 All right. Good evening. Welcome. I'm going to call this meeting of the city of Montpelier Development Review Board to order it is September 20th. We're starting around 7 p.m. My name is Kate McCarthy. I'm the chair of the Development Review Board. Next, what I'll do is I'll introduce the other members. To my right, we have Kevin O'Connell. Thanks, Kevin. Then I'll read through the names of the folks on the screen so you know who's who. I'll let them introduce themselves. Abby. Thanks, Abby. Claire. Thanks, Claire. Catherine. Thanks, Catherine. And Rob. All right. Thank you, everybody. What we will do next is I will turn to Meredith to review the remote meeting procedures and process. Great. I'm going to be sharing my screen. This is largely for people. Could you sign in at the sign-in sheet? That would be great. Thank you. The share screen is largely for people who might be watching via Orca media and need to want to sign in. But if everybody else who's on remotely and hasn't attended remotely before can listen, that would be great because this will give you some pointers on how we handle these hybrid meetings right now. For those of you viewing this meeting via Orca media, you can participate in tonight's meeting via the Zoom platform by using this link here on your screen. Alternatively, you can call in at this number and use this meeting ID to sign in. If anyone has problems accessing the meeting, please email me. I'll be monitoring my email throughout the meeting. For those attending via Zoom, turning on your video is optional. For everyone attending, please keep your microphone on mute. When you're not speaking, this will help reduce background noise. I'm just going to take a quick peek and make sure we don't have anybody. No, everybody's on Zoom, nobody's calling in. Please note that the Zoom chat function should only be used for troubleshooting or logistics questions. If you have a question or comment about an item on the agenda, please raise your hand. This is for those in the room as well. If you're on Zoom, you can do that physically if we can see you or there's a raise hand button on your toolbar. Then wait until the Chair has called on you to speak. For everybody involved, once the Chair is recognized, someone to participate, someone who's a member of the public versus an applicant, please make sure to provide your full name and address for the record. We ask that anyone commenting, please keep initial comments to about two minutes. The Chair can definitely give you more time than that if needed. Note that because we have publicized this, noticed this as a meeting that can be accessed remotely, if I get noticed via my e-mail that there's a member of the public who cannot get in and I work with them and they still can't get in, the meeting will have to be continued to a time and place certain. For people who are here in-person applicants, we ask that you go to the center table and sit in front of the tablet or the computer and use that microphone there to speak. If you're a member of the public and a butter or something like that and you have comments on a project, we're going to ask that you use the stand-up microphone. For all the microphones, please make sure you're close to the microphone, both so that people who are watching remotely right now can hear, but also so that our recording secretary can hear you clearly when she takes down the minutes after the meeting. All right. I'm going to now hand the meeting back over to the chair. Very good. In the category of precautionary meetings and processes, I want to just check. I think that to ensure social distancing, what we could do is open up those dividers toward the back so that people can set up chairs. If you want to do that, you're welcome to if you care to sit. But, okay. I can also just open those. That way if anyone else comes. Standing in the door is allowed. I want everyone to be comfortable, but also don't want anyone to not come in because of space. Thanks. Good. Well, Meredith is kind enough to do that and muscle that open. What I would like to do next is approve the agenda. Is there a motion to approve the agenda as printed? So moved. There's a motion by Kevin. Is there a second? Second by Rob. I will call the roll. Abby. Claire. Yes. Kevin. Yes. Catherine. Yes. Rob. Yes. And I also vote yes. We have approved the agenda. Thank you. All right. The next item on the agenda is comments from the chair. And as I've done the past three meetings, I just want to thank you all in advance for your patience. We're continuing to adjust to this hybrid format. We've done it a few times, but we've been doing this for 18 months and we're still adjusting in a lot of ways. So thanks everybody for being flexible and thanks especially to staff or community staff who are making this possible. And thanks to everyone who's participating. All right. We'll move on next to item six on the agenda, which is the minutes of September 7th, 2021. And in attendance were myself, Kevin, Rob, Abby, and Catherine. So we do have enough people to vote on the minutes. Are there any changes to the minutes as printed? If there are no changes, I'll accept a motion to approve the minutes. Motion by Rob. Second. Second by Kevin. I'll call the roll. Abby. Claire. Claire was not here. That's a good idea, Claire. Thank you. Kevin. Yes. Rob. Yes. Catherine. And I vote yes as well. Thank you. We've approved the minutes of September 7th. And I didn't mention earlier, but we do all the votes by roll because we're in this hybrid format. Keep it clean. Great. All right. We're going to move on to our first item of business which is 101 Northfield Street. And what we're doing is a sketch plan review of a two lot subdivision. So before you come to the table, I'll just explain for anyone who's part of this process, what a sketch plan review is. So this is an early stage in the subdivision process and it's a chance for a future applicant to come before the board and kind of get a weather report on the application is often how we refer to it, get a sense of things. It's a chance for the board to get a sense of the proposal, to ask questions or make comments that will help the applicant understand the standards and to provide a complete application when they come in for the actual hearing. So what we're doing today for this is not a hearing. We're not taking evidence. We're having a conversation and learning. It's also a chance for people who are curious about the project, whether it's neighbors or anyone else to learn what it involves. So the project before us, when we're looking at a subdivision proposal, is to make sure that any lot that we approve will be developable in the future in some fashion. Even those specifics will be determined later. So that means that today we aren't really talking about specific future proposals, what might get built there. We are talking about the parcel itself and there will be subsequent conversations or hearings about anything that is proposed on the parcel where people can get involved and comment. So that's just a little bit about what we are and aren't doing with sketch plan review of a two lot subdivision here. So if the applicants would like to come and have a seat at the table. There you go. Perfect. Okay. Your engineer is John. Okay. Acknowledging John as well. If at any point you want to turn to your engineer, you can say I'll let John answer that question or. Okay. Would you like to sit there anyway? I don't want to put you on the spot. I don't want you to feel excluded either. All right. So I'll lay out what we're going to do to review this project. First we're going to hear an overview of the project from Meredith and then we'll hear about the project from the applicant and that can be you or can be the engineer. Board members will then have a chance to ask some questions about it. And then other people who are interested in learning about this will have an opportunity to talk and ask questions a couple of minutes of comments. And then the board will be able to ask follow-up questions. And from there you will have a sense of our understanding of the project, things that need more clarity, and just a preliminary read on how it does or doesn't meet the standards. Okay. So that was a big introduction, but just want to kind of set the stage. And now Meredith. All right. Thank you, Kate. So Kate sort of stole most of my thunder about describing what sketch plan is. That's often what my role would be. I think what I'm going to do is just give a teeny tiny summary because I think John would probably be able to talk more to this. But this is, as Kate said, this is a two-lot subdivision. So there's a fairly large parcel up on Northfield Street. Right now it has the Econolodge on it. For anybody who's been in town for a long spell, there also used to be the Brown Derby restaurant. And this proposal would carve off the land that used to have the Brown Derby restaurant on it and create a new parcel out of that land that could be sold to someone else. And when I went through and did the analysis under the applicable provisions, really there aren't a lot of big questions. In my review, it seems to comply with just about everything. There's a couple of places where the application maybe needs a little bit more clarity or there were some little small errors. The only real question I highlighted in here was that we need to make sure, when you do a subdivision, you need to make sure that all of the parcels that are resulting are compliant with the regulations. You aren't creating a situation where one of the parcels no longer conforms to the requirements. Normally that would be a dimensional requirement, but there is a question that I put in here that we need to make sure that the Econolodge parcel that's left has enough parking area for that use that's going on there. Because some of the land that's being carved off, even if it's not officially used as parking for the Econolodge, is like a graveled, it looks like a parking area. So we just need to make sure that what's left for the Econolodge provides enough room for all the parking that's required for all the different rooms that are in the Econolodge. And that's not something that has to be answered tonight. That can be answered in the final application. But that was really the only little flag, like a yellow flag. It's not even an orange or red flag that I found, but board members might have other questions. Very good, thanks. And I'm sorry, I didn't give you a chance to introduce yourself. Great, thank you. Thank you. All right, and I'll turn it over to John. If you could introduce yourself as well. Yes. Should I share my screen here and put a plan up? Is that possible? That's completely possible. That would be great. Yeah. Would that be helpful? Sure, go right ahead. The best thing to share is this right now, which is everybody's seeing an local photo plan. So, I wish it was a little bit clearer, and I don't know how well you can see this, but this is the entire parcel boundary, which is approximately five and a half acres or so. I think, I believe it's actually 5.7 acres in this linear wing-shaped structure of the existing Palo Lodge Motel, which now ends up operating in parcel. And this is, you can see the parcel extends quite a ways down the field street. And this is all quite steep slope in this area of the parcel, but over here is the area where the ground garden came in. And the time of this local portal was somewhat unfortunate, as it was taken when the Du Bois construction was using this in the staging yard for work they were doing on the Longfield Street. So you can see the piles of gravel and various materials. That's all been cleaned up now. And it's really just a level grass area here. And there is existing gravel or paved drive out in the back where there used to be another linear. So, in any rate, the proposal before you is basically this subdivision line, this proposed subdivision line to separate off this 1.4 acres from the entire 5.7 leaving this as the existing hotel with the existing parking in front and to the side. I'm going to ask Emil to help me out here, but it's my understanding there's something on the order of 42 to 43 millions in the hotel. And I believe the count of spaces out here is roughly equivalent to that, somewhere in the 0.1 or 2 range. I have not gone through some done count of these and labeled the spaces that can come in the space. So it's certain that there is adequate parking for the hotel as Meredith mentioned. Yeah, do you want to clear? I think with that I'll stop and ask Emil to clarify the number of rooms in the hotel. We have 42 rooms at the hotel. And we have almost 41 to 42 parking spots, an existing parking spot, which doesn't go on the lot number one. That doesn't go on the- So let's take it to the lot number two. Okay, so those- And I have a layout plan that I can share with you. Oh, that's- Thank you, John. Okay, that's great. It's enough for me to- Thank you. Yeah, no, that's great. Okay, good. So for folks who are- Oh, good. Look at that. Yeah. Perfect. So as I said, I believe Emil said there was 42 rooms. 42 rooms. Yeah. Yeah. 42 rooms. And so I believe Meredith that the number of spaces required is 0.8 per unit. That's correct. So that means that we're in about the right zone. Yeah. Yep, it's the 0.8 per unit. And then there's a little leftover for office. So it looks like you're in the right zone. So we'll just need to double check the numbers. Great. It looks like Claire has a question. Yeah, go ahead, Claire. Actually, it's been provided and just had a question about the access onto this property. It looks like, and maybe this is the point of this clarification, when I look at the orc, it looks like there's two access points. And I was just curious, based on that little sketch, is it envisioned that both of those would be utilized, or you would just be utilizing that one where the pointer finger is? So Claire, your question is about what, after the subdivision, what will the access points be onto the lot with the Econolodge? Correct. And I guess I would just also then ask about the access point for the other lot also. OK. So I'll take the first stab at that. So I understand that these are existing access points. And the applicant has no intention to make any changes to any of the existing access points or operation of the hotel. And he intends to keep it operating as it currently is. I see that there's some shape in his head. OK. Thank you. As far as the access for the proposed subdivide in the lot, there is an existing access point here on to your driving drive. And there is existing access point here. But it's my understanding that Anil's intention is not to develop the parcel in any way, but simply to make it available for sale. And not to preclude or predispose that the potential future development of that lot should warn them into any particular means of egress or access to the lot. Seeing that we don't know what they potentially would do to develop it in the future and will leave it up to them as part of the application that they might make in the future to propose how to access the lot and to work within the development regulations in an act of the time. OK. So I guess it would be our job to make sure that legal access points can be added either on Derby Drive or on Northfield Street. I mean, there is one on Derby Drive. So there's a legal access point on Derby Drive. There's a curb cut there. So there's already an access point. Whether or not that's sufficient for future development will depend on what that development is. All right, so. No, no, I was just going to say there's an elevation change on that lot. What is the difference between the upper lot and the lower lot? How you guys? John, if you know about that. I mean, like with the elevation. Yes. Yeah. Yeah, what's the. Existing access point there to areas. Well, I mean, it makes a difference with regards to access, obviously. Sure, it does act. And I don't have an exact number for you at this point. But I believe it's roughly a story. So it. Yeah, so 15 feet. Roughly 20 feet. 8 to 10 feet of fire at this location than it is, say near the intersection with no field street. OK, that's useful. Thank you. OK. Claire, do you still have your hand up? Or is that left? Is that leftover or a new hand? Left over, sorry. That's OK. Thank you. All right. Are there are there other questions from from DRB members? Yeah, I mean, I just said one question as he finalized the survey will go forward. I think it might make sense to sort of like consider the boundary lines of Derby Drive and Northfield Street. You know, I think that at some point this is going to be developed. Setbacks are going to be sort of determined off of probably the boundary lines that are showing this subdivision flat. And it seems like right now the scope of the survey didn't really include much work in sort of figuring out where those were. And I just can't say right now given what would be exactly required by this board for the scope of that. But we just maybe had a suggestion there that maybe that gets looked into or that no get revised on the current plan is that sort of like whatever was made on that part. Thanks, Rob. That's very relevant. We've had a number of proposals that have come before us for development where it's been a little uncertain where the boundary line is. And then that really affects where the person can put the building on the parcel. And it really saves a lot of back and forth for the future developer when there's a solid survey. Am I elaborating appropriately there, Rob? Absolutely, yes. I just looked at it and there may be not much information on those roads at all. But I don't know, I just read the plan and it seemed like that maybe that because of the subdivision determination of those boundaries at this point was not in the scope. And yeah, so you summarize it well, Kate. OK, great. Well, thanks, Rob. And Abby, do you have your hand up? You can go right ahead. Yes, I do. So I'm just curious if overflow parking has ever been needed on this smaller lot, if there's been an instance where that has been needed? Never. OK, thank you. You're welcome. Thanks. All right, other questions from board members? All right. John, if you wouldn't mind stopping the screen share. We can always come back to it if we need to. But I just want to try to see people. All right, great. So at this point, I want to open it up to folks who may be here with questions of their own as neighbors. I know that we have Emma in attendance and I don't know if Bethany is here to be heard on this application. But if folks would like to ask questions or make comments on this application who are not the applicant, could you sort of give me a sign? Yes. Yeah, that's Emma. There you go, Emma. You are welcome to speak now. There you go. You're unmuted. That's all right. Emma Zavez, I live at 3 Derby Drive, which is in a budding parcel. I did reach out to Kate McCarthy and Meredith because I did not receive notice of the application. I have been the homeowner here paying taxes, with my deed on the file, paying my water and sewer bill, et cetera, everything with the City of Montclair for more than a year now. So if I wasn't notified, I am wondering also if other budding properties were not notified. And I will follow up with Meredith, but I would encourage generally speaking the committee to look into the notification practices because I am clearly the owner of this parcel and the City of Montclair has my information everywhere for this parcel. So unless this is a unique situation, it seems like there is a process problem with that. So beyond that, speaking to the subdivision, I did take a little bit of time over this weekend. I found out about the project. I do see that the parcel, the proposed parcel number two, is surrounded on three sides by the residential 9,000 zoning district. And I just wanted to bring that up at this meeting to sort of ask the DRB to what extent that should have an impact on either subdivision or future parcel development given that this parcel would basically be like an island surrounded by residential 9,000. In the analysis, I only saw an analysis based on the actual district that the parcel lives within. But based on the driveway access or the remaining single driveway access, of course, I'm sure that could change for future development. But if the intention is for the driveway access to the exiting onto-therapy drive, it's exiting into the residential 9,000 zoning district. So I wanted to bring that up in hopes that the DRB will be considering subdivision. And future proposals in light of the fact that this is the residential 9,000 zoning district, there is a neighborhood of small, family homes surrounding the parcel. And I hope that the quality and character of the residential 9,000 district will, to some extent, have an impact on the subdivision and future development of the parcel. I don't mean to suggest that it shouldn't be subdivided or it shouldn't be developed, et cetera. I just want to bring that to the attention of the board. And so when they are considering setbacks and things like access and that type of thing, really thinking about derby drive and the character of that residential area versus the character of exiting onto Northfield Street, et cetera. And I think that's my main issue or a concern that I wanted to raise right now. Yeah, thanks, Emma. Kevin? Yeah, this is a question for Meredith. Meredith, in the mixed-use residential, what's the density that's allowed? Density? Yeah, I mean, how many per square feet? So mixed-use residential density is one dwelling unit per each 1,500 square feet of parcel area, and then in Res 9, it's one per 9,000. Right. So I mean, it's significantly more dense. Six times, but you know, it's... How big is the subdivided lot again? It's about 1.5 eighths. 1.5 acres, so roughly 75,000 square feet. So, yeah, I mean, you could put... You could put some housing there. You could put some housing there. Yeah, you could put some housing there. I mean, it's, yeah. Yeah, so I think one of the things that Emma is raising is we're talking about a transitional area of the community going from this 3,000 square foot, minimum square foot lot size to a 9,000 minimum square foot lot size, and what does it mean to assess the compatibility of different uses, considering it's in that kind of in-between or transitional zone? So what I would say is that in the subdivision process, it's hard to... We're really looking at the parcel lines, and so it's hard to assess the character of those parcel lines, as eager as we are to kind of know what's next for certain. In when something is proposed in this area, I don't have the use table in front of me, but it's for the benefit of everybody listening, there are a number of different kinds of review processes that they could go through. One of those processes is an administrative review process, which is where the project would be permitted by our administrative officer, Merida. And in those cases, people are notified, butters are notified, right, for an administrative permit? Not directly, no. For an administrative permit, the permitee comes in, they get their application, we issue the permit, and the permit holder posts a notice of permit on their parcel, and that's the start of the 15 day appeal period. So there is no direct notice to a butters for an administrative permit, because those are things that are all just allowed without conditions on a parcel. Okay, so that's the big red Z, as it's affectionately known. If there were something, no? No, no, it's a P. It's a blue, it's a blue card. Oh, goodness. The red Z is when there's going to be a hearing on something that gets posted 30 days before the hearing. And what's the situation for a sketch plan, which is really an informal process? So technically, for sketch plan, there's no requirement that we notify a butters, but we do it anyway. Right. And I know Emma didn't get that notice. And I think that's more of an issue of how, part of it is an issue with our envelope issuance. I did check back on this, Emma, and there was an issue where there were multiple databases in use, and not every database got updated appropriately. But there was a notice sent to 3derby drive, and it had the old owner on it, but it also had a or current owner. And for some reason, it still got forwarded, we think, even though it said or current owner. And so that's, we've got to look at that process, because we started putting that in place because land has been transferring so rapidly recently, but Emma's case specifically was a failure to properly update all databases appropriately. And that's something that we've looked into already today and are working on so that hopefully that won't happen again. So sorry about that, Emma. Yeah, Meredith, thanks for that explanation. Emma, I want to apologize on behalf of the board for the miscommunication. And it sounds like it will be rectified for this area of town at the very least. So we talked a little about what administrative permit review process might look like. And then if there's something that is more involved, that involves site plan review, that is a conditional use that would, or that would trigger some other sort of discretionary, yeah, discretionary standard, like steep slopes disturbance, all of those would come before the board and go through this kind of quasi-judicial process. I'm sorry that I can't say for sure which of those processes would be triggered, but I guess I mentioned all those to give just kind of a sense. And there's yet another approach, which is that our zoning administrators wonderfully responsive and if you email her and say, is there anything going on? I think that now and again, that could be acceptable. Yes, now and again, now and again. So are there other follow-up questions from either from Emma or from other neighbors who might be here or board members? Claire has her hand up. Claire, go ahead. We'll put my hand down right now, so we'll remember, there we go. Okay, there's been some discussion and I raised the question and I think it kind of piggybacks on the neighbors inquiry about the access to that lot. I think it'll be informative to better understand the parameters of the existing access onto Derby Drive and whether an access can be made onto Route 12. And I believe that if that lot was to go through site plan it would necessitate a section 1111 permit from the agency of transportation on a state highway. No, it might still be a town highway. No, it's still, there's only one little stretch within the city of Montpelier that is technically a state highway even though that's Route 12 and that's over by access to the interstate. The city actually has jurisdiction over all the other roads. Okay, I'll get some more information to understand if an access can be on Route 12 or if they are limited to the Derby Drive access and having that on the subdivision plan. And I guess a clarification that the lot would not be utilizing any type of easement where they would cross onto the Montel property and use one of those access points. I think having more clarity and information on that would be helpful. I think those are good points of interest and I think we could talk a little bit more here tonight about the possibility of access onto Northfield Street. I feel like some of those further details about agreements between what would in the future be two property owners would need to be discussed when there are two property owners and when there's a specific use in mind. I don't know that we have it within our authority and the standards of the regulations to say that something should or shouldn't happen on the parcel in the subdivision process. But tell me if that's not what you meant. No, I think I agree that we don't want to be kind of dictating or directing future uses as that is going to be part of that process. But I think having information about the current legal accesses would be helpful so that in the event of the site being developed there weren't any kind of surprised by the future of owner of now they're kind of restricted in their usage because of the access component. I think that would certainly be advisable for anyone who wants to make a marketable parcel to someone to have those pieces of information handy. Whether or not they go on the site plan I think is a different question but what if we talk a little bit now about access onto Northfield Street? Is this something you've analyzed in the driveway distancing criteria? I didn't analyze this in here. I think that if for the final application for the short answer would be for John to look and he could run it by me whether or not there is a point on the frontage of Northfield Street for this new parcel where a driveway could be put that's compliant with the spacing requirements. And if there isn't it could also be a here's a potential spot and then I could always run it by DPW to see if it's something that they would support. I think that's as far as I would think we would need to go since the parcel does currently have a legal access point that's already been approved previously even if it does not comply with current standards. That makes sense to me. Okay, do other board members want to remark on this? Am I saw you had your yellow hand up and then the yellow hands down did you want to chime in again? I might have already said that from so many words but I guess I just want to emphasize that a few cars coming in and out of the Derby access point is probably would not be a big deal it would be in character with the residential nature of the neighborhood but if you were talking about 40 parking spaces probably won't be that many based on the standards I looked at but if you're thinking about developing a parcel in a way that there is going to be more traffic than a regular neighborhood would have then Northfield Street is by far the more appropriate street to be having lots of traffic flow versus something excessive amounts of traffic flow into a neighborhood where there are pets and kids and people walking and small houses, et cetera. So I don't know to what extent, yeah, to what extent you guys can't, I don't know. Portfolio opinions or suggestions about access, et cetera but in terms of subdividing and future proposals I guess I just want to make the point that access to Northfield Street if there is potential for high traffic flow would be much more appropriate, probably character. Thanks Emma, you know because we don't have a use or traffic volume it's not something we'll be able to address with the subdivision but I think one of the things I actually really like about sketch plan review is that it's just a chance to have a conversation so this is all now kind of out there as part of the discussion it's communication between neighbors and that in and of itself is useful even if it doesn't get folded into this decision when and if the application comes before us because I'm remembering we're not making a decision on this tonight. But so thanks for that Emma. Any other comments? Yeah, I mean I just, you know, looking more at this I'd like to elaborate on what Claire said looking at it, I think that as this comes to final there is a decision by the applicant as this will be made. I mean right now we have access on the draft plan to submit it and access going off of route 12 over the parcel boundary onto the parcel. So either that is going to continue or it is not going to continue. And I don't know that like the board has any real authority to say whether it's another or done but what I do think is that it should be very clear on the plan whether it is or it is going to continue. And so I think that that maybe is the only clear guidance we maybe have going forward. And obviously, you know, I think the rest of it is dependent on the use but that specific question of what is going to happen with the fact that you can currently pull a car and you kind of launch crosses boundary might be proposed a lot too. Is that going to be happening after this subdivision was approved? Or is it not because there will be a right. So there will be not be rights should be one or the other. Thank you, Rob. And that goes, as you said, goes back to what Claire was saying about will there be an easement? Is that anticipated? So I think I understand better Claire what you were getting at. I'm sorry I didn't quite get it before but that idea that you introduced is was an important one. And it's something the board would benefit from knowing a little more about. Yeah, right. So just as a something to note to John and Neil that what it might be is that instead of having for the final plan to have this ortho is useful for people but it might be that the subdivision the final subdivision plan, right shows the boundaries. It isn't laid over the ortho. It shows your current building spots and it shows the access points for the Econolodge and it shows also your setback lines, right because your setback lines aren't gonna be on the final plat that's recorded but you want those setback lines on the subdivision plan for this development discussion as well as the dimensions of the existing access point for the new parcel, the corner parcel and I think it's just maybe tweaking the presentation so that everybody has answers to these questions with a simple layout that doesn't have the complications of showing what isn't even gravel anymore because I think that's confusing things for people. Yeah, good. All right, board members anything else? Okay, that is our weather report gives you a sense of what's catching our attention and what others might have to say about it. Do you have any questions or anything you'd like us to clarify for you? I'm good, thank you. Okay, well thanks for taking the time. Thanks for being here. And until next time. Great. All right, thank you. Thank you, John. Are you all set too? Okay. I just, I think it's very helpful with this pretty information. Just saying what is the best option for dealing with the driveway access issues and make sure that the lot is most useful and marketable and look at the, what the driveway spacing would be coming up on both the street and whether or not there would be a shared access between the two blocks or not. Okay. And we'll clarify that on the future Sounds great. I'll send you a copy of tonight's meeting minutes cause you get that instead of a decision. And then you can also feel free to run thoughts by me on access cause I can also then coordinate with department of public works and run things by them. And we can also have a, if we needed to we can all have a Zoom meeting or a meeting with somebody from DPW with us all together so that you can tie that all together in a way that they feel comfortable with as well. Okay. Okay. Awesome. Thank you. All right. Thank you. All right. Well, thanks everybody. We're going to move on now to our next application for this evening or first application for zero Ewing street. So the applicants are welcome to come up to the table. We're talking about site plan review of a new three unit dwelling structure. All right. So here's where we're headed in discussing this. We're going to hear an overview of the project from Meredith. Well, first I'll swear in anyone who wants to speak on this. Then we'll hear an overview of the project from Meredith. We'll hear from the applicant. Board members will have a chance to ask any questions about the project. We'll hear briefly from other people who might want to comment on the proposal. The board may ask them questions and then we're gonna walk through the application. You know, a lot, I think Yeah, that's what we're gonna do. We're gonna walk through the by application. I mean the staff report, which highlights some of the items that need a little more discussion and information. So I will start by swearing in anyone who wants to be heard on this matter. So if you think you might come up to the microphone, please go ahead and raise your right hand. That includes you. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury? Yes. All right, thank you. Very good. So I'll turn to Meredith. Meredith, are you able to put the site plan up? I can put that up or you can on there. That's logged in via... Probably better for you. Okay, I can do that. Do you guys have a printed copy of the staff report? We do. Okay. Does anybody here need a printed copy of the staff report? Okay. I'm gonna put it over on the side. I don't think, in case anyone wants to reference it. Yeah, if we get going. And there's, sorry, but for some reason, the application is actually stapled on the bottom. I don't know how that happened, but okay. All right, you're up. All right, so this is an application to put three dwelling units on a currently vacant parcel on Ewing Street. It used to be part of a parcel that was at the corner of North and Ewing Street, and it was subdivided off in the last couple of years. Three dwelling units is, sorry, hold on one second, my brain is kinda crazy, is actually a permitted use. But what we've got here, because it's a brand new principal building, and because it involves steep slopes, those were the two main triggers that sent this to the Development Review Board because administrative decisions can't make those decisions. So in the staff report, I mean, there's a lot of red. Those are things that are highlighted where the board either needs to make a determination, or there's some questions that are unanswered. Just because it's red doesn't mean that it's a stopping point for the decision, just as an item for people to be aware of. At the back of my staff report is where I've sort of summarized the things that need to be decided, and some of these things I've suggested some ways to deal with them, doesn't mean that the board has to do it that way. But the major things that are going on here, and I'm not listing these in order of magnitude, it's just where they come up in the staff report, mostly, on page 19 there. So it's page 19 of the staff report is where it starts, which, sorry, I don't know if the top of my head where it is in the packet, in the full packet. But it's like page 50 something, I think. So one item, and this isn't a really big situation, but the board does need to decide whether to approve a retaining wall that's more than six feet tall. That's something that the board has to make that decision. I suggest that in this case, because it is a retaining wall needed to hold back the bank, that it makes sense to make that approval. The board will also need to review, sorry, I'm blocking my camera, review the design standards for development on steep slopes. Again, for my analysis, it looks like all of those design standards were complied with. There's also, there seems to be a little bit of some information missing per comments from the Department of Public Works in the Eversion Control Plan. So that's something that could be easily dealt with with a condition of approval if the applicant hasn't updated that for tonight. There's some questions about internal pedestrian walkway compliance and maybe some screening. So this is the screening for mechanical equipment or service areas. That's more of a question of there's some missing information. We don't have information on where those service areas like trash might be stored or what kind of mechanical equipment would be on the outside of the building. We also need some information on outdoor lighting and also just a little bit more information. Well, we don't need more information necessarily, sorry. The board has to decide whether or not the solar access and shading requirements have been complied with. I think given the site they have been, but it's a decision the board has to make. And then there is a requirement in the regs about getting an energy certificate. It's sort of a minor checkbox item, but under the regulations, the way to do that is to require a certificate of compliance for the project as a whole. It's just what is in there for the regs is the way to check that and make sure that we get that document because it's something that's completed after the building is built. It's not a certificate of compliance for something like this would require that the zoning administrator, me, does a site inspection when the building has been completed or at least is very, very close to completion, but before anybody moves into it. And it used to be under the pre-2018 regulations that that was just, it happened with every project that went through the DRB. There was always a certificate of compliance requirement. Now there is only a certificate of compliance required if the board specifically lists it as a condition of approval of a permit of an application. So that's something that the board has to discuss and decide whether or not to put in. Those are the big questions or determinations that the board has to make. It seems like a lot, but I think the board can actually move through a lot of it fairly quickly based on the information that's in here. Okay, thank you, Meredith. So now I'll turn to you, the applicants. I think that's Don in there and you must be Gabriel. Yeah. All right, please go right ahead. So you're going to, can you move the microphone to between you? If you bring it back in the room? Yeah. You're going to need to speak right now in the microphone. Yeah, I'll just introduce myself. I'm Gabriel Lajanas. I'm the applicant and Don is the engineer. We're really excited to start working on some infill projects here. And Meredith has been incredibly helpful as we're going back and forth and certainly we'll get you all the information you need. We think we have a lot of the answers for you now. Great. Great. Thank you. Actually, if you could put up our slopes analysis plan, please. Yep, give me one second. And I'll just go down those staff questions at the end and address those that we can. Sure. If that's appropriate. That sounds like a good approach, Don. Is that all right? I'll look to the other board members. Is that a good approach? Shall we hear from Don on those questions? You should be able to see it on that screen too. I think this one is light enough that we can leave the lights on. The other picture we looked at was a little dark. Thanks. The only thing I can't see is. I can back up. I get smaller. Let me just, if you can go to the, whoops, right there. So, grid in 30. Okay. And then you can center it, please. That'd be fine. The, actually the photo on the front of your staff report is quite helpful. The site's generally flat, but the rear drops up and is fairly stable. It's only over 30%. And that's what triggered, you know, triggered your review. The way we propose to address that is to use a ready rock wall similar to one that's next to the river, to the just west of the Unitarian church, sort of large concrete blocks that have a texture to them so they look a little more organic, you'd say. So there's a wall in the back that provides room for parking and a turnaround. The building itself, only a small portion of it is in the steeper slopes. And we've provided a structural design for both by an engineer, by both for both the foundation of the, what would be the southeast corner of the building and then of course the retaining wall. And we believe the wall is up to eight and a quarter feet tall. So it, but we think it's reasonable, it's stepped so that it matches the grades. But we think that having it that tall makes sense for this site. And as Gabe said, I mean, it's an infill ad, residential units here in the city, which we think we share with the city is being important. That sort of addresses number two on the steep slopes. We have prepared a erosion prevention and sediment control plan that is part of the package which addresses the erosion control issues. And fortunately, there's not a lot, there's not much drainage area there. So it's not sort of significant, but it's appropriate to deal with it. And mostly the thrust of that is to stabilize the site within seven to 14 days of initial disturbance so that you aren't leaving it open as we've seen on other sites in town recently. For, I sort of missed that, our suggestion is for the, to provide, it's a good catch from Meredith's point of view is from the paved path, excuse me, the paved walk that goes out from the front to the street, we would do a 90 degree path to the driveway so that residents would or guests would just come out the front door, take a 90 degree turn, and then the driveway would become the access. We could do a separate sidewalk along the, in the grass area, but we'd prefer to save that as grass and as trees. And I think low density, I don't see an issue with people walking down the driveway. The driveway's 18 feet wide, so there's plenty of room for both emergency vehicles and for people to get there. And will there be any entrances or exits on the west side of the building? No, it's all just the front. And there's a upstairs and basement, there's up and down, so it's a, it's split in that you go up a half a flight to the, quote unquote, first floor and down a half a flight to the basement. With three stories total, or just the two that you just did with three total. Okay, all right, thanks. I'm getting a little ahead here, but this was curious about how the entrances and exits related to the driveway. Thank you. It's okay, in terms of screening, there, the majority of the mechanical systems will be in the building. There will be, where we want it. Well, there will be a meter pack on the, probably the northeast corner, and that can be a screen from the view from Ewing Street. And that'd be just a typical, probably a three, you know, three meter, meter pack. What we'd like to do with not to have a dumpster, but in the vicinity on sort of the, toward the rear of the building, there's room, there's room near the bike rack, sort of behind the, along next to the bike rack and along the back of the building to put six typical totes that you'd use. We assume there'd be three for, one for each unit, but three for waste and three for recycling. And I think that addresses that. And we would not, since most of them can be behind the building, we wouldn't recommend any screening for that. We've got trees along that area anyway, that would break up the view. So I think that's a reasonable way to place those, a reasonable place. Outdoor lighting, we may have misinterpreted that, that in the ordinance. What we can say is one that we'll, we'll get a lighting plan by a lighting specialist, but obviously there'll be limited side mounted, you know, down cast screen lights along, primarily the west side of the building, although for security, we'll probably need some on both, and the porch, there'd be lights underneath the porch, porch roof, and then some limited lights on both the east and the rear, the south, just for security purposes. But all downturn and screened. I think we agree with, with Meredith the Solars, it's not a great place for, for solar unfortunately, but it, it's a flat roof, right? Yeah, so there is a potential to be able to put roof mounted units to get some solar gain. I mean, and it, you know, it is oriented north-south, so you could get some that way. Well, then the certificate of compliance would be related to the stretch code, and that appropriately would be part of your issue in terms of a occupancy permit, subject to your review. And I think that, let me see if they're, at the moment, there's a question about the driveway, we'd propose the driveway would be gravel at this point, and the lighting, we would request that it be, if the board approves it to do that, the condition of prior to the zoning, a building permit be issued that we provide a lighting plan that meets the standards. And I believe that hits all of the, those questions that Meredith had brought up, just in the process. Just, just a middle question. The structure that I see here at the beginning of the staff report, that, that's not being torn down, that's, that's remained that, right? Well, no, that's the neighbor. That's the neighbor. That was, that was sub, this parcel was subdivided away from that parcel a year or so ago. You gotta try to remember that. And that remains. So now we're, now we're looking at the lot itself. Exactly. Okay, there you go. Thank you. Basically that lawn would get converted to a building and parking. Correct. Thanks. Thanks for the clarification, Kevin. Yeah. Good, if I stop share at this point, Doug. Good, so I'm gonna turn it over to board members now for some, any clarifying questions on what you've presented. So board members, over to you. Oh, I'm sorry. That's right. You had some thought, maybe unmuting. Yeah, I don't know. Could you just run through your landscaping and screening plan? I know that it was a, it was a specific condition of the subdivision approval. So you could just be explained into the record. If Meredith could take on that. Please put that up. We have a landscape plan done by this superb landscape designer from here in Mount Payer. It also happens to be my wife. And basically a number of large trees, one in the front and then several along the west side and then some lower shrub, small trees in the front on both sides of the walk. And then some, again, sort of medium sized trees along the eastern side that will break up the facade from the neighbors. And talking about landscaping reminds me to ask Meredith, we often include a condition that all planting shall be maintained in a viable and pretty condition. Yeah, I mean, it doesn't even have to be an explicit condition anymore. It's just a requirement in that section of the regulations that anything that is planted as part of compliance with the landscaping regulations has to be maintained. And if it dies, it needs to be replaced. And if there's a change in the type of planting that is there for compliance with the regulation, it needs to be run back through the zoning office to make sure it complies. Thanks for reminding me how we're doing that these days. Great, you're welcome. I think maybe to clarify, it's... We sort of, the smaller ones are boxwoods that'll be three feet tall. There's six of those, three feet wide. The next size up, what's called the HPs. Three of those also, it's a hydrangea. There again, four feet tall, three to five feet wide. And then there's six by Burnham. And they ultimately get 10 feet tall, eight to 10 feet wide. And this is at maturity. So they all start out small. Then we have three of the river birch, which are the ones along the western side. And there again, 10 to 15 tall, 12 feet wide. And then finally, we've got a sugar maple up in the front, which is 18 feet tall. And actually, it's a sugar time, it's a crab apple. 18 to feet tall to 15 feet wide. Katherine, did you have a question? Go ahead, Ed. Yeah, thank you. Thanks for talking through the landscaping plan. While we're on this topic, wanted to ask whether you had anything additional to share around stormwater management and runoff and the use of landscaping or permeable surfaces for that purpose? There's planting beds under the bigger trees that'll, and the grass will infiltrate some, but because the need for parking and the access with the stormwater will generally flow north to south and be collected in the southwest corner of the parking lot in that corner exactly, and then piped up to the city storm system on Ewing Street. So it's just the way the grades are because the slope, the site slopes slightly, not significantly, but slightly away from the road. We're sort of bringing water backward and then bringing it back up by pipe. We've had a couple of comments from DPW and we'll take care of that in terms of the connections and the details, but ultimately it goes to the city storm system as does, of course we're on city sewer and city water. All those utilities are in Ewing Street. Thanks for that question. Any follow-up, Catherine? Yeah, I think that answered my questions. Thank you. Great, thanks. As I just said, one follow-up. So like what type of grades do you have at the base of that retaining wall to make sure there's no ponding at the end of the driveway before it goes into the catch basin? Well, again, we have a slight grade there. It's paved, or it's gravel, so it'll be, you don't need much of a grade, but it slopes from the building itself, the building, the turnaround toward the southwest corner. So we have spot elevations there along the toe of the wall so that flow will go to that catch basin. I also have a question about the stormwater pulling from the adjacent property that's uphill and kind of how that interacts with the stormwater from the back of the property itself. I don't think we'll get much, but I think what will come, it'll flow along the eastern side of the building to the south and then would end up in our system. It would flow along the front face of that wall around the corner of the building, the front face of the wall to our storm drain. It looks like there's a small, from the photograph of like a small retaining wall there now, or just a proper charm. Oh, there's a rock wall shown on the picture. Is that what you're talking about, Abby? That's gone to you. Hold on. Yeah, I'm talking about, yeah, put it back up for a second. Yeah, let's get her up for a second. She's right, there's an existing short rock wall along the eastern side. Yeah. Do you head up Ewing Street? That'll remain. Yes, right there, exactly. That can remain. And that doesn't need to be reinforced or short up or anything. I don't believe so. I mean, we're gonna stay away from it. Hopefully not damage it in the process. I mean, there'll be some interruption with it with the plantings just so we can get planting areas, but it's pretty small. So I don't think we need to worry about its stability. For those who are here with questions or concerns, I'm gonna turn it over in just a couple minutes so we can continue talking about this and anything else at that point too. And just a reminder that when you do have questions, the stand up mic, that way everybody can hear you. All right, so other questions from other board members? Okay, I have two that are coming to mind. One is more like a note than a concern. You mentioned six wheelie bins, three for recycling, three for rubbish. And depending on the ownership structure of this building, it may be required if there is a landlord for that person to provide composting. So as you're thinking ahead about the amount of space that needs to be taken up, composting may be a factor. And then I had a question about the bike parking, which is whether it's covered bike parking or whether it's just out in the elements. It's in the elements. Okay, we're not likely to require covered bike parking, but as a enthusiast, I would share that people are much more likely to bike if they have safe covered parking. But having a bike rack is an excellent, excellent first step and I commend the inclusion of that. And the, really helps people bike if there's shade from the elements. So just a note on that. We have had people come, and I am not sure on the full internal layout here, but if there is any kind of like basement storage for other units in there, or if the whole basement is all the one unit, I don't know. But sometimes that kind of internal storage for bikes or allowing that, sometimes that's helpful. You're welcome. I guess it is worthwhile to ask, will there be any sheds or storage on the property? Or for people's toys? It's a pretty narrow lot. We're making the best use of it. You are. Great. Okay. Just hear it. Thank you. All right. At this point, what I'd like to do is hear from folks who've got any questions or concerns. I'm going to, I think I'd like to start if she's available with Bethany. If she would like to speak. They will need to be sworn in. Oh, we've sworn. Yeah. We did. We swear. We swear. Okay. She came up. Yeah. Thank you. That's a good reminder. I do sometimes forget. So what we'll do at this point to allow people to be heard is please take two or three minutes and share any questions or concerns that you have or anything else that you just want further clarification on. Thank you. And please identify your name and your address. So Bethany, please go right ahead. Hi, my name is Bethany Pambar. I live at 73 North street. My property doesn't quite about this, but that's the lot that it was subdivided from. I actually was mostly just here to listen and hear about the plan a little bit more. My major concern right now is around drainage in that Southwest. So I'm going to go ahead and talk about that. My major concern right now is around drainage in that Southwest, whatever corner of that drain is in, as somebody who watches what the water does coming down off the hill. It actually, I'm worried about it needing to be piped without a pump back up to a higher level or level sewer and what pooling of water will happen in that corner. If there's not the right, I'm not an engineer. I do not know how water flows uphill, but it's not a good plan. So I think I'm mostly concerned about the adequacy of that drainage system that's in place because when it's not, when there's bad drainage and when there's a lot of water, we're seeing it cut down through the corner of those properties and create some erosion a long way. And I think the whole lot becomes a parking lot or a building. It's a small lot. I'm all for increasing housing in Montpelier. I'm worried about the impact on the neighboring lot around plowing and what the snow removal will be if that driveway butts the side of their property there. I don't know if that doesn't seem to be a DRV question maybe, but a concern registered. And I think those are the two things that really stand up for me right away. I think one of the questions that I have is around what kind of housing stock we want in Montpelier. And my assumption from this plan is that each level is a condo and that means that we have a basement condo in here and it doesn't seem to have much, much lighting. I'm just worried about, you know, what, who's, yeah, what kind of housing do we want in Montpelier? And that doesn't seem like the kind of housing that we're really striving for even though we do need housing. Okay. So I don't know if there's more information about the layout of the condos and the units within the condos and the mobility of those. Okay. Thanks. Thanks, Bethany. So I hear, I hear drainage, I hear plowing and I hear a little bit more about how the basement condo works and what its livability is like. And I think we're a small enough group that we can address those questions and then we can go on to whoever else wants to talk. So on the drainage, the ground slopes, but the pipe, the ground slopes up, the pipe slopes down. So by putting the, the new catch basin out on the street, obviously lower than the catch basin in the back property, we've got a 15 inch line, which is more than adequate for significant amounts of flow. So I don't see any issue with drainage both on the, from the property and nearby snow. Don, I'm sorry. Can I just clarify? When you say catch basin, you're, I, when I think of stormwater, I often think of the storm drain that we see at the surface of the road, but you're talking about a catch basin, which is like a concrete, a cast concrete thing that's underground. And that's how the pipe can go from the back of the property to the front, but slope down, right? The, the grate is merely the top of an entry way for the catch basin. The catch basin is typically a four foot diameter concrete structure underneath with a sump, with a pipe exiting it and with a sump underneath that pump. So sediment larger particles settle out in the, in the catch basin and can be pumped out. So then that pipe goes forward and hits a deeper storm drain up in the, up in the, up on, up on Ewing Street. Okay. Great. So that there is not going to be a pump at the back of this property. It needs to be maintained on rainy days to keep, like a basement, like we've experienced. Okay. Snow removal is a good point. What would typically happen here is that you would plow into the parking spaces and consume some of the space there. They're, they're 20, they're 18 foot parking spaces. So you can get some storage there, but ultimately snow will have to be removed and trucked off site, which is unfortunately typical of a, of an urban compact site. And then there are basement windows and the elevations that we provided. There are basement windows. So that's not, and as I said, it's sort of a split level that part of the basements, the basement floor is above grade. So there'll be windows. So natural light will come into that. I can share that. Yeah, well. Second to the bathroom you can see. This will be the, sorry, done. This is, this is about where the ceiling would be inside, right? For the basement. For the basement and then there. And there's windows here. And a window well. And a window well, so it gets just more light. And this is the front. So you step, you go here and step down to get into the door. Yes. And then you've got, sorry, had to let it load a little. It's not liking me right now. So you've got another window here. So that would be the west side. Two windows to the rear. Yes. And that's the south, but it's near a health. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And I would just say, I, I think they're really cool little units. I mean, it's about a thousand square feet for a two bedroom, one bath. Yeah. And I think it's exactly the kind of housing that we need. You know, what we'll see the market will determine who lives there if that people like them or not. But I think it's going to be really a beautiful addition and character with the neighborhood. Thanks. And that's it. I have one more thing I'd love to just add the tack on. Sure. One question that I forgot. Thank you. My other concern was about, and again, I don't know if there's anything that can be done about this, you know, development happens. Hill sides are disturbed, but there is a giant, two giant maples up on that hill that are, they're, you know, predominant in the neighborhood and very large and actually worried about their root system that comes down that hill and what, what that means for the health of these aged elderly trees that are on that hillside. Okay. Is there any, anything that can be done, precautions that can be taken around that, or is that just a potential? Well, I, I don't know the two trees specifically, but if you look at our site plan, only a very portion, very small portion of the retaining wall associated with the parking interferes with any of the tree line. And my sense is that those trees are back on the hill. And unless they're very close to the edge of the tree line, they should be, they should be safe. So Mayor, it's going to pull that up for us in the neighborhood screen in a sec. Folks will be able to see it while she's doing that. Could you sit, could you, I'm sorry, it's probably in the staff report, but can you give us a sense of the magnitude of disturbance on the over 30% slopes? I should disclose that I walked by the site today. I live, I live right nearby, though not adjacent. And eyeballing it, I didn't go on to the property. Eyeballing it from the, from the street. I couldn't quite tell how much there was, but maybe it's the corners staked out. I assume that was for the building footprint. So it made me want to ask, what is the magnitude of impact on over, over 30%? So let me ask you, answer one question first. And then, so if you look right to your left a little bit, right there, there's only a small portion of that. You see the tree line inside the retaining wall. So it's, it's less than five feet of the tree, tree line. Now, of course, there'll be some disturbance behind that in order to build the wall. So there'll be a little bit more disturbance, but not significant in the, in the tree line. And then the answer to the other question, if you could please put the slopes analysis plan on, we have the, we've calculated the, the impact. Oh, you know what, there it is. I want to go back to the tree, the tree question. It looks as if there are two trees that are impacted in the, in the property. Perhaps that's what Bethany's referring to. That one and that one. Oh, yeah. Yeah. That, that's impacted. Yes. And then there's one, actually, you're right way in the very back. Those two will lose. Those aren't the maples. I don't. Yeah, those are, I think those are smaller trees. They're pretty small. Okay. And then Kate, for your question, right here, Don, this is what you wanted to show, right? Yeah, I just can't read it. Yep. So it's 1,127.5 square feet is the area that this is just to be impacted, right? Yes. Don of 30% are greater slopes. And then you have a tiny bit of 25 to 29.99% slopes under 40 square feet. Same with the 20% to 24.99. That's under 60 square feet. The majority of the project over 6300 square feet is the basically, you know, 0.8% to 14.99% slopes. Great, great. Thanks for zooming in on that just to help us all wrap our heads around it, especially me. Appreciate it. And Claire has her hand raised. Okay. Yeah, go ahead, Claire. Yeah, I guess I have a question about the area on the site plan that we were looking at. But my question was in regard to parking and it looks like there's three parking spaces and it looks like they're all going to have to back out. No. And I was curious what that other area was for because it seemed like a car could kind of reverse into there and pull out forward. That's what we'd anticipate they would do. Back into that hammerhead and then drive out. So there is enough room. There's enough room for you to pull in and then reverse that 90 degrees and then pull out again? Clearly the last person in is going to get the one on the eastern side and it may be a four or five point turn instead of a three point turn. It's doable because the other, I believe it's, we've got about 15 feet in that hammerhead. So there's enough room to do it. The car that parts on the inside, they wouldn't have to kind of do some fancy turning to kind of pull, reverse and get out forward, right? I agree. That's the least desirable parking space. But then just my other question, I guess my comment was I think it's a nicely designed building. It looks architecturally and visually very nice and kind of nice and characterful. So I was curious just about maybe more of the maintenance question with the shedding off of that natural roof that seems like all the snow would go directly on that area where the bike rack and the garbage totes are. And so I guess just thinking kind of through kind of the maintenance and the snow plowing and getting all the snow out from the corners and that retaining wall. I'm not sure how much of that is kind of within our purview of our regulations, but I think those are kind of maybe some maintenance areas that I think it would be helpful to kind of just clarify and maybe consider how maybe the trash, I have a trash that sits on my side of my garage and it has a roof like that and it's a real pain to dig it out. And so I guess I just wouldn't want to see that being an issue where now those totes are being put in the parking area because that area hasn't been cleared. So I guess I'll just throw that out as kind of a consideration. I think it's a good point and it's probably best that the waste containers and recycling be put more on the actual rear of the building where we don't have the roof issue. But I think any, I mean some of these projects you have to sort of live with and work with it. I mean obviously you have to take care of the trash and you have to take care of the snow so it will become a maintenance item, but part of a project. Thanks for making note, Claire. So at this point I want to make sure we get to other folks who are here to speak. This has been a really good discussion and I think it can serve to answer a lot of concerns which is why I let it go on. But I would like to turn to the yourself and your address and thanks for your patience. Hi my name is Dylan Woodrow. I live at 81 North Street which is the abutting property just to the immediate west of Zero Ewing. I just had a few questions about the design plans, the ergonomics of the design and parking, etc. So if we could pull up the plans outlining I guess just the slope plan. And if you could scroll down to where it shows the access point of the driveways. Yes, thank you. So if we're looking at where the curb cut is there is a note and illustration indicating convert to grass. This is on my side of the driveway and that's going to cause if you can see that there. So that's going to end up being burdensome to both me and my tenants. I do have three others that live with me and pay rent. All young professionals here in the community. So I think that that is going to restrict access to the driveway for us as we turn in from the west side coming up Ewing from North Street. So I would ask that that be revised. I'm just going to get my bearings for your pointing that out. It says convert to grass at the access. Oh I see. Okay. I didn't understand what you were saying. Oh. Okay. So that's Currently it's an obtuse skirt at the curb cut and this would narrow it to the point where it would be difficult and burdensome for me and my tenants to access the drive. Yeah, I'm just wondering. Sorry. I know that in the subdivision approval there was a there was a plan to narrow what was the then existing driveway on the North Street parcel and that was a condition of the subdivision approval so that there was no more than a 24 width with shared curb cut here. So you might need to go back and maybe pre-existing to the plot that you own rather than something that's been added on in their design here. Did Don that convert to grass note on there, is that do you know where that is something that was in the subdivision? I'm trying to find that because we didn't I know we were advised that we could only have 24 feet and I'm not I have the findings from the original subdivision I don't I know it was a required 24 well we can discuss this some here if need be I can run downstairs to get a copy of the final subdivision plat from my files if need be. We have no desire to do any more improvements than we need to but we were trying to trying to comply with what was it 2019 approval yeah I'll still look at it maybe ask another question I'll try to find that answer sure thank you thanks for flagging it just continuing on with this this point here is there any room for the board to approve an exception to keep the width of the driveway as is or not include that that addition because that is going to be very burdensome for both me and my tenants feel like that would be a separate application or just or or we'd need to go well it's but not if that convert to grass is is something that is part of this application it's actually I didn't even notice that I thought that was something from the underlying subdivision flat so we need because we can't approve something for his right right right so if that's a change for your parcel I missed that that was being proposed for your parcel because you would have to have signed up on this application so that it sounds like one of the things we need to know if that is whether that's a existing note that was supposed to have been done no matter what or whether it got added on in this conversation thank you because I I I missed that completely but it's on your parcel yeah but it was a condition of it when this was I don't know if you remember if you're part of that conversation but what it was divided into two right before you bought it probably we looked at those driveways and wanted to make sure that it wasn't a great big wide driveway sure and I think that would have been one of the conditions of the subdivision permit right yeah we don't want it to be a huge parking lot yeah exactly but it's my understanding that it's only initial it's 12 feet of curb cut for each as the shared access point and then within that section it does state initial access to the drive I think that that's vague and I was wondering if the board could provide a clearer definition as to what initial access to the drive means how far from the access point down the drive is that access point shared like how soon can you widen it can you open it up no how soon can it be widened but how you know the the tenants of the this new development how how much access to that existing driveway do they have does that make sense so going from the curb cut down the length of the drive not width but length oh so how far back can they go correct into their new driveway right because part of the sub it said that in the subdivision but it was my attorney and I both found it vague so we're looking for a clear definition of that yeah fair I'd have to look back at the subdivision decision and I probably need my help to do that so I'm afraid I can't answer that right now how and why can I get more information on that they may interrupt the findings your decision of of 2019 doesn't have a condition but it says the department of public works has requested the total curb cut width for shared access not exceed 24 feet so that was what we were responding to um but you're right we don't want to do improvements on your parcel sure sure I believe what was prescribed or what was kind of detailed was that it would be was that there would be an extension up Ewing street of the drive I don't see that as necessary to the successful access of the entry point I think the problem was that the unless there is an agreement between the owners of the two parcels right for shared use each individual driveway needed to be at least 12 feet wide on the different parcels right the curb cut has to be a max of 24 feet once you get into the parcel the driveways could separate if need be um but this is this flows down from the Vermont transportation standard that we've had discussions with about recently when we had to talk about separating driveways um and so they're counted it's counted as a shared driveway because there is they're either part of the same gravel surface or there is less than 4 feet between them and really here this looks like it's considered to be a level surface is that right Don that this new driveway would be level with the one for 81 North Street I mean there's a slight slope but yeah slight slope but it's not like there's a change in greater everything they're currently connected right and they're about they're probably 34 feet um you know the whole things about 34 feet right so in order to meet the max of 24 we were saying that the neighbors have to reduce to 12 and then we get 12 it's basically what it amounts to right and so that was I believe hold on one second I'm going to the conditions um so there wasn't an explicit condition of approval on it but in the access analysis and I will say to do this right it might take us a little more time than scrolling through through this um but so I just want to give Mary a little breathing room so she's diving right in I think from our point of view we verbally amend our site plan to say that we'll have a 12 foot driveway um starting at the upper side and we won't address the parts of that are on our property I mean we can't I shouldn't have probably drawn that in other than that we're trying to represent what DPW or what DPW had requested with the last permit at issue so I am feeling like I need to run downstairs I don't know if we want to talk about this issue I don't know if we want to talk about other things first or take a break while I do that or what because I honestly I don't know if I am confusing that permit with a different one where we had somebody come in and they actually provided an updated plan that said that they would be adding curbing um yeah so let's um would you want a copy of that decision I have the decision right here I have it up but I need to go downstairs because after that decision before we issue the subdivision permit I almost think we might have gotten another document from the original property at the subdivision time are we able to touch on a few other points yes so um what I'd like to do is sort of set this issue aside for now this is why we're doing this is to raise these issues so this is the whole part of the process let's go through your other other thoughts and then we'll take a break Meredith will see what she can find if she can find it to resolve it we'll do what we can if she can't we'll take the time to get the additional information but yeah so please go ahead awesome okay so um my second point is is around um flooding and water collection and um Don thank you for providing a detailed explanation about um waterways and uh ways of mitigating flooding um that that area does accumulate a lot of water especially during the spring thaw um and during big storms that that is the drainage for the hill that is Ewing street um and so that piece of land um accumulates a lot of water and helps to disperse it down into the groundwater ways um and then there's also an irrigation trench that has been dug by both myself and the owner um Mike Stab of uh Three Ewing and so that's that's been maintained by myself and and the owner of Three Ewing um and so I see this um affecting that that drainage so I'm sorry the trench was installed on what property on the property we're discussing from Three Ewing uh across the the the property in the hill that we're discussing uh at the base of the steep slope um right at that joint between the base slope um and the rest of the lawn is a large swale that also helps to mitigate flooding um my basement is is primarily is is dry 90% of the time unless there is a lot of of um flooding and water and entering the area um and I've done a lot to to mitigate that um and so I do want to make sure that um you know I do I run a business out of that is primarily the operations are all down there um so you know I don't want to be in a situation where that's all um flooded out so I do want to make sure that there is adequate drainage for um and I think that the retaining wall will probably divert a lot of the water around and then down between my property and and Bethany's property so that's a concern um snowmobile and uh snow removal and storage um I think based on this it's going to be difficult to to do um particularly with three vehicles in the in the proposed development um I think that with the sloped roof and the vegetation plans underneath that sloped roof that there will be significant damage to the vegetation with snowfall and then um as far as screening goes I didn't see any screening uh as it pertains to to my side of the the lot um so I would like to see some screening uh around the parking area you mean landscaping uh landscaping plants to screen things or um this is on the 81 north side correct yeah there's there's it would have to be a fence there's no room to plant anything there and have it actually be on I see the new parcel right um screening instead of plants thank you screening yes just something to um you know keep the parking areas separate and and provide a little bit of privacy um let's also look at the previous permit for that um the the previous permit to the development for the new parcel which right now is zero viewing um needed to include the screening and landscaping proposal that would comply with that that that requirement under the subdivision requirement because we didn't you know the the the prior owner didn't know what was going to be done here um so so I'm sorry that falls on on which landowner uh so the the the the owner of zero viewing right now um because they're the ones coming forward with a development proposal their screening and landscaping proposal needs to comply with uh three five zero six um right which is really goes to similar things as what's in the landscaping and screening proposal that that's here but it does say that um it needs to uh maintain and provide consistency for adjoining property owners in between parcels enhance the appearance of street frontages um maintain or establish vegetated buffers along waterways and utilize green stormwater infrastructure practices those are the general standards so this is part of the um sorry uh design and layout of necessary improvements section 35 um right and so that's that is sort of a more general landscaping and screening standard but the reason we impose that the subdivision standard is because maybe somebody could have come with just a two unit development that wouldn't go through drb and wouldn't trigger site plan so but this is three units so it does trigger site plan so we have the very specific landscaping and screening standards sure sure so it's they're similar has a fence been flagged as a need or contemplated I haven't but that's where we have neighbors here absolutely good sure um we're gonna come we're gonna come back to that when we go through well maybe you want to say one more thing and then I'd like to hear from the applicant about yeah um yeah I you know I looking at the plans um I love the the types of vegetation that have been um recommended by the by the design applicant um perhaps we could accomplish two different things here protect the vegetation from snowfall off the roof by potentially sliding the vegetation over in between the two parcels allowing a little bit more driveway access more close a little bit closer to the building a little bit farther and just be able to use vegetation as screening in between the two properties um I'm a little reluctant to redesign the project on slide I hear you're just a recommendation for the designer so I'll let you there you go delivered delivered um I want to ask um Don Gabriel has has a fence to screen the parking or the driveway area been been contemplated and in in service of the um design and layout of necessary improvement standards I don't think there's any issue along that where the parking area is you know the reality is that subdivision was done with a shared driveway and so there's you know when it was done there wasn't a lot of privacy in that space so so certainly we can you know we'll do the best we can so if I could counter the uh subdivision uh prescribed shared access not a shared drive a shared curb cut right so that the beginning will be there there has to be that shared and then you can split if there's room but that does mean that if it starts there it's not like you can put the house on too far over to the right sure um but yeah nope that's a that's a good point it is the the beginning so what would prevent um tenants of zero from driving on my property part of the problem is your driveway is um um Gabe's property already so we have a little bit of an issue that your private driveway is um a lot too portions of it so we we maintain all vehicles um within my property line um just simply due to weather and and changes to you know water coming in and flooding out the driveway a little bit that's pushed some of the dirt from the driveway on to Gabe's property uh but we we keep all our vehicles on our property completely okay um um uh you know it it may be that the board and or the applicants need to consider some sort of shared driveway slash maintenance agreement at this point um and it's just a thought since that seems to be an issue right now that's coming up is the you know where the use is um allowed and and other aspects of it I don't know that's just a thought that's coming to mind um these driveways could also be better delineated from one another yeah they could be granite curbing or other things where the curbing would start would need to be run by the Department of Public Works because they would need it wouldn't be able to start at the property line it would need to be it definitely wouldn't be able to be in the public right of way um but there could be granite curbing to separate the driveways that would be a possibility with fencing further in um you wouldn't want fencing from the very beginning because you run into site line issues sure exactly um anything crazy or burdensome or costly I'm just looking for a little bit of screening and a little bit of definition around the shared access yeah so what I'd like to do is hear your last couple points get through those have a little break so that people can absorb things Meredith can do a little research people can stretch and then we'll come back after that so you've got a couple more items sure yep um I did want to make a note that um the tree the building will be um is a very very large mature maple um which was not described either in the the staff notes or the development application um so that that was left out um so I'd like to make a note of that there 15 inch maple so that's not that large it's pretty large it's a big tree but it does go away I'm just going to remind people that your comments are supposed to be directed at the board not at each other sure sure thanks okay noted bear with me just a moment um are there any questions from the board in the interim well well Dylan's going through his notes I do have a note here um so 310 B it indicates that there will be a low amount of trips for both properties um I wanted to know what constitutes low amount of trips I think it's less than 70 a day or something like that 30 10 yes um usually a traffic study is triggered when I'm not going to I'm not going to answer that by guessing I'm going to have to look it up to affirm I think v-trans standard is 70 trip ends but that's that's in the peak hour which it is a pretty significant project project like this the you know it manual would say I just did one about nine and a half trip ends per unit so um I mean and that's total day and it's I can't remember the number for peak hour because it didn't come up but I mean it's pretty pretty low so we're we're actually looking at those particular trip standards is subdivision and conditional use not using those standards those standards are here you know I think what when the department of public works reviewed this as I was saying they look at the v-trans standards to take a look themselves as to whether or not some additional like an additional um turning lane might be required or some other changes to the street to accommodate the amount of traffic right and so adding three units um doesn't in their preview doesn't add so much new traffic to that street that you need like a stoplight or stop sign or a new turning lane or something to deal with the traffic um and also doesn't necessarily create a traffic jam issue at that access point um whereas for some places if you're talking about you know an additional 20 units 40 units alright you're going to need a long driveway with room for people to maneuver so that if somebody's coming in somebody else can still get out maybe you need two access points but with three dwelling units they didn't feel like that was an issue I don't have the exact number that they asked but what they meant by low but sure thank you scale makes sense yes thank you thank you um one final uh point here is is um the solar efficiency of my home in the morning you know I rely on a lot of the solar heating from the sun to warm my home uh efficiently and I'm concerned that um the building 35 feet 34 feet high is going to obstruct that to a degree um which will be burdensome and costly to me in terms of efficiency for my home okay um do do we have the number uh the distance between the western the western wall of the new building and the eastern wall of of 81 north is that do we know what that distance is relative to the height of the of the buildings because I believe there's a formula there is a formula and I didn't see that it was specified or calculated do you have that um I don't have that number so the the section that it requires that we get the um the the standard is that proposed development shall not shade existing yards walls or roofs oriented within 15 degrees of truth south on a budding parcels and so maybe I just misunderstood the standard um so I was I'm not sure what was that nice part again 15 degrees of truth south so south of the parts of the building is behind it so I wasn't looking to the distance to the left but there is a standard um a way to to prove that is that show that the building height minus 25 feet and then divided by the distance between the building the property line equals hold on let me go back to the actual we're going to do that during the break we're not going to do that on the fly um any any final comments Dylan? I'm all set for now thank you okay thanks walking through it that's what we do the buildings are about um the closest point which is up in the northwest corner of the proposed building would be um about 34 feet from um from 81 North Street okay great alright um if it pleases the board um there you are on the screen um what what I would like to do is take a 10 minute break give Meredith a chance to do a little bit of research just enough research to determine if we can resolve this or not tonight um I don't want to spend too too much time on it um I just want to know if we can take a next step tonight or not uh when we reconvene in 10 minutes we'll have a better sense of that and can let folks know what we'll do to conclude this meeting or continue it um my phone is showing 8.59 let's return at 9.10 um we will be back in session at that time thanks see you see a chance to stretch to hydrate do what you needed to do I see some beverages very good very good um well thank you all for being willing to continue the conversation um I know sometimes this isn't necessarily a linear process but we try to make it a comprehensive one so thanks for being a part of that um what we're gonna do is hear from Meredith um on the issue of the and I would I would appreciate for the sake of people who haven't been in on this yet if you could even just back up and say two years ago this was this was et cetera um and so we know what what we're working with who is obligated to do what and what that allows us to decide tonight or not that's kind of where I'd like to get and then we'll go from there okay um so uh back in 2019 the subject parcel the zero ewing street was part of a subdivision where it was subdivided off from its neighbor 81 north street um and I'm gonna actually do a share screen and I'm also gonna read it um and the section 30 10 on access and circulation as part of that decision sorry you're gonna get there I'm excited that's okay um so the development review board decision on that subdivision under section 30 10 access and circulation um had some findings um and you know the the site plan shown as a potential development by applicant um showed a shared access point and two side by side driveways with each driveway on an individual parcel that does not mean that that is what has to happen for this proposal but it is the starting point the applicants went from um and the drb also found that there was ample plenty of room on this zero building street for a driveway um and the analysis was just for a single dwelling unit because that would be the minimum um um development future potential development for the parcel that doesn't mean that that's all that had to be planned for this parcel um the the big issue was the curb cut right um so there was a curb cut minimum distance requirement um as well as the department of public work saying that a total curb cut width for this shared access of what is now 81 north and what we're calling zero ewing street it couldn't be more than 24 feet in width um this comes from a v-trans standard that says that the maximum width for residential driveways is 24 feet um so that's as wide as the development as wide as dpw would approve for their construction and access permit so it doesn't make any sense for zoning to approve something wider if dpw won't approve it because in the project there'd be a conflict um and we try to avoid those hearing about pillar and make sure that we aren't approving something that a different department won't approve um so the what was discussed was the applicant doing the situation where each parcel would have rights to at least 12 feet of the proposed curb cut and the initial section of the driveway right um that's why in the subdivision approval we didn't require there be some sort of easement as part of the subdivision approval um there's there was no additional plan filed as part of this permit approval I went down and looked and unfortunately I was confusing it with something else um we've had I've been here for three years and that amount of time I've seen locks um so what that means is that the the applicant in this case for our current application sorry I meant to scroll down so this this is where the board actually made their final finding on this um that basically said that the board could approve the subdivision because there is a way for each of the parcels so what's now 81 North Street and zero Ewing to each get 12 feet of independently owned access there's a way to do it it didn't approve the specific way it was done that's what our current application has to show that there's a way to do it um and that the anybody any changes being made have to have to meet that 24 foot curb cut width um and you know the as a shared driveway if it does become a shared curb cut there is still the requirement that it meets 30 10 minimum distancing requirements if needed and I think I addressed that in the staff report um so unfortunately and I missed this in the application packet you know the the current applicants can't narrow the other person's driveway without them signing on to it so we do have to figure out some way to get that no more than 24 with curb cut point and still have 12 feet of driveway for zero Ewing um whether that's through an easement where there is part of an actual shared driveway or an agreement to narrow it's I don't think it's our problem if you look at the findings up above there um the applicant in this case a little higher is that on or off that's up to yeah it's on yes they're saying it is I don't control the microphone they do just make sure you've got the microphone closed please go up a couple more a couple more okay so E reads applicant proposes by adding seven feet of curving on the downhill side existing curb cut and infilling with grass behind so that's what we represented even though it's not someone else's land we represented what the permit had combined permit had okay so all we're asking is look to 12 feet on our side of the property line that's it that's all we can control but we we then we profiled our obligation of having only 12 feet and we aren't responsible for any compliance issues on the other line mhm right so that would be back to the meeting minutes which I actually didn't go all the way through but yes I see what that I missed that in looking at the decision yeah I'm going to let board members chime in for a minute but you're welcome to stand and stretch your legs and be ready to go watch the viewpoint of one member is actually you know it is recorded that language is recorded in the land records by the owner at the time and there's like perfect rights or not or what's proposed maybe that's the discussion between the two property owners but from a zoning perspective I think that what is being proposed here is quite clear and you know we recorded the land records before and you know it's going forward so I think we kind of beat this beat this point pretty well. Thanks Rob and before you chime in I'm going to turn to see if there are comments from any other board members or questions from any other board members. No I just I completely agree with Rob in this. Thank you Kevin. Did I see Abby unmuted? No. That was that is a finding of the decision that applicant proposes and this is the decision for the subdivision that originally created this year during the lot so that applicant proposes adding that seven feet of curbing that's what I was thinking of but I thought there was a plan that was submitted post decision but that wasn't down there. The plat didn't include this level of detail. The plat didn't need to show this so it was something. It didn't need to show the driveway either. So the subdivision plat the plat only has to show what was recorded as the final plat shows the boundaries and where existing things are right but this is saying that the then current owner of 81 North as a con of what he said he was going to do as part of the whole process was adding that seven feet of curbing and infilling with grass behind the new curbing so that the access on 81 North Street was going to be 12 feet wide and was going to comply with the agreement and so that was right that was a finding of fact which means it's something he said he would do we didn't have to put it in as a condition per se prior to issuance of the permit thanks for working through this with us this is a unique situation we are figuring it out did you have a question or a clarification yes so I have a very simple solution that I see is to just not do anything with the curb cut because that would avoid the burdensome obstruction of access and circulation for me and I see it as a buffer means of developing this property by not having to cut any curb or do any infill so I think it could be a win-win I don't know what the applicant and engineer have to say to that but are you suggesting something that would be angled onto their property using the existing curb cut so that the wider portion of your driveway could remain exactly when I own the piece of land I would say it was very easy to access just by the flow driving from Ewing into the access point and then onto that piece of land it was very easy and I see that as being the most ergonomic way to allow access and circulation I see what you mean I think that usually in our design standards we try to go perpendicular and not create things that are even if they're ergonomic they're difficult we don't want to create nonconformities what you're talking about would require an easement that would have to be agreed to by both parties and I'm concerned that it would not meet the finding of fact that was represented as fact by the seller that was from the subdivision so it would be contrary to what the permit says it's supposed to be taking place on those two parcels it would lead to us issuing a permit for zero Ewing that is does not comport with a previous permit we issued from this body so I appreciate the brainstorm that's a reflection on it but if it can prevent a burdensome situation so I'm going to interrupt you there you've mentioned a burdensome situation you have four tenants presumably with four vehicles in your home what is the burdensome situation is it a multifamily house is it a single family home because I'm trying to contextualize what the expectations are it's a single family home and I rent out rooms where the proposed infill is is directly where we would enter and drive on to our drive and so that would make it difficult for us to get in there from the western side of Ewing from North Street I just see it as an added cost and if this can be negotiated and worked out between the two parties I don't see why it would be an issue if it can make life easier for everybody okay thanks thanks for your thoughts what's the pleasure of the board at this point I feel like we need to glance through the staff report and we need to confirm that we have enough information to make findings on other issues and then we need to make a decision about whether we're going to deliberate this evening or whether we need more information to to reach a decision what's the pleasure of the board to bring the the the lateness of the hour it's now after nine o'clock which certainly is not the latest we've gone on here but I'm of the opinion that it would be best to deliberate and get more information specific information as to the design and not render a decision this evening so deliberate means that we will talk but not vote that would require continuing the hearing to October 4th in order to do further research in the zoning office I think we need to be clear if we go this route I think we also need to be clear as to the information we ask from the applicant to make sure that we're not just going to find ourselves in a similar situation next time and I'm not willing to ask the applicant and the neighbors to negotiate on the fly tonight or redesign the project I don't think any of this issue about his driveway is not on our land we show it graphically any changes I don't think that's an unreasonable burden to ask us to go back to them we have their address I don't think it's an issue that needs to be decided we have a 12-foot driveway we have access it's legal and it's the way to be done with the firm I'm not suggesting that you redesign to comply with something that's external to your lot but I'm going to ask Kevin and I'd like to hear from others to what additional at this point the board is going to deliberate if you want to have a seat what additional information would allow you to make a decision on this issue that we do not have tonight I wonder if Rob would like to chime in I'd be interested to hear what you have to say Rob about the driveway issue the whole thing the whole project is here the drainage that needs to be addressed tonight maybe more information I'm unsure whether those are to be addressed with public works or whether those should be presented back to the board I think I'm more often here where especially where we have an interested neighbor that's concerned about drainage that we just address this issue outside of a public meeting so I guess at this point all I have is a few more questions about the drainage just to see whether a new plan needs to be submitted or they could be addressed tonight so that's how I feel maybe we can talk a little bit more about the drainage I want to get a read from other members what additional information do you feel you need to go ahead really touched on the screen was brought up between the two properties I didn't track whether that is something that needs to be required or not but if it is then we need to be clear about that and I think see it in the next round of drawings and then also outdoor lighting we needed information on that on the applicant I think it would be best but in this moment in this late hour where we want to have additional information and additional conversations and we clear about that with the applicant with the expectation that we'll come back and do that information to be able to deliberate both I heard from Rob there's interest in talking about drainage which we may be able to do tonight Abby you want to understand better the screening requirements as well as outdoor lighting I would note that early on we talked about outdoor lighting and it was going to be a proposal was to have a plan professionally designed lighting plan submitted as a condition of approval but it is the board's prerogative to have that plan come before the board to be evaluated other outstanding questions from board members oh sorry go ahead I didn't mean to cut you off go ahead Catherine second week or second meeting so it's still getting a few processes but I would reiterate that it would be helpful in general to have more information on the drainage plans so Claire or Kevin anything else you'd like to no I Claire just unmuted oh alright Claire you just unmuted yeah I was just going to go back through the report and just kind of scrolling through see kind of all the places where they were kind of the red text looking like around the the slope and the retaining wall and while it looks like that is fairly straightforward I just have a little bit of hesitancy of us like closing the hearing without having that discussion in case there was something around that so I don't have anything specific on it but I would just need to see how it gets to a place where we gotten some more information on it okay so I think I'm hearing you say you'd like to be able to walk through the standards for steep slopes in 30.07 and just do that process yeah yeah alright so it is 9.30 I yes can you put the microphone towards you so just with regards to the screening whenever we get the report if you could cite whatever the specific compliance requirements are we're going to have good relationships with our neighbor but just in terms of what needs to be done for the process yes I think that's a fair question what needs to be done to meet the regulations and issue the permit because often in a process there are things that come up that are desirable but perhaps not required for the permit and we do need to make a distinction that is fair so I don't want to rush and I don't want to drag you into the night so I'm walking that line here I think something we can do as a board tonight if there is an appetite is to ask additional questions about the screening and walk through the slope the steep slopes criteria we could also do that in a subsequent meeting regarding the driveway I didn't hear anyone identify specific information that they need in order to make a decision about that driveway issue whether as far as board members are concerned anyway whether it's additional information if you need to study the subdivision decision to if you want Meredith to talk with the planning director I'm not hearing from board members what precisely more you want to know about the driveway so I'd love to know more about that because if we do send participants away we want to know what we're coming back to and what is required so basically do any board members need more information about the driveway that was a more direct way of putting it yes oh you know property owners to determine if there is a solution and that needs both their needs and if that and if they're able to do that then I would like to see that in the in updated drawing so you're saying you'd like to see that discussion take place before we make a decision about the permit reach an agreement in an updated drawing and they discuss and they can't then let us know that as well yeah Gabriel I know this probably isn't your main is your regulatory body trying to make sure we're compliant I can't hear can you hear don't do that just make sure you're talking right into the microphone it should have been on the whole time it was all set up yeah is it going through no he turned it off so can you hear me now and again it may not be your man to your situation but just we may or may not agree on every single piece of this but there are a number of trades people in the area that have this scheduled to be doing work this fall and into the winter and so if we don't get it approved by the next we probably won't be doing it until the spring so just know there are folks that have this scheduled in to their process and if we are in compliance with the regulations it would be good to have an approval thank you I'm always glad to hear about the real world implications of what we're doing that's fair even if we don't have a standard here in the book that says trades people yes or no thank you for mentioning it so I'm wondering if if it would be helpful to the board to have me take the prior subdivision decision and that clause about the then owner of 81 North Street narrowing the access point on his side and take that to the city attorneys and if an opinion from that on that and how binding that is on subsequent property owners would be to the board if that would be helpful or not I think it could save time in the long run thank you then we're setting a pretty hard process yeah alright so Meredith I would appreciate that so board and others involved we have the option to talk more about drainage and slope or given that we're going to continue the hearing so long as it passes by motion we could talk about those things another evening when another evening it's I'd like to defer if there's any chance that Rob could identify his concerns if we can't answer him now or maybe we don't even need to answer him now but if we understand them then we either know we can answer them yes thank you that's a good suggestion so Rob if you could talk about your drainage concerns and then I'll have Catherine can ask any follow on questions that relate to drainage so we've heard about the way the water will flow toward the back of the property and then it will be drained toward a catchment on Ewing street we've heard concerns about the role that this piece of water currently plays at the bottom of Ewing street and how that supports 81 North street as well as 80 I'm sorry, Bethany's property I don't have the number handy and we want to understand so that's what we've heard so far we've heard about how the water on the site will be taken care of as well as feedback from neighbors about the role that the site plays in the overall hydrology so Rob could you yeah, thanks so could someone overall the erosion EPSC plan for the application yeah that's it so starting at the starting at Ewing street you know going down the driveway you know obviously it's quite flat you're not proposing to change the drain much you you know you go halfway down the driveway you have a 3% with an arrow flowing towards Ewing street and so I just I'm confused as to what's that representing in slope is that the drain or is that the slope of the driveway or what is the slope of the driveway the slope of the driveway is a 3% slope going Ewing street so the water so there's a point in the driveway that's draining to the back a lot versus how it goes to Ewing street actually no it yeah there'll be a slight rise maybe but I mean the rim with the catch basin in the very rear is 568 and the the contour at the front of the building is 566 and then we're at then basically flat out to the street um sorry can I chime in with something that I think will help yeah um that catch basin though in the corner is also to gather stuff that's coming from the sorry east right Don because you've got the 5 68.5 here at the end of the turnaround and the 568.3 low point in that parking so it's sloping east to west as well as south to north right and so that's one reason you've got that catch basin in that corner to catch that stuff and I think that was one of dpw's questions as well is to see exactly how that was graded there in the corner to make sure it actually caught the stuff coming from the east going downhill yeah I know and it might be just clarifying that for dpw and the other dpw wanted us to get the front catch basin out of there right away which we can do easily so move that all the way back behind this that line one piece of it thank you sorry I'm going to stop share so we can see people yeah so go ahead Rob I mean I just 30% seems like a pretty steep slope over what 3% is 3 feet over 100 feet is that correct yes so that's a 3 feet from the back from one south end of the driveway so it would be one foot though right because if the driveway is 34 feet divided all by 3 no the driveways 50 60 70 it's almost it's probably 90 feet long it's only a two and a half grade at the road is 566 grade at the back is 568 so we're only two and a half two feet from one end of the other oh I guess I see how you're filling in actually slopes down there now and you're filling in all the way up to the front of the building I see that now that's what I needed there is a very steep slope at the front of the lot let's catch that in just a second so my last concern is how maybe this is less of a concern but just it seems like with the gravel driveway you know the base of the wall there like over time you need to be some maintenance for sort of like excavating out the flitter and you know extra sediment or what not that is going to end up like at the bottom of that wall slowly raising that elevation over over over time so maybe that maintenance is something that's just okay to have but just you look at the concern there we're going to have a sort of a collection point of sediment and debris down there no disagreement thanks Rob I'm going to very brief comment from Dylan and then give Catherine a chance to follow on questions about drainage you're remarking on the slope between the Ewing Street and the parcel yes thanks Kate so running parallel with the Ewing Street starts a slope up very steeply very quickly moving from Ewing Street from the front to the back of the lot so from north to south immediately in front of that Ewing Street is a very steep slope between three and I think probably three and five feet and it gets steeper going going up the street gets taller the slope there and so that might cause additional issues there we just heard and saw in this report that at the street right away it's 568 and then closer to the front of the building it's too steep so we're talking about a two foot grade at least on the western side or a two foot drop at least on the western side of the property it's almost like a bowl shape so there is that dip okay thanks Catherine if you're available did you want to have any follow on questions about the drainage I'm here I don't need any additional questions okay all right thanks and you are allowed to be off camera I didn't mean to pick on you there so I've got allergies so I'm turning off the camera oh gosh we understand we understand okay great so I think that covers drainage are there any further questions from board members about drainage okay I guess the last point is that drainage or screening or whatever there's a certain section of the driveway from the end of the well north street part of the driveway to the retaining wall which maybe is before the cops recently about screening there but potentially some curving or something something there to prevent a skid there in order to be pooling or forming or something like that down against that wall where that storm frame filling up so that the water does not end up going on a neighboring property I think it's just maybe a consideration to make but I don't have a specific solution so I'm going to give them on based on what we've heard about the description of the slope that it slopes west to east as well as south to north east to west east to west that makes more sense because that's downhill east to west and south to north okay alright thanks nevermind I see what you mean but the catchment or the catch basin so something to prevent water from from pooling at the catch basin and overflowing towards 81 north street is that what you're talking about Rob? yeah yes yes I'll never just see that in ten years that could be an issue um giving you outstanding questions on the driveway I'm not prepared to talk about granite curbing or anything like that to be a little further down the road um alright board members the other outstanding thing that I think could be dealt with tonight is going through the slope criteria what's the pleasure of the board and you know to Don's earlier point if they're outstanding questions you'd like to have the opportunity to figure them out between now and next time um Claire I think you mentioned about slopes are there specific questions you have about the slopes criteria or were you just wanting to make sure we do an adequate review of those yeah I think um I guess one of the reasons one of the reasons this came to the DRV was because of this one right so I think it would be helpful for us to go through that as that's kind of what I see as one of our main tasks but as a side note I just wanted to make a note that on the page 3 which I think is different from the page numbering of the packet just the procedural status on number 4 I think this needs to be corrected or revised sorry I don't know if you're going to use this in the basis of the decision but I just thought that would be a point of note but yeah I just think it would be kind of for us to do our due diligence on the prime reason it came to us was to go through these items not in particular states but I don't know if Meredith or Kate you want to still walk us through the areas that were highlighted by staff on this area so I would like to do that I will beg your indulgence for another 10 or 15 minutes to do this so that if there is anything outstanding it is known staff report suggests that there may not be so this is going to be a board discussion about that so we will walk through them we're looking at page 6 of the staff report and 3007 is what we look at when land over 30% of slope will be disturbed there are design standards that we need to ensure our met when it comes to the disturbance of this land and as we were talking about earlier we talked about the magnitude of disturbance over 30% being in the neighborhood of 1100 square feet of disturbance and you've seen the diagram so with that in mind let's go I'm just going to read them the development must be designed to limit the amount of disturbance clearing of existing natural vegetation on the surface in order to minimize potential for erosion storm water runoff flooding and water quality impairment so we have heard about the addition of so we're talking about the development on the slope not the site as a whole the development on the slopes that triggers 3007 thank you so minimal existing natural vegetation other than grass is disturbed by the project on the slopey part itself could you describe the disturbance of vegetation on the slope area if you look at the site plan or either plan that shows the existing tree line we talked about before that the eastern most parking space and the wall associated with it bumps into that area and then of course as we said there will be some disturbance behind the wall to build the wall and all of that is within greater than 30% but we have an erosion control plan I think it's the only way to have parking is to do it there short of trying to put parking underneath the building 12 feet higher and cause all sorts of other issues we think it's not unregional we think that the amount of disturbance and performed in accordance with the erosion control plan will not have an adverse impact on water quality public health or the environment and it is a relatively limited amount of disturbance at 1100 square feet okay let's just go through the board members I'm going to count on you to chime in if there's something specific you want to know more about I'm not going to ask each time preserve distinctive natural features the general topography of the site and the existing natural vegetation this appears to be the case maintain or reduce the pre-existing rate and retain the pattern of stormwater runoff leaving the property again this pertains to the 30% disturbance it pertains to the whole site but it's context so the stormwater runoff leaving the property overland should be reduced overall so that suggests that this disturbance of 30% or more does not cause new cause issues with stormwater leaving the property produce a final grade that is compatible with the surrounding natural terrain with the addition of the walls and kind of a stepwise way as opposed to terracing or a big big tall wall create a harmonious transition between graded slopes and the natural terrain avoid creating continuous unbroken slopes or linear slopes contour graded slopes by varying the slope increment to produce a final grade that undulates both vertically and horizontally vary cut and fill banks and terraces to produce a final grade that has visual interest and allows for naturalistic landscaping consider the use of retaining walls and terracing rather than cut and fill banks vary the pad elevations on sites there's only one structure provide roads and drives that follow existing contours use compact building forms that are multi-story buildings to minimize building footprint structure is multi-story use split or multi-level building forms to step up or down the slope not relevant in this in this condition or in this scenario so I went through that quickly but I wanted to read them specifically so that we know the detail that we're looking at as we talk about this 1100 feet of disturbance so I'll pause there for board members to comment yay, nay, question other another way I'll ask that is do folks need any additional information to determine that this section of the zoning by-law has been adhered to question on the detail there was a fence that was on top of the retaining wall does there even be a fence on top of the retaining wall yes, it would be probably a black metal relp fence that's a safety requirement if you have anything over 30 inches you really need to keep people from falling over the wall so the answer is yes and is that included in the eight and a quarter feet or is that additional that would be in addition to that I missed that, thank you Claire and typically it's 36 to 42 inches would be the and the other thing I just wanted if I may is that one alternative with this would be to do a large cut and fill on that bank and we could meet the criteria and have gentle slopes but it would be a significant increase in disturbance in the 30% slopes but it would be a lot cheaper than doing the wall so I think we've tried to minimize the disturbance at some cost to the applicant thank you for noting that and I realize cost isn't a factor but it is in reality we've agreed to talk about pragmatism we've agreed to talk about reality this evening which is a good thing I have a quick question did you say that it would be it would be cheaper to remove more and not do the wall? Yes significantly and so the wall is the recommendation or the direction in which the zoning kind of leads applicants due to the trade off of remove less yes exactly and as Kate had said specifically mentioned as retaining walls as being one of the options so the ordinance directed that direction toward that option interesting aesthetically I think that area would be better with power wall I agree I guess I was just trying to understand the direction of it that's going to be an 8 foot wall right more than an 8 foot wall with a fence on top of it and thinking about what looks more natural what might potentially I don't know I'm not a hydrologist of what that does for a stormwater runoff and maybe this is a topic to put out there for a generation aside from our discussion this evening but just aesthetically I feel like a more naturalistic look would be more of a vegetated grade than a solid construction of an 8 foot wall thanks Claire I think our job is mostly to evaluate what's before us I hear your feedback as well it's good that this has come up I want to clarify I don't think the board is asking the applicant to redesign no it's on our job it's a discussion that if the board wanted to have it a little bit more during the continued hearing about their thoughts on the policy choices that the planning commission made and the city council on adopting these regs might be something to discuss at some point but there's definitely a preference in section 3007 to reduce the area of disturbance on steep slopes that is a the way the regulations point applicants the good news is the regulations were rewritten in the last couple of years to allow for development in 30 percent slopes at least it's better now than it was in January 2018 that first edition was it's not going to work so as folks we've had some good conversation there's been some hard work done tonight with a lot of important questions raised which I really appreciate I feel like having gone through now the drainage and the slope we have daylighted what needs to be daylighted on those areas so they won't be looming for next time I think we still need to talk more about the exact requirements as they pertain to screening and I'm not just talking about landscaping but screening for example of the parking area and we need some legal counsel on the applicability of the finding in the subdivision permit for these parcels before we can say with the confidence we want to say that we can approve the proposal so I believe that is where we find ourselves I would entertain a motion to continue this hearing to October 4th I'll make that motion to continue this public hearing until October 4th so a motion by Kevin is there a second second second by Rob I'm going to call the roll Abby Claire yes Catherine yes Rob yes so we have continued this hearing to two weeks from this evening same time, same place and I thank you all very much for going through this and working through this because it is work and I look forward to continuing the conversation and I will be in the office tomorrow and Meredith will be in the office tomorrow and it looks like a very interesting development thank you great so lost my agenda I have a feeling toward the end of it the other business that our next meeting is October 4th 2021 pending DRB input you got the DRB input we're going to meet this will be the only matter this will be it we have a question this was going to be your last meeting I'm going to continue for another meeting or two I want to serve this board and see it through to a really good stopping point considering how long we've been that's a very generous thing that you're doing thank you Dylan, nice to meet you I just wanted to check since we're continuing a hearing that you've been tearing I'd like to help out with this one I was getting a little nervous because I might actually be out of town I'll definitely be here and then we'll I would ask you each to find one lucky person who you could invite to apply to be on the DRB and join the fun we're looking for good people listen Kate everybody I know has served on this board already well then you're hanging out with the right people alright is there a motion to adjourn motion by Rob is there a second second from Abby I'll call the roll Abby Claire Kevin Catherine Rob and I vote yes as well we are adjourned thank you all very very much