 1517 1525 Shelburne Road the Jiffy Loop property Frank had asked a question about that and it prompted me to explain how a court has seen a Non-compliant Site condition in fact our city attorney has said that a non-compliant site condition Is not grandfathered that our regulations only grandfather uses and structures, but not site conditions So then it was Frank asked whether this was a violation 1525 was a violation another complication to that is if The city has issued a certificate of occupancy for that property as it stands when an application comes in and it's not complying It is not a violation That the issuance of a certificate of occupancy on any non-compliant site condition sanctions it and makes it compliant so There's probably very very few instances where a property will come before you where it never has a certificate of occupancy where it's non-compliant site conditions are In violation not sanctioned by a CEO in the past and therefore it gives the board authority to Make wholesale changes to their coverage to bring them into compliance So most properties have a CEO in the past for some reason they've been in effect since 1974 so any properties come in for review Before this board or planning Commission zoning board has a CEO issued back then Which probably sanctions their violation so there's only a few instances where this might apply so it's complicated, but So Frank was thinking that maybe we would see all these non-compliant Issues as violations that we needed to enforce. That's not the case Sorry Frank's not here to hear this They can watch it So if we were to create a new regulation for instance that caused a bunch of properties to become all of a sudden No longer approvable What would be the status of those properties? I have to consult with the city attorney Well, if they have a certificate of occupancy they would their existing non-compliance would be sanctioned In the in my fake scenario here the certificate of occupancy was issued before the zoning change Yeah, so a certificate of occupancy zoning change present day between present day and or between zoning change and present day if they don't have a CEO then they would be They might put them in violation because the CEO is what they had there and then the rule is adopted that changes The scenario the the regulations relating to that which then puts some part of it in non-compliance But in I whether the violation or not the board would Have the authority to require them to update it the next time they came in. Yes. Yeah, we would not issue them Notice of violation the moment the Provision is adopted that puts them in violation If you're gonna ask the city attorney that question could you ask him to take a look at something called the vested rights? Doctrine that generally that's like grandfathering it protects an applicant or a permit holder from changes in the law that occur After they've acquired their rights the rights of vested that might supply the answer Very good other other other business hearing none See this meeting is over. Oh, we need a motion to adjourn. We just go ahead and adjourn We call it A common consensus exactly right Yeah, what That's right. We got five items to