 Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the June 15th meeting of the Montpelier Development Review Board. I'd like to call the meeting to order. My name is Kate McCarthy. I'm the chair of the DRB, and I'm going to go through a list and introduce the others here who are on the DRB and supporting its work tonight. Please raise your hand when I say your name. We have with us board members, RJ Adler. Roger Krantz can pipe up by phone. He is here by phone, I believe. That's right. Thank you, Roger. Welcome. Rob Goodwin. Joe Kiernis. Michael Lazarak is here by phone. Yep, president. Jean Leon. Hi, Jean. Kevin O'Connell is our vice chair. Claire Rock is a DRB alternate. Hello, Claire. Welcome. We're supported by Meredith Crandall, who you all know and appreciate as I do. Mike Miller, our Zoom moderator, planning director for the city. And then Tammy Furry is the recording secretary for the DRB. Thank you, Tammy. All right. So I'll turn it over now to Meredith, who will describe the mechanics of our online process for those, particularly for those who may be watching on ORCA. Thank you. So this is a lot for public who might be out there and watching via ORCA and not actually on the meeting, especially for and also for those who are on a remote DRB meeting for the first time. So due to state of emergency declared by Governor Scott as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and pursuant to addendum six to executive order 01-20 and act 92, the development review board is authorized to meet electronically in accordance with act 92. There is no physical location to observe and listen contemporaneously to this meeting. However, in accordance with the temporary amendments to that open meeting law, the development review board is providing public access to this meeting by hosting a video conference meeting, including both video and telephone access options via the Zoom platform. All members of the development review board have the ability to communicate at the same time during this meeting through this platform and the public has access to listen and if desired participate in this meeting in real time. So if you're home and watching via ORCA and you decide that you want to participate, you can either use this link, you can just plug it right into your browser and access the Zoom meeting or you can also call in this phone number 929-205-6099 and use the meeting ID password that's listed here and I'm sorry, meeting ID and then the password. We did give notice to the public previously on this access information via posting of the agenda. Instructions are also on the city's website, depending on applications for public hearings page that you can find through the agendas and meetings page or through the Department of Planning and Community Development. If anybody has a problem accessing the meeting, please email the meeting moderator, Mike Miller at mmillermontpillier-bt.org. Further, if anyone is on the meeting in the Zoom platform and you're having problems or you have a question is how to do something, you may message Mike through the chat function in Zoom. I'm gonna leave this information up as I discussed the last few bits about participating in the meeting. So once you're logged in, you should have an opportunity to tell the moderator which applications you wish to comment on. I think I know everybody who's on right now. Yeah, I don't think anybody knew has come in. And so when the chair announces that the time for public comment on a particular application arrives, the moderator will unmute members of the public based on the order that you submit your intent to speak. And then if you're interested in speaking and you didn't say that you would like to speak previously, you can raise your hand if you're in the video version of Zoom or you can unmute yourself and state your name. And city staff will add you to the queue of those ready to talk. Once the chair has recognized you to participate at a particular time, the moderator will unmute your microphone to confirm that you can be heard, or you can unmute it yourself. That seems to be the way things are working a lot lately. And then you're free to provide your questions or comments. Please aim to keep them to two minutes at the initial comment period. Members will have the opportunity to respond or ask questions of you. An applicant may also have an opportunity to respond. The chair may grant additional time for speakers to have followed questions or comments. After you finish speaking, either mute your microphone yourself or it will be muted for you. This helps prevent feedback and background noise that disturbs the meeting. The chair will then move on to the next person. If in the event the public is unable to access the meeting, it will be continued to a time and place certain. And please note that all votes taken during this meeting will be done by a roll call vote. I'm going to hand it back over to Kate. Thanks, Marietta. All right, speaking of votes taken by roll call, the next item on our agenda is to approve the agenda. Do I have a motion to approve the agenda as printed? Motion by RJ? Second? Second. Second by Kevin. I'm going to go through your name and say your name. RJ? Yes, Roger? Yes. Rob? Yes. Joe? Yes. Michael? Yes. Gene? Yes. Kevin? Yeah. Claire? Yes. And I also vote yes. We have an agenda. Thank you very much. Claire, could I just make one small clerical point just for your own records? Your number eight on your review of the minute meetings, I think you mean May 18th, 2020? This is February. It actually is February. There was not a myth in getting approved previously. We had a big, long gap. So those are actually February 18th minutes. I did miss a zero in 2020 because of February. Okay, I thought that was referring to our meeting. So I'm sorry. Those got approved at the last meeting. Okay. Thank you. All right, so comments for the chair. Well, the first thing I'd like to note is that this will be RJ's last meeting with us, I believe. RJ, you've been great for the brief time that we've had you with us, and we congratulate you on moving on to the next step. Thanks for jumping right in while living in Montpelier and supporting this board and its work. I really appreciate it. Thanks, folks. I'm about to purchase a house in Berlin. So I didn't know that was going to happen or else I wouldn't put everyone through having a short term member on the board. But I learned a lot and I had a lot of fun and I'm sorry to leave. Thanks, RJ. It's good to meet you. At least on video. Maybe someday we'll meet in person. All right. So also under comments for the chair, I'd just like to make a few remarks as we get underway. I want to first thank everybody for who's been taking time, a lot of time, and to invest in their projects and invest in these meetings. And I use the word investment very intentionally because I know projects are a lot of real work and so are these meetings. I also know that everybody's really dealing with quite a lot right now. We all have a lot going on in different dimensions of our lives and we're all doing our best. And as we get underway tonight, I just want to remind people again that this is a quasi judicial process. It's not a courtroom. And furthermore, it's a process that's overseen by volunteers who are doing their best to strike a balance between the needs and desires of people investing in our community, which we of course appreciate and need and the rights and interests of the butters. And at the end of the day, the requirements of our zoning bylaw, which is the filter, the guide that we ultimately use to make sure that we can strike this balance. So as we get underway, I'm going to ask people to bear with us as we work to do our jobs or volunteer jobs. And please do be patient if we err on the side of process in order to avoid excluding anyone. I do appreciate your help and courtesy as we all find our way in the time where we are. So thank you. So the next side of my agenda is the continuation of 105 State Street. And with that, it is continued here. And it's here before us with a new site design and circulation proposal and response to our comments at the end of the last meeting on June 1. So I will note that the building remains largely the same. So Meredith, could you please review the status of the application and identify some of the main changes, the application and the main outstanding questions? Um, so this is I mean, some of this is going to be repeat for those of you who've been here, but I want to make sure that anybody who's viewing your orca is aware of what's going on in a little bit of background. I'm not going to go through the whole thing. So 105 State Street, you know, applicant is seeking major site plan approval for a new three story building with a with commercial uses, including conditional use of a drive up bank teller and ATM at the rear of the building and a new curb pet for vehicles that deals with Governor Davis. And this new design, this is now a where vehicles enter the drive through for the ATM and bank teller. So the subject parcel is located urban center one zoning district, as well as the design control district or anybody looking from home. This is important because there are multiple specific things for urban center one, like the fact that setbacks are at zero feet, they can build right to the property line. And because this went through design review, the development review board doesn't have to look at the separate site plan design standards. So the public hearing on this application opened on May 18 was then continued to June 1. And is it continuing again this evening? At the end of the June 1 meeting after a deliberative session, the board indicated that it couldn't approve the original application is presented due to a failure to comply with section 3010 vehicle access and circulation requirements. Specifically, the requirement for adequate access and circulation to prevent traffic congestion on the street and traffic conflicts, including service vehicles, passenger vehicles, parking, drive through lanes, bicyclists, pedestrians within the site, quote, this is section 3010 subsection B. For the board of particular concern, potential vehicle and pedestrian conflicts between vehicles leaving the previously proposed ADA parking space and pedestrians on the sidewalk along State Street, and also internal vehicle circulation issues given possibilities for parked vehicles on their original site plan needing to turn around in the adjacent rate of way. And so applicant redesign their proposal to address these issues, as seen starting on page 138 of the meeting packet. This first page is a June 12 email from engineer Brian Lane Karnas following that is the actual redesign site plan. So that shows on page 141. So staff and personnel from the Department of Public Works, Tom McCartle and Corey line have reviewed the redesign comments from them and the city's planning director can be viewed on further pages within that meeting packet will pull these up on the share screen is needed. Really, there's two major issues remaining that I have spotted from this redesign. The original whether this redesign complies with the section 3010 issues that the board raised previously. And then also whether the redesign drive through which has an ATM kiosk versus being an ATM flush inside the building meets the special use standards of section 3115 and the conditional use standards. Kate, I don't know if you know there's there's stuff in the staff report and other, you know, potential staff suggestions that are in there. But I think this might be a good place to stop. That's okay with you. It is. I think our focus tonight is going to be on the things that have changed substantially and we will not spend much time on those that have not because it's been pretty thoroughly bedded in our previous conversations. So thanks, Mary. Is there anything else you wanted to add before we move on? I think so there's one little side comment that I did get from the Tom McCartle from the Department of Public Works that came in late this afternoon. That's something that Brian Lankarnis may need to address. But it's kind of minor. So I throw it out now or wait till we're getting into the specifics of the redesign. But let's throw it out now so that when the applicant provides the new site plan that can be integrated or answered if appropriate. Perfect. So Tom said quote, it would be advisable for the applicant to meet the pedestrian access route. So this is PAR standard from the US Access Board for the public right-of-way when it comes to the redesigned sidewalk adjacent to the ADA access space. So it's advisable. It's not something that has to happen under the zoning regulations. But that PAR standard is for that to be a four foot width sidewalk. And I believe that on the redesigned, it's actually 3.75 feet. But again, that's to be advisable. So we can hear more about that and the choice to go with 3.75. Great. So here's how I'm planning to proceed through this. With the options remain a little bit flexible. We'll start by hearing the new present, the presentation of the new site design from the applicant. I hope that can take about 15 minutes or so. Then DRB members will have an opportunity to ask questions about it. Then we'll hear from any interested parties who are present and wishing to speak no more than eight minutes each. And DRB members will then have an opportunity to ask those folks any questions they may have. And from there, I expect that we will likely go into the staff report, but we will see if additional questions need to be raised. Please address all your questions through the chair if you wish to ask any. And with that, I would like to turn it over to Mr. Lausanne and his team. I'm sorry, I have something I have to say before the applicant starts. Yes, I'm sorry about that. Please go ahead, Joe. Yeah, so since the last DRB meeting, I've entered into a personal business relationship with some of the individuals that are before the board today. As a result, I'll be recusing myself from the remainder of the DRB's business involving the 105 stage two development, including any deliberative sessions that may happen. I will be returning for the 206 River Street project hearing. Thank you, Joe. I appreciate that statement. And Meredith has one more thing to add as well. Just because of the shuffle with Joe stepping out. So that we actually have eight other DRB members here, only seven of which can actually vote at a time. So I don't know if Roger is recusing himself because he wasn't at the first two, wasn't able to participate in the first two full hearings. Or whether he or Claire, whether either of them reviewed the prior hearing minutes or recordings, because I just want to make sure we know who's actually voting on this application. I, this is Roger, I didn't participate in the previous meetings. I have reviewed some of the material, but not all of it because I wasn't planning on participating in this application tonight voting on it. Thanks, Roger. That's fine. And Claire, did you prepare and intend to participate in the review and voting of this application? Or are you here? Will you be participating in the next application? I have reviewed the materials I've read the minutes from the May 18th and June 1st meeting, and was prepared to participate in the voting number on this application. Very good. Okay, thank you, Claire, then. Okay. And now can we turn to the, Mr. Loza, thank you. May I ask the nature of the conflict? Is it a business relationship within a butter that the DRB member has? I'm going to see if Joe's on any longer before I speak for him. He is not on, but he has disclosed that he will be engaging the services of some of the people from the applicant's team. Oh, okay. Because I was just going to say I didn't have an issue with it, but he's going to do it what he needs to do. Well, thanks very much. As Meredith said, the board at the last meeting, the board indicated that they had two issues with the site plan. Through this redesign, I think we've addressed both of those issues. It's a new site plan, but it doesn't look very different if you flip it. And that's essentially all we've done. And what that did is blend the traffic to meet the flow of traffic with 99 State. So rather than tell you what, you've got a long evening, rather than go on and on, I'm just going to turn it over to Brian. Let him get into the specifics as quickly as possible. Great. Thanks, Tom. And now I apologize for the lighting on my video sitting in front of a west facing window right now at sunset. So it could be a little blown out. So let me bring up the new site plan on the screen. So as Tom was saying, the essential redesign of the site is that we have mirrored the orientation of the building and the parking in relation to what was previously proposed. So instead of the parking being off of the shared right of way with 99 and 107 State Street, the parking is now accessed off of Governington Avenue. So same free parking spots to regular parking spots and one accessible parking spot. Due to the nearing of the location of the accessible space and the accessible access aisle have been reversed north to south. That's because if you only have one ADA space on your site has to be a van accessible space. If it's a van accessible space, the aisle has to be on the passenger side. That was also actually beneficial for the project because it moved this space further away from both the crosswalk and the intersection with State Street. So that resolved any issues with the conflicts from a car backing out of this either from cars on State Street or folks in the crosswalk. And I could talk about that more specifically later. The other kind of major result of the mirroring of the site plan is that now as Tom mentioned, the drive through lane goes the other way. So the entrance to the drive through is off of Governor Davis Avenue. And the exit is through the shared right of way. Therefore, the cars coming out of the drive through are going in the same direction as the one way traffic that comes around 99 State Street. Although obviously, it will be a two two directional access because it's the only access back to 107 State Street. Because the cars are now going through the other direction through the drive through, we had to move the ATM window into a kiosk on the north side of the site. Because otherwise it would have been on the passenger side of the cars, which just doesn't work. Meredith mentioned continuing to meet the standards of the specific standards for drive through uses. So we are maintaining the canopy, obviously moved down to the, you know, flipped over with the buildings will still be a canopy over the same canopy we had before over the drive through service space. The other question regarding the specific drive through standards was whether this relocation of the, you know, the video screen or whatever it's going to be and the mag tube to the other side against the property line, you know, increased impacts for light and noise for neighboring properties. And in fact, it'll reduce impacts from light and noise from neighboring properties because now, if there is a video screen, the light from the video screen will be pointed south towards the building, as well as the speaker that's used for communication pointed away from the neighboring property. And so those two things are an improvement and otherwise the impacts from light and noise are similar to the ones that we had addressed our original application. Just to run quickly through the other things that had a change to make this work, the building is three feet smaller in width than it used to be in order to accommodate the turning movement of cars out of the drive through and into the common right of way. And then we moved the end of the stairs and the landscape planter all the way up to the edge of the right of way in the front against to accommodate this turning movement back here. So let's just take a quick look. Oops, that's not what I want. Sorry. This one. So this is the movement of a car as it goes through the drive through lane. And I just wanted to bring up because I mentioned briefly in the previous hearings that this this is the passenger car design vehicle from the State Association of Highway Officials. And I did say that it was large, but I just wanted to make sure that everyone understands how large this vehicle is when they're looking at this diagram. So this design vehicle is seven feet wide and 19 feet long with an 11 foot wheelbase. That's bigger than a Chevy Suburban. And it's bigger than a Toyota Tacoma. So if this thing is is getting through here without problems, then there's very any vehicle that can't make this turn is a box truck and shouldn't be going through the ATM anyway. But we just wanted to show that the vehicle can access the drive through from Governor Davis Avenue and come out of the drive through without encroaching outside of the 10 and a half foot right away on the exit. I also and I don't think that anyone has seen this yet, but I also prepared what it would look like for the vehicle backing out of the the Yeah. I don't think the screen is really a shame for me. I don't know if it's changing what we're looking at. I'm not seeing it on your screen. You're not seeing the vehicle turning movement. Now I'm seeing some flashes. Hold on a second. See if I can bring it up. It's this one. Are you guys seeing it now? Yes. Okay. Those the you can see the routes. Right. So you can see that here the car on Governor Davis Avenue and then proceeding through the drive through. So you can see here that this this you know Chevy Suburban Toyota Tacoma can make this turn out of the the drive through space without encroaching onto the off of the 10 foot share right away. And this is this line here is the front corner of the bumper and the next line is where the tires go. So the other thing I want to share regarding turning movements should be this one. So can everyone see now we've switched to showing the movement of the car coming out of the accessible space? Okay. So again this this car now easily can back out of this space and turn around and leave before it hits the crosswalk. So these two lines of the crosswalk here and so the car can come back and I don't have it turning until it's well outside the space and I would just point out that the back of the adjacent space to the north is here and in this movement the car doesn't start turning until back here. So it's it's easily able to back out and leave the space onto Governor Davis Avenue without going on the crosswalk you know generously. I also would like to just point out because this was something that we discussed with Tom McCartle is that when this car is at its rear you know it's suddenly most point backing out there is space for a person who's coming down State Street and making a right turn. If they don't see this car backing out there's enough space with the crosswalk and then the space for the cars that are parked in the parallel parking spaces for another car to wait here and not block the traffic calming up and down State Street. So it's a significant improvement to both the potential conflicts with pedestrians and eliminates the conflicts with traffic on the site that we've been discussing and doesn't create new conflicts along State Street. Um and then just really briefly I don't know that this is really relevant for zoning but we did because we flipped these two the the curb ramp here is now lowered all along here rather than being in a bump out because there just wouldn't have been room to get the ramp down and have a bump out next to this car. Oh I should briefly address Tom McCartle's comments on the pedestrian access way with. So that there's there's two versions of the federal accessibility standards. One version is for public buildings and private developments and the other version is for ADA accessibility within public rights of way. So the the four foot minimum width that Tom is referencing is for accessible facilities within a right of way and that standard doesn't apply to this sidewalk which is on on a private development and and intended to provide access from these parking spaces which are devoted to this development and getting folks who need to get there excessively into the door where the elevator is. So the minimum width of an accessible way under the ADA standards that apply to private developments is three feet and we exceed that with the 3.75 feet minimum width here. We also modified this design at Tom's request. You know we had had this cutting in this corner a little bit here and he's straightened out this sidewalk so you know while there is this point at 3.75 feet here it's it's right at the bottom of the ramp by the time you get up to the top of the ramp you're well over four feet here anyway. So you know we our contention is that we're meeting the relevant ADA design standards with the width of the sidewalk there and so with that I'd open it up to the any questions from the board members. Thank you very much Brian really appreciate that overview. Board members please ask your questions if you have them. I can see everybody now so if you'd please just raise your hand or if you're on the phone you can just pipe up. Rob. Yes so on the opposite side of the building that foot right away side there's a sidewalk there. Does that intended to be a pedestrian access to the building in the rear or is that just for one of five states? So similarly it's the same as it was before the sidewalk there is intended to access the egress door that's at the back of the building. There's been no discussion or you know intention of having that sidewalk be a connector to the property behind. You had your hand up. I mean we certainly wouldn't have any objection if we wouldn't object to the folks walking down the sidewalk and accessing 107 State Street but it it could be a little problematic because there's no there's no pedestrian lane in the parking area at 107. So it would be likely that a pedestrian would use our sidewalk on the other side of the building it would be a little safer for them. Yeah and I was just I was just meaning to say that it's not our intention to provide access there so we haven't provided a crosswalk across the the drive-thru lane or there's no there's nothing on the other side of it for for folks to land on on the 107 State Street property. Okay thank you Claire and then RJ. Claire did you have your hand up? Yeah go right ahead. Could you clarify the location of the recycling door? I believe that was located on the Governor Davis side on the previous plant. Is that also being switched and so those that type of recycling would then be serviced from the kind of the alleyway or the right-of-way side? So it used to be it actually that enclosure used to be on the right-of-way side and now it's on the Governor Davis side but really the intention is that what's going to be stored in here for trash is toters so they're probably going to be taken out and pulled up under the sidewalk to be picked up you know you're early in the morning which is what I'm sure when that happens in downtown so there's no intention for like a garbage truck to be backing up to these doors or anything because the garbage will come out and move down to the curb line. Okay thank you. RJ. So just going back to Rob's question about the the sidewalk on the west or sorry on the east side of the building near that door just to make it more accessible can that curb there be cut into the ground so somebody with a wheelchair feels more safe if they do choose to walk or roll along that side or is that like open up too many cans of worms? So we can't put a ramp there because we have the egress door there and we need a flat landing for the egress door but again that's the same it's the same situation as it it's exactly the same as it was before when it was over here you know and and there's you know if any pedestrians want to access back here they have to walk up the right of way so Is the curb cut on the on the north west side of the building for access you talked about the ramp over on the you talked about the ramp where it was 3.75 feet here but is there a curb cut over here so people could walk walk that way up here? Yeah yeah No again it's not our intention to provide a curb cut and you know there's really if you go if you go across here you're really into where the cars are parked oh okay if you went across here you would there be no aisle or anything for you if you were in a wheelchair to go between the cars that are parked so we don't want to funnel people in that direction anyway no fair enough okay thanks other questions from board members roger or michael joining us by phone and having a hard time raising their hands would you like to add any ask any questions this might go on good thank you right and roger is just observing i'm remembering i'm just observing ks thank you thank you okay so there are no more questions for all the board members on the revised proposal um what i'd like to do next is um offer a chance for interest any interested other interested parties to present um questions or new evidence things that we have not heard in the last two hearings based on the changed items in this in this proposal we're looking mostly we're looking primarily at that which has changed between the last hearing and this one i would invite invite comments from interested parties this john rustle i'd like to make some some comments here please go ahead um i'm sort of curious as to how this is all happening this afternoon without allowing any either basically not allowing the public to see the change in the building i didn't get the new pictures of the building until the weekend um and now we're seeing changes to parking etc etc um here on a monday night basically so i don't know how that i don't know how that works um in terms of governance um but that's like it be that as it may that's a comment i don't need a reply um you guys can figure that out for yourself and maybe the courts will figure it out later um so one of my concerns is the the narrowing of the aisle from state street back to 105 and and 99 uh even though 99 is not here um if there's nowhere for the uh basically there's nowhere for anybody to dodge um can sort of hide behind the cars the way it was last two weeks ago um for people that are are walking up that basically 11 foot now a little over 11 foot width um that does seem a little little dangerous there another comment is that uh we have we'll have cars queuing up out on on akon waiting to turn right to to go in and cash their check or what have you that doesn't look very safe at all and they'll be queuing up behind people trying to uh unpark from these new parking spaces um and the new parking spaces are driving over or backing out over a sidewalk that people will be using and so even mentioned that uh probably people will be using that sidewalk to get to 107 um maybe because it's so narrow out on the other side um and uh so that's that's uh part of it um also the the van uh that's carrying somebody in who uh who requires a disabled van is backing out into blind traffic nobody is going to be noticing as they're turning right on to akon that somebody's trying to back out simultaneously there isn't any policeman saying you can come out will you please stop don't make the turn yet etc um that's that's just too close no matter what uh you may think maybe the people that are thinking that don't drive that's that's a possibility um especially in in montpellier um what about the totes so we're talking about um garbage and totes and things like that out on the out on the public um sidewalk apparently you know kasella and mayer has come by with an automatic truck that picks up the totes they need to be able to get close to the uh curb there but there's a parking space there has been and uh there's only one but there is a parking space there so mayer neither mayers nor uh kasella would be able to pick up the totes from there if there's a car park there legally um so that's just sort of the beginning it just doesn't seem that this is really um a building that's designed for the close um circumstances that are here in this part of of montpellier it's a major place for a vacationers to come when they're not walking around behind masks so there's oftentimes people that are completely unfamiliar with the with the area there's also a lot of of um you know from running out of eight minutes but there's also a tremendous number of state employees that walk down that side of the street and go um you know on into into the city center so it just it just doesn't seem like this is a good idea for um a building of this nature i don't see any problem with the building the building's a building he has tom's got problems with uh with flood which i think is pretty ridiculous you know i don't i don't i don't agree with the the flood problem and tom's done what he can to to ameliorate that for for his potential tenants but this doesn't look like a place that uh this building can go this this style of type of um um vehicle access building doesn't look good all right thank you mr rustle um what we'll do is hear from any others who wish to speak on this um and then we'll turn it back over to the applicant um and if anyone else wishes to speak i just remind you um please focus on the things that are new about the project and as was referenced we're looking at about an eight minute eight minute window so is there anyone else um wishing to speak about the redesign who is not the applicant probably somebody here alicia's here and patrick melinda are both here correct me if i'm wrong but the sidewalk on governor davis is on the opposite side of the building correct that is my understanding and if there's nothing else from um from people who wish to speak about the project maybe what i can do now is turn it back to um back to tom and brian to address any of the questions i'm particularly interested in um your response on on things that are that we're reviewing tonight the narrowing of the the question regarding the narrowing of the aisle back to 107 um the new parking space and whether it conflicts with a sidewalk as was just asked and um how the if you could explain we've heard how the backing out of the ada space works with leaving uh visual if you're turning right off of state street but i don't think you need to um speak to that again but brian if you or tom if you'd like to speak to this other thing sure um yeah brian yeah thanks tom sorry yeah um so i i'm not sure uh mr rustle me a couple comments about cars backing over sidewalks there's there's no car that backs over a sidewalk anywhere with this new proposal um so i'll just um go over that quickly one more time um that wasn't quite the one i wanted but it'll work um again we show that the note this car doesn't back over the sidewalk or the crosswalk here there's um you know and this sidewalk is inside of the spaces so in terms of narrowing the lane uh over here i just point out again that the only legal access to 107 state street is this 10 and a half foot with right of way um and we're leaving a little bit more than that and certainly um matching what exists there now with the jersey barriers that are placed along the edge of the existing parking area um so there's no change to the width of the right of way uh compared to how it stands at the moment um there was a comment about uh the stacking and potential conflicts with govern dave's avenue so there's there's no change to what we presented about why the one service space and two stacking spaces are adequate for this use there's probably functionally another spot that someone could sit here if it was became really necessary at at high peak times and unlike the previous design if the drive-through is full someone can continue on governor dave's avenue and circle around the block and come back um which wasn't really possible with the previous design so um we presented evidence that the amount of stacking spaces is adequate and also improve the ability for folks to make a different decision if need be with the drive-through um i think i think that's what you're looking for kate remind me if there's one i missed okay great oh the garbage oh yeah i mean the garbage i you know it's no different than any other um business in the downtown that only has access to the front of the sidewalk so it's whatever needs to be done to manage the garbage at this um site is is no different than any other downtown site on state street west of here i'm sorry east of here that way i must admit i've never seen a tote you've never seen a tote they're green sometimes they're blue i've seen okay sark sark as it works that sounds like it that would i was just describing it i think that um i as one d rb member i think i've received sufficient evidence on totes um our other d rb members um i think other d rb members have any questions uh with regards to anything we just discussed or um or other aspects of this application about what you have remaining questions yes claire thank you um at the beginning i think meredith identified um some points um that she had on this application that may not have been included in the recent email communication and i was wondering if she could just um uh remind me of those again so the the stuff that wasn't circulated previously so what you're talking about i thought at the beginning when you were introducing the most recent um submittals that um there were some items that you um some comments that you had that may not have been included in the the email that you circulated yeah so that was just the the sidewalk width the 3.75 versus four feet everything else has been circulated thank you great great well the last thing i'd like to do before we deliberate as a board is i would like to look at the um special use and conditional use standards so that as meredith suggested we can assure that the drive-through redesign continues to meet those standards so in our staff report um the beginning on page sorry i'm finding the right page the conditional use standards begin on page 21 um and to pertain just to the drive-through facility and not the whole project um staff find that it will not burden community facilities and utilities um we've just discussed how um traffic will or will not be impacted and staff recommendation is that it meets those requirements uh similarly neighborhood standards character of the neighborhood standards architectural compatibility um yards lot coverage landscaping all of these according to staff are net um to satisfaction of the of the standards uh do board members have any questions about any any new questions about conditional use uh with the redesign okay rob did you have a question yep yep um please go ahead yeah yeah i just didn't know i guess i'd like to see the applicant um maybe elaborate on the uh you know facility sufficient distance from the property line um you know this um kiosk is going to be the closest bank drive-through to any property line in montpellier um just in my cursor review um it seems like a big big part of this and so i just didn't know if you could elaborate on your um sort of counter to that this this meets that standard nope nope uh well we believe it does um brian would you like to elaborate on that we had a discussion about it you know this is zero setback uh i don't know that uh so when you talk about uh you know the standards for a drive-through i don't believe the standards contemplate uh whether you know a counterclockwise traffic movement which would mean uh when these this ordinance was written you would have to allow within the standards for the possibility of clockwise traffic movement which would necessitate and especially in this district where there's zero setback requirements uh would necessitate placing it closer to the property line and i would add that the the standard that we need to meet here is that the uh facility is a sufficient distance from the property line to um mitigate impacts to neighboring properties so um as we presented in our original application uh we don't expect that lighter noise from this particular drive-through window or is going to really um exceed what's happening in the background of downtown montpellier um with traffic noise on the street and parking and and general noise around there and additionally any you know while it's closer to the property line um the additional um there's not additional noise but the the source of noise being placed closer to the property line is mitigated by the fact that the direction of the sound from the um from the kiosk is now turned around and facing into the site rather than before when it was you know 12 feet from the property line but it was facing the adjacent property on her so um due due to the mitigating factor of the kiosk facing the other direction uh into the property instead of away from it we believe that there is no that uh there's no setback that's necessary to avoid undue adverse impacts on the neighboring properties. All right thank you and Rob thank you for that question really to the special use standards for drive-through that was the main outstanding issue on which we needed to collect the benefit. All right um D.R.B. members are there any further questions before we um and turn to a deliberative session together? Okay so I I propose oh um yes that's just one but if if you're deliberating for the for for our benefit I know you have other things on your agenda um I I don't expect I don't need an answer this evening if if it would make it easier for you to simply we'll sign off you can continue with your agenda whatever you're comfortable doing just want to. Well thank thank you for that I appreciate it we were going to deliberate to for the benefit of resolving it while you were present um I'm hearing that it's okay with you if we don't do that and you hear back another you hear back. Kate um sorry weren't we also gonna do that so that RJ would be able to participate since he has to you wouldn't be able to stay on till 10 o'clock or however late. That's true so you know we thank you Meredith that's a good reminder we are going to um take a pause and if if the board agrees um enter into a deliberative session mid mid meeting here um you don't need to remain for our answer um we come back and you're not here we won't be we won't feel that we've been left at the dance um but thank you thank you for that option uh yeah Kevin. Yes Joe so I just like to make the motion to adjourn to a deliberative session uh for the application. Second. Motion by Kevin second by RJ. I am going to conduct a roll call on that motion. Adjourn to a deliberative session is it Meredith? No it's not adjourn to just a deliberative session it's a short just close the public meeting and then reconvene in deliberative session. Wait but we're going to come back to the rest of the public meeting so we can't close the public meeting completely it's sort of a recess. I agree to the amendment to my motion. The motion is just to open a deliberative session. Okay we have a motion to open a deliberative session and the second I will um take a vote on that motion um RJ. Hi. Roger. Oh Roger's not voting. Yes I'm sorry Roger. But he said yes um Rob. Yes. Joe. Hope there's none of this one either and you can tell I'm using all this. Michael. Michael who may be on mute. Uh yes. Michael. Thanks for on you. Thank you. No problem. Gene. Yes. Kevin. Yes. Claire. Yes. And I vote yes. Um we will open a deliberative session in a separate Zoom call. Those who wish to remain on this Zoom call it will remain open. We will be back as soon as we reasonably can. Thank you very much. I would entertain a motion regarding 105 State Street. RJ. Motion to approve the new three-story building and changes of use including the drive-through conditional use as presented in application number Z 20200027 and supporting the supplemental materials subject to the following conditions of approval. One concrete materials on the building facades will be the color tinted to match the grand materials on the remainder of the facade as closely as possible. Two applicant will ensure compliance with erosion control practices of 3008 point D during the construction activities. Three within 30 days of this decision and prior to issuance of any permanent applicant shall submit to the zoning administrator professionally prepared lighting plan identifying the locations for all outdoor light fixtures with keys key to appropriate lumens issued by each type. Thank you for the motion. We have a motion from RJ. Is there a second? Please unmute if you'd like to motion from RJ. Second? I will make the second. I do have a procedural question though. Do we need to officially reopen the public hearing? It was never closed. The public hearing was it closed? Okay, I'm good. So I believe not. Thank you. So we have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion from board members? Hearing none, I will call a roll vote. Kevin? Yes. Claire? Yes. RJ? Yes. Michael? No. Gene? You're muted. Gene, you're muted. Gene? Yes. Rob? No. Thank you, Gene. Rob? No. Sorry, Rob. And I vote yes. We have five yeses and two noes for the motion and the project is approved. And I will turn it over to Meredith next to let us know, let let you know what the next steps are. So the next step is a written decision. We're going to all work on that as quickly as I can. Technically we have up to 45 days from the close of the hearing, which is now with the motion. It's going to be much sooner than 45 days if at all humanly possible, much sooner. But I'm human. So that will get issued. If you get me the lighting plan before that gets issued, then I can issue the decision at the same time that the permit is issued. Otherwise the decision will go out. Then when I get the lighting plan that's required, I'll be able to issue the permit. There is a 30-day appeal window after the written decision for people to appeal that written decision. Just note if there is a significant gap between the written decision and the permit getting issued because of needing to meet the conditions, there is an additional 15-day appeal period after the permit so those can't overlap or they can be staggered out depending on how everything gets met with the conditions. If you have any questions you can e-mail me. That wasn't clear. Sorry it was a lot of information. That concludes our discussion of 105 State Street and I thank you all again sincerely for your time and your work on this and best of luck with your next step. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a nice evening. Thank you. You too. All right. Thank you everyone. I'm heading out now to thanks folks. Thank you RJ. Thank you RJ. Appreciate your your help and your service. See you around. Good luck RJ. Yeah. Joe, welcome back. Thanks for joining us. So we are going to start our review of 260 River Street. There's no denying it's a bit late. It's nine o'clock. I would like to dive in anyway because you've waited. I'm seeing some nodding from the engineer who's ready to go and so let's without further ado thank you very much for waiting. I'm looking forward to hearing about your project. This next application at 260 River Street is for major site plan and conditional use approval potentially at 260 River Street. So the first thing I would like to do is swear in anyone who will be speaking on this matter. So please unmute yourself and then I'll swear you in. Raise your right hand please if you're going to give testimony. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury? Thank you. Great. Thank you. We have sworn in Lee Rosberg, John Rooney, Patrick Malone, and Alicia Seeler. And Sarah Hoffmeyer. And Sarah Hoffmeyer. Sorry, Sarah. Okay. Thank you. So with that, Meredith, could you please provide us an overview of the project? I will in one second. There's one other procedural item. We currently have 8 BRB members in attendance including two alternates. So one of the DRB members has a one of the standard members has a reason to recuse themselves. Then I mean both of the alternates can stay and ask questions, but ultimately we have to figure out which seven are going to be voting. Okay. Are there any non-alternates who cannot vote? I just wanted to add, no, I can vote. I just wanted to add to Meredith's comments. We can allow all the members including the two alternates to take part in the procedural process, including asking questions and and so forth. And as far as the vote, it may or may not be tonight. It is already quite late. So my guess is that there's a good chance the public hearing would be carried forth to another day, in which case it's a matter of who is here at that time. That would really matter as far as this issue is concerned. Good point Kevin. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Great. Thanks. That is how we'll proceed. Great. Meredith, go ahead. Okay. So I'm going to try and keep this relatively brief given the hour. So first off, if you have the entire meeting packet in front of you, the staff report for this application actually begins at page 268 of the meeting packet that's deep into the actual 260 River Street application. So 260 River Street is an existing six plus acre parcel that currently contains the former Grossman's Lumber building as well as a large amount of pavement that they used for on-site storage after storage of lumber and parking and delivery trucks. So there's a lot of impervious surface already. Applicant is seeking major safe plan approval to construct a roughly 7,800 square foot building addition on top of the existing, well not on top of correcting to the adjacent 12,950 square foot building along with associated revised drives, parking, utilities, landscaping, grading and to change the use of a parcel to office space and automobile repair and service with an accessory use of outdoor storage. The first big question for the DRB is a preliminary determination of whether the sewer related facility use applies here because the proposed tenant for the parcel is a liquid waste hauler who will use the location as office and a repair maintenance building for their fleet of vehicles and storage of equipment related to the business. However no waste is going to be actually treated on site. Sewer related facilities require conditional use approval. I'm not going to go into the staff suggestion at this point when you want them asked for them if you didn't pull them out of the staff report. So that's the first big question that's going to be me to dealt with. Other than that there are some questions about development in the riparian buffer. If at any point anybody needs a reference to where in the the staff report that is I'll be able to tell you there's questions about internal pedestrian access and a potential issue with potential but linking that to the public sidewalk whether or not that's required. The board's going to need to look over the design standards of section 3207 because this did not go through design review. It's major site plan and addition and so that those design compatibility issues are going to be reviewed. There's a question about outdoor lighting and whether this is minor but whether the 20 foot tall freestanding lights along the internal walkway should be or acceptable given a preference for 12 foot high fixtures for pedestrian oriented spaces. There's also a request for a fence that's in the front yard to be more than four and a half feet tall because it's being used as screening so the DRV is going to have to make a determination on that. There were also issues highlighted in the staff report about a need for additional information to confirm compliance with the solar access and shading requirements. There's a minor suggestion for a condition on approval with regard to the automobile repair or service special use and then some again suggestions for conditions with regard to aversion control storm water and steep slopes that are really about having the proper documentation in the files. Great thank you Meredith and the applicant has received a copy of the staff report before today in the Friday packet with the rest of us I assume. Great okay so next what I'd like to do is turn it over to the applicant and and give you time that time that you need maybe the same for about 15 minutes a little more if you need it to tell us about your project. Great thank you um Alicia Tyler with more on properties so I'm going to I don't know if you have can I share a screen is that allowed sure okay do you see my screen yes okay great thank you um so the property is along route two also River Street at the intersection the roundabout with 302 um and this entrance was constructed in 2009 as part of this roundabout project can you see my cursor as well or not great um so the entrance would stay exactly as um it has been before it was designed this way as part of the roundabout to maintain access to this lot when this previous entrance was closed as part of that construction so the site is entered here it's two-way traffic everywhere the employee parking is located kind of on this main drive and then also in this parking area here's our building addition there is a portion over on the um northern side or this left side that's a two-story portion um and john can talk more about that um when we get there uh so these areas here under very far north are supposed to be outdoor storage and then this area in here is also outdoor storage made several seven overhead doors for maneuvering vehicles in and out to so that maintenance work can all be happening inside the building and then also some of those vehicles um in the company vehicles would be located out in these outer parking spaces so these outer parking spaces are severely oversized in comparison to um a typical eight and a half by 18 they're um I think they're 12 by 30 are shown here just to make sure that the site that actually accommodate them um a couple things so we do have fencing over along here around these outdoor storage there's also a split rail fence along the riparian buffer as a way to minimize traffic foot traffic or access to to that area both because that area is the riparian buffer as well as part of the soils remediation and whatnot we want to eliminate people from walking in that area um I can there's there is there is lighting along here one of the items that Meredith did mention is this these are the lights that she was referring to about being close to the sidewalk which they are they're up against the sidewalk but they're also lighting this large um outdoor storage and also maneuvering area um and so to have lights not up against that um we put them even further on the outside it eliminates some of the lighting that would happen in that center portion um there is a landscaping land that I didn't show on that site plane just because I wanted to keep it minimal um and I have other plans with on there but this this is the proposed landscaping um we really want to make sure we have that stream it's not just the fence around the outdoor storage but just screen the whole kind of site from from public view um there are a couple of little areas of the stream bank um in the riparian buffer that do have landscaping proposed those are our outfalls for our stormwater and so I'm sure we'll talk more about those um so those are the main landscaping areas also there's also one right here in the front of the building there's kind of a a recessed area that we chose to make sure that we could fit a couple trees um small sized trees in there to really break up the front of the building um this project does have a substantial amount of utilities being um put into into works um the biggest of which is the stormwater and then also the wastewater system previously was on site and we're connecting to the municipal sewer um the building hasn't been used since um in the 90s so that wastewater system is is no longer functioning um so then also I think it's worth bringing up the grading plan right now just to kind of give a very rough talk about it so as you come in off the the drives are mostly um everything drains internal to the parking areas and the drives so there are patch basins collecting the water isn't um flowing off the site without going through um the state regulated treatment um that's required um so these areas here to the far north and then also to the far south are areas that we are um and I don't know if you can see the elevations there they're piles um so those areas are in order to contain the soil that is disturbed from the site development um those are areas that we're looking to locate the soil to and this is um the kind of worst case scenario we were trying to accommodate and make sure to plan for the the majority of the soil to be here if we should run into less of um kind of the contaminated soils or the soils of concerns um then we these might not be quite so quite the size so um I think that's a a rough run through but we can kind of get through um individual items as we go that's okay sure that's okay great um are there any let's see I think that with this one what I what I would recommend we do is um have drb members raise questions as we go through the staff report is that amenable to drb members nodding yes and um great thanks so um I'll ask next if there are any um any other parties to be heard on this application other than the applicant um a butters or or other interested parties um it looks like not so yes Meredith at this point yes I'm supposed to turn it over to you sorry um so it doesn't look like there's any interested parties who are attending tonight but I did get a last-minute email from somebody on a butter that I'm going to need to read into the record because they couldn't attend and we couldn't get this out here and I can I will post an actual copy of this on the city website to well I'll try and get it posted tomorrow I don't actually have the authority to post it um but we'll get it posted tomorrow somehow um so this is from Mark Saba S-A-B-A who's president of Formular Ford Incorporated um that is at one of the adjacent properties I don't remember exactly which address right now um so his email says um that it was uh let me get to the part okay so Formular Ford is glad to see a revitalization plan for the 260 River Street property our biggest concern is any air quality issues foul smells that could arise from the liquid waste being hauled and contained in the truck's well on the property that could adversely affect our business employees or customers Formular Ford would like to be listed as an interested party as this project moves forward thank you for your time and that's what I have thank you Meredith so if there were someone here in person um I'd give the applicant a chance to respond to the comment raised by by butters or others who are interested and I'll give you that same chance now if you'd like to address that sure um we are not concerned with smells associated with this development the waste hauling occurs and the trucks are all emptied prior to coming back to the site if the excuse me they're emptied at the Montpelier wastewater treatment facility or any other contracted wastewater facility um so there are a chance that trucks would be returning to the site after the facility had wastewater facility has been closed for the evening in which case those trucks would would have sewage or other liquid waste on them um we're not concerned with the smell the trucks are enclosed and and they're not open to unit orders as the day goes on um the you know if there's portlets there's a cleaned on site before they're they're transported back um excuse me they're on the site where they're they've been used and then they're and then they return to the site in a clean state um so we're not concerned about the smells being an issue um and and certainly causing offense to to neighboring properties all right thank you great um any questions from board members about the project in general before we go into the specifics yeah Claire hi thank you um I uh just had a question about the the current condition of the site and um I had um been looking at the site from going along the new bike path and had noticed like these big white uh what looked like um straw bales or hay bales um that were along the riverbank and have noticed there's been some site work out there and noticed like some of them were like ripped open at some point but then they look like there's been some earthwork there and I was wondering if you could just kind of clarify the status of um any of the earthwork activities that either have already happened at the site or um which are currently happening at the site sure and we uh Rosberg with Stone Environmental maybe can help talk about that there was a previous project for remediation um and that's I think what you're seeing out there maybe could you contribute yeah sure there was a partial corrective action plan um that was approved by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation and we did a remedial action of removing coal tar and coal tar contaminated sediment from the bank of the river in December um that was done under um Army Corps of Engineer and stream alteration permits and that that work's complete and uh we're working towards uh revegetating the riverbank and as far as I know the um sites been tidied up in the uh the large bags that you've seen have been removed but um yeah that that work was associated with um dealing with an imminent risk of having coal tar directly in contact with surface water that's good thank you um and yeah Kevin hey so could you just uh tell us what levels of review are required in addition to our review at the city level uh environmental permits state permits uh so on sure um so this project will require a state of Vermont water and wastewater permit it will require a um construction stormwater permit in 90-20 um and then an operational stormwater permit for this uh site um it is it does not trigger any action 50 because we're we're here with the DRB um there is um public safety type of fire and building building safety permit that is required through that um we aren't doing work in the stream um so we don't need to do any additional stream alteration permits that those ones are kind of part of the um previous projects in the Army Corps we're not we're not into appearing or disturbing any of the wetland or wetland buffer so those aren't um necessary for this project so it's it's stormwater uh construction stormwater and then water wastewater permits thank you and building safety thank you Kevin good question any last questions from DRB members on broad broad issues before we get into the specifics of the staff report the nature of the nature of the storage facilities laid out in the designs what is the what are you storing what's the nature of the the storage units throughout the property up okay over yep in these two areas um I think the idea was to to offer a space for um likely Portolet the the Port of Haughty um space and that's what we definitely wanted fencing around the size um but but anything else that they equipment related to their services um generally speaking their vehicles already have any extra hoses and such on them um but sometimes they do have they would have hoses um extensions and um right that's really that's really the main bulk of it they have their the equipment vehicles um Portolet and then probably some some minor tools like the the hoses and then also inside the building is likely to have equipment storage as well and how many so is it the company renting Portolets and how many Portolets would be on the property um I we didn't just determine a number of Portolets those are just the areas that we've designated as potential storage for equipment aid would be okay so it sounds like the Portolets that would be serviced at this site would be stored in the screened areas that we'll be discussing in a few minutes um that's what the purpose of those storage areas are so Jean the the size of those storage areas could be could be filled but they we are going to hear about how those are proposed to be screened and managed okay well let's um let's turn to the staff report you heard um from Meredith about the main issues that we have to look more closely at so let's get right to it and start with the very first one um on page five of the staff report our first the first thing we need to do is be sure about what use we're reviewing because the use for reviewing says uh dictates what standards we apply to make sure the use is civil so the initial matter is to decide whether is this whether this is considered a sewer related facility use and Meredith has given us the definition of that which is it's it's defined as electric lines and distribution facilities phone lines cable lines gas lines and distribution facilities water supply lines steam and air conditioning lines and sewer and stormwater lines also including substations pump stations and other related unmanned systems so um we want to the staff recommendation is that you know because this is a haul the hauling operation because this is not about pumping waste from the site to elsewhere or from elsewhere to the site um that it really doesn't fall under this utility kind of transmission concept so that is the staff recommendation is to find that this is not a sewer related facility um and I want to FDRB members if you agree with that or have questions about it um as we determine the use okay thumbs up and if that a question comes there yeah I had a question I I think you were reading the definition of a utility facility ah okay it's right above it on the so I was just clarifying number one four one um thank you thank you you're right I read the wrong thing a sewer related facility is within the class of utilities which I just defined and is defined as facilities for storing pumping or treating sewage that makes more sense it may be that my so it's yeah it's a sewer that definitions the sewer related facility right yeah yeah I just yeah the one that I just read so that's what we're deciding on do we believe that this is a facility for storing pumping or treating sewage well we know it's not treating sewage it's not a sewage treatment plant um Alicia do you want to jump in I just I I feel like I need to clarify that it does say and treating not work that's all thank you that's very pumping and yeah yeah okay so are there any DRV members who feel strongly that this is a sewer related facility yeah okay I do you do okay so we have one board member who feels this is a sewer related facility the definition says that it has to that involves treating sewage um but that doesn't happen on the site the way it would it a wastewater treatment plant this also refers to a storing yes um storage is temporary when the trucks come in it sounds like and it I think my sense and based on what Alicia said it the facility has to do all three of those things that the store pump and treat the sewage to count okay is there anyone sorry just from an interpretive standpoint you really have to take the whole sentence as a whole you can't just pick and choose that's all I'm going to say on that okay so are there other um besides Jean are there board members who think this is this is a uh sewer related facility yeah Kevin yeah I just like Meredith um directing this toward to you last statement uh can you read that sentence in which all three are contained I'd like to hear the whole thing sure so this is on page five of the staff report a sewer related facility is within the class of utilities which is a defined term uses and is defined as facilities for quote facilities for storing pumping and treating sewage okay the operative term I'm sorry go ahead go ahead Kevin the operative term seems to be and so yes treating the three as a as a unit so I would agree I would agree with the conclusion um that you have reached on that okay so we are not going to treat this as a sewer related facility and that means it will not be subject to conditional use approval I'm going to unmute Meredith if you want to have something I think you I hate to say this you might actually have to have a vote on that because it's a major determination I mean maybe you can roll that in at the end but if you if you just have a vote on it now it's dealt with and you don't have to go through that part of the staff review I know that's what we've done previously okay makes it when it matters for how you're going to review the the application it wouldn't hurt so that means we need to decide which seven of us are voting so of the two alternates Claire and Jean which of you would like to engage on this application you know Jean you you've served as well in the last three meetings I don't know if Claire wants to step in and give you potentially a break next week I don't know if that's um we don't usually do this in the public part of the hearing sorry um I'm understandable I I want to just uh Meredith I I have to take exception to the statement you just made I don't think it's really quite a necessity for us to make a determination as to whether we're reviewing it singularly or uh all three items at the same time I think we've we've established a general a general outline for the review and I don't feel we need to take it further at this point we can take testimony and then finalize that I didn't yeah Kevin I don't think that I don't think that's being proposed I think we're just putting our stamp on our decision that it's not a sewer related use a sewer related facility we're not analyzing it any further and um I mean it's getting late so things are going to start getting a little fuzzy here but um I just want to pursue that for a second so what does that gain us that we've determined before uh a final vote uh that it's not a sewer related facility that's a question so determining what the use is a sewer related facility would be um subject to conditional use review whereas the other use is taking place on this site including automotive repair are not subject to conditional use review okay so and so I did it laid it affects the part it affects the part of the zoning bylaw that will have to use to approve the project I want to be uh very clear again as we get later into the evening uh that I am not comfortable voting on that is a singular issue you know maybe at the beginning at 7 p.m uh the next meeting perhaps we could we could revisit that but I think this is uh this is a very highly uh potentially technical area that I'm I'm just not comfortable voting on it right now I agree with Kevin okay I would like to proceed with this review as though it is not a sewer right related keep forgetting a sewer related facility um if we receive evidence that leads us to believe otherwise that it is something that is for storing pumping and treating sewage then I think we can continue to the very end of the staff report and do the conditional use review um I've been agreement with that okay um I hear from Claire and others may have as well that um if we continue to the July 6th hearing she will not be present um and so that that means that Jean will be one of our seven is that okay with you Jean yeah thank you okay so given the hour and that we have um we have the applicants consultants and everything with us I I think I'd like to continue sally forth as as was said earlier into the remainder of the application hear more about the shrubbery um well now that we've thank you thank you um very good so we've just we um let's start our reviews so the first thing we're going to look at is the category of standards called general standards that apply to all development and um what I'm going to do is kind of move through the ones on which there seems to be agreement um or and invite board comments if kind of in batches so here we go um I'll give you page numbers as we go on page six we've got section 30.02 dimensional standards which um staff find the requirements are met the same is true for 30.03 and 30.04 accessory uses of structures and demolition staff finds that these um requirements the requirements for these sections are met um do any DRB members have questions about dimensional standards accessory uses and structures or demolition and my my intent is to be expedient not to be brushing anybody so if you do have questions do ask but if there's nothing to talk about we won't be labor it okay so I'm going to move on next to um section 30.05 which is riparian areas this is on page eight of the staff report and um what we what we have in the staff report is that um what's being proposed is for about 25 2400 square feet of parking and outdoor storage that would be that would appear within the riparian buffer but that that quantity of impervious surface falls under the 20 coverage that is allowed within the buffer that is what I've heard and then um I'll get to you in just a second Lisa um then we have heard that there would be disturbance to the buffer for installation of the stormwater system outfall which could be subject to a waiver so um so Lisa go ahead and go ahead yeah I just wanted to clarify um there's two buffers for this area there's the water setback buffer and the riparian buffer so the actual impervious surfaces are within the water setback buffer not the riparian so the riparian buffer is 25 feet from the top of the bank the water setbacks 50 um so we do encroach the water setback and that's the 20 that you mentioned um that were well under and the riparian buffer is the area limited to excuse me the disturbance too is limited to the outfalls great thank you for that clarification um great does anyone have any questions about any board members have any questions about um about what I just about this part of the application I just said I don't have any issue with the outfalls inside the buffer I think you know we can move forward on that time hold the board also okay that way I agree thank you so um in order to to grant that finding that um it is acceptable to have those outfalls within the riparian buffer we do need to grant my understanding is that we need to grant a waiver um so I'm just going to ask alicia okay on spot and ask you um three questions about about the location of those outfalls to ensure that our waiver requirements are that a waiver is warranted so the first thing we need to know um is that can these outfalls be located outside of the riparian buffer no just you okay let me elaborate um due to the a little bit the existing conditions um the the outfalls can be outside of the riparian buffer due to the current conditions of the existing soils infiltration on this site is not feasible so therefore we have to have a over surface or closed drainage surface um piping system to to get the stormwater off of the site after a rain event um so the with the winooski river bounding um the entire northeast to southeast side of the site um that's that's where we need to discharge and unfortunately the elevations it ends up being in that riparian buffer okay um great thank you does once you've done this does the proposal have new compared to existing conditions does the proposal have new or greater adverse impact on the natural functions of the surface water and land within the riparian area no um this okay we we need to sorry I'll put that another way we need to prove that the proposed that this this proposal does not create new or greater compared to existing conditions impact on the natural functions of surface water so this project does not create greater or new adverse impact um this stormwater outfalls are creating an initial disturbance that are going to be stabilized um with stone to dissipate energy of runoff and then also planting of wave vegetation to kind of reestablish that area so both are allowing the the refunctioning of that riparian buffer area as well as now the stormwater is going through a treatment system whereas currently there's no stormwater treatment on the area sitting that for the next thing okay I actually had a question about the current uh stormwater situation do you know where the water is draining currently is it just going right into the river from that paved area yes um a significant portion of the site drains um directly over the kind of over the bank a lot of it ponds in and evaporates as time goes on and then there is some that I think flow probably to the north where there's the wetlands there okay thank you sure thanks um that's good time and do time in the questions um so the last question is is this what is this the minimum development in the riparian area that's necessary I'm sorry um I'm going to ask that question a different way we need to show that the proposed development is the minimum necessary to accommodate the proposed development in that area is the minimum necessary to accommodate reasonable use of the property is there any less than that could be done than what you're already doing I know I don't believe so we've we have planned it this way to minimize um as best as we can we need to have the stone outfall to dissipate the energy before the water um as the water exists the pipe so we need to have that area remain strong um we've tried to minimize the grading impacts as well as you know the pipe ditching um I'm planning on on having um kind of construction notes making sure that those areas are very well marked so that equipment isn't moving beyond the limits that they need to be um in that especially in that area um and unfortunately the way the site is fairly flat we had to have two outfalls instead of one just um we couldn't get all the water to one one localized spot okay um are there other questions thank you very much um do do the RV members have any other questions about 30 or five riparian areas and the way that um the the outfalls in particular will be um in the areas all right thank you um we'll we'll move on so moving through the staff reports still on page nine um section 30 of 6 is wetlands and vernal pools staff funds compliance we've heard testimony that those will not be encroached upon um steep slopes starting also on page nine is 30 of 7 so Alicia could you describe the you know we have to look at slopes that are disturbed over 15 could you disturb describe across the extensive disturbance disturbance of slopes that are on the site that are over 15 how much is being disturbed and why uh yes thank you um so this is our the grading plan um much of the stream bank along the Loone's Sea River is um significantly sloped a some of which is closer to 50 percent um and so there of course we already mentioned the disturbance to those two areas um we've minimized as best as we could um and kind of dealing with what we've got available um the remainder of the disturbance to seed banks um you know 15 percent area uh there's some just kind of natural grades that are are sloped over in this area as um I'm not sure how natural they originally were you know the road got built the railroad got built I think to probably kind of pushed out that um slope from stabilizing those two pieces and that um there's there's very clearly a plateau that was created at one point to make this a developed site and so I think that those are kind of the flaring off of um the development at whatever point in history they were so that those are the the disturbed areas um and even again along the railroad there's there's pieces and parts but the um disturbance to slopes is uh let's see less than 5,000 square feet for everything above the 15 percent mark so I think most of that is the is the 15 percent mark which is those kind of along the railroad and in this area here and then there's the two localized um outfalls that um are being affected okay um great so I want to check in with Meredith on procedure here um Meredith I think uh is is your question in the staff comment about whether we need to go through the steep slopes criteria based on the kind of de minimis almost mountain disturbance um not really it's I I sort of went through those a bit and I mean there is technically you're supposed to go through the steep slopes criteria because it's development above 30 percent everything in my opinion everything that Alicia has provided meets all of those engineered requirements we're not talking about we don't need engineered structural plans because the building isn't on the steep slopes um and you know the only thing that's missing is a technically stamped and sealed plan from Alicia that's the only thing I saw is actually being required to meet the steep slopes requirements um right and so oh uh sorry so Kate you just saw that nice campus down here and this is um one that Meredith had mentioned to me and in you know in the staff report as well and so I have these available I did stamp them since and I will um submit them for the record and I can submit them tonight just so that Meredith has them if we want to post it prior to I assuming there's a continuation prior to that meeting um or certainly for the record okay thank you um so I'll I'll turn it over regarding the outfalls yeah I was just wondering Alicia a few uh calculated and expected flows and velocities are going to be out of place during this date um I have a done um as part of the stormwater system in the modeling um the Vermont state requires a treatment for this site because we're directly discharging to the bonus ski um we're not regulated by the the 110 and 100 year storms um so we are we're establishing the treatment based on the one inch water quality volume um standard storm um and then I did check um some some higher storm events to make sure that the velocities are still non-erosive and um that's the stone that we're placing is is intended to dissipate velocity even further um is that they answer your question Joe you're kind of right you know it's not like you you don't have to make sure to be on too high of a velocity coming out of spikes yes okay all right okay I apologize for the breaking up okay okay that's a good question because it's in everyone's interest to make sure the output doesn't further erode the stream banker cause uh not sedimentation of acidity uh yeah go ahead Roger oh sorry I I thought I was muted nope that's all right that's all right but do pipe up if you want to I want to make sure we don't neglect you just because you don't have video so all right um good so um do do board members have any questions about steep slopes and um and whether our standards for steep slopes are met staff recommends the staff advises that they are met um Kevin and then Claire yeah I think I think uh Meredith has done due diligence on that issue and I think we can just allude to to her findings in in our report in our decision thank you sorry did you want to add something as well oh I thought it's always but it might have just been a page turn all right um very good thank you so continuing through um on the staff report page 10 we have section 3008 and 3009 erosion control and storm water and both of those are subject to state permits that stand in for the requirements of our zoning bylaw so um would the applicant be open to a condition that those permits need need to be submitted to be part of the record for a permit for our local permit yeah okay um so are there any board questions about um erosion controller storm water okay uh storm water in general including treatment uh I was hoping that the engineer could elaborate a little bit on the treatment method it looks like it's a singular unit I'm just kind of wondering uh how I guess I don't even know in depth how it works but just does it require a regular maintenance is it is it something that will still work if it's not maintained so so you're you're all fully aware we're we're working on a couple different storm water um preparatory systems to see which is is better suited for this um site so the there is one shown and it's called out as a context storm filter um we're also looking into aqua shield storm filter so um any storm water system need to be properly maintained and in order to stay in compliance with our state storm water permit we do have to do annual inspections um as well as you know kind of you do the occasional drive by and make sure things that are that are um looking looking right but there isn't there is a requirement through the state to have annual inspections um and it has to be a certified person to do that type of inspection and any type of maintenance item that's found needs to be immediately rectified um before you can kind of be in the good graces um which which really means um you know there's there's enforcement issues and such like that but um Malone properties does inspect their properties annually um and and make sure that the sites are working it's it's a detriment to everyone when a system's not working properly including the site um okay that was a very satisfied answer thank you excellent thank you all right any other questions about original control of storm water okay we'll move on um the the next item is on page 11 of the staff report in its section 3010 access and circulation um what we have heard and are seeing in the staff report is that this isn't a this isn't a public this isn't a site for the public so it's not coming and going all day long but there is coming and going with the trucks that need to be serviced there so we heard that there is two-way traffic throughout the site um that there is access uh out onto route two part of the roundabout project and including over the railroad um I'm just going through this and finding that um this has been reviewed by the department of public works and is is believed to meet 3010 um with provision capacity for the roundabout the road that the road that leads up to um maybe a little delay as large vehicles pull out onto route two but traffic seems to be flowing down there anyway um so staff recommendation is to find that this access and circulation provision is met and I would invite drb comments or questions on that as well there I was curious on the number of trucks uh what would be the frequency of them coming and going and um the number of employees and and I guess you've mentioned that it's not a place that the public would visit so basically be kind of the employees coming and then that that truck traffic so I was curious on how many trucks are coming and going during the day sure there's supposed to be about 30 employees at this facility um so you could assume they would arrive in the in the morning and leave the evening um and then additionally of course those same employees some of them are office um and some of them are on-site or um off-site I suppose employees so they would take a vehicle with them and employee equipment um and and go to a site um typically they go all day until they're ready to return in the evening um they kind of do all of their their stops and they go to the treatment facility plant to do any type of offloading um in between and then continue on and then they come back to you know at the at the close of their day um provided there's no kind of mechanical issues with the equipment um so it's it's not expected to have um even out every after every um hour or any there's no there's no time because it really depends on the number of um customers that are that are being serviced at that time but there is there's kind of the you know trip generation the annuals that we can refer to for different type of uses and I um I feel like those are just guidelines they're they're a little up to interpretation sometimes but this particular use just kind of falls into the light industrial use where there's expected to be um 157 trips per day only 21 and 22 in the a.m. peak hour and the p.m. peak hour respectively um so that really is is very comparable to the number of employees there um also worth mentioning the the hours of operation are a little bit um a little bit off offset from typical peak hours um they they are more of a six in the morning to six in the evening company than than an eight to four thirties so the the peak hour of commuting employees are are less likely to coincide with other peak um users thank you Claire is it a follow-up question I think uh because that that access is coming onto route two um have you solved the section 111 permit um for the access on a state highway so this this particular project is um a little different because it already has um the access point is already considered to be an access for this um measuring so this location right here this crossing and this is the state um state road uh or route two um so this access point doesn't it's already back here where we're connecting to I I accidentally drew the dark lines into the crossing but our our work will start beyond the railroad right of way um so we we don't need to have that working in the um working in the right of way permits and also is this section um a road for some reason I'm thinking the actual section of road is under the um the town the city's authority but either way I don't know I don't know okay so we're seeing um as we ask questions about access and circulation you the image you've just showed us is that this is a road that's going to be a fourth spoke off of the roundabout right and it is not existing fourth spoke so if you and you may not even yes then you might not even think of it because by the time you see the building you're down here and so you're thinking you're you're not even wondering where they come in but this the access point right now is currently here um the the railroad already has their their crossing um and they have signals and and such there um that was part of this roundabout project in 2009 2010 that's pretty accurate clear okay okay thank you I guess I see great okay yeah and um I was like at uh when I was working sorry when I was working in construction they actually used this lot as our loading area for heavy construction vehicles and moving materials and now it's it's appropriate for for large vehicles and things there was no issues there great thank you thank you all right so um any other questions about access and circulation all right so next I'd like to take a peek at the um parking and loading standards which begin on page 14 of our staff report um staff finding is that the proposed parking areas meet the requirements of this section in terms of the size of the parking spaces the number of parking spaces is not too many and not too few there is not a requirement for um electric vehicle charging station because only 30 of the 43 or 45 spots are for employees the others are for vehicles so EV charging is not required um are there are there questions about parking and loading or anything else that the applicant would like to add okay all right so um I'm going to pause there it's 9 59 and we've reached what I think could be a natural stopping point we've gotten to the um we've gotten through the general use standards and have stopped at the um the general standards rather and our stopped stopped at the special use standards so I'm going to ask what the pleasure of the board is and the applicant in terms of how we proceed would you like to take another fixed amount of time and get through as much as we can or given that we I think that we need to continue this hearing to do it well and um I so my first question is um is the applicant willing to have this hearing continued to then our next BRB meeting yes I would wonder if we could potentially um discuss the items that are relative to Mr Rooney and and Ms Hoffmeyer's presence here so that they don't need to come back if that would be right or one one of the one of the two um we leave us here and if anybody has any questions about site but maybe maybe he can join us the next one if there's there's questions about the soil but I'd like to not have to um force them to come back more I would um is it is it thank you is that agreeable to the BRB members yes yes there's specifically testimony from the two um attendees um specific to this project um and then we will continue the uh the meeting to the next BRB meeting great okay thank you so um Alicia I would take your advice on we can hear from both John Rooney and Sarah Hoffmeyer and I would um take your advice on which which we should hear from first which topic we should tackle sure okay just just very quickly I'm not sure that these uh two attendees were were sworn in maybe they were and I just missed that they were they were sworn in thank you yep yep all right um so I don't know if there's an actual flow um Mr Rooney is our our architect is so if there's any questions about the design of the building and then uh Sarah is our um landscape architect um uh sure if I were a professionalist um and so she helped us with our landscaping design so I don't know if there's a perfect fund which can help you get matters um just to kind of get us through those ones all right we'll we'll go alphabetical by last name um and so Sarah what aren't you um you worked on the landscaping and so for everybody's reference landscaping is covered by section 3202 and we have information about that on page 19 of our staff report um so Sarah do you want to take a couple minutes to tell us very briefly about the landscape design and um then we'll take a peek at the staff report um it is a bit of a challenging site because there are a lot of limitations with the railroad the wetland um the river of course um and then where the stormwater treatment areas are so um and then of course uh the fact that the um site needed to be capped for soil remediation so um as far as it was being a brownfield site um and so that limited kind of where to put some of the plants and the trees but um looking at the western side of the property along the railroad um I think the best thing to do and what is in this plan is to um create just small berms so that um it's helping with the screening it's helping with the health of the plants I think that's the the biggest thing is how to get long-term success out of these plants so to give it more soil volume so to add a little bit more soil um to allow the tree roots to really take and then to become shade trees so uh the species that are chosen um are pretty rugged they can really take um a beating so uh freeman maple it's salt tolerant it's a combination it's a uh combination of silver maple and red maple so it's fast growing um but it's it's just a really rugged species honey locust again another rugged species these are all pretty quick growing species because I think establishment is really important so that they can get to be that big size and do their job of intercepting storm water intercepting rain water um and also casting shade so with all the impervious surface lessening the amount of heat that's coming off of that site um I'll ramble if uh if you want me to but I'll take whatever questions whatever direction you want to go in yeah that's that's a good overview it gives us the context of the site that you're working in which informs what why you put different things in different places so um that's good um we the staff recommendation conclusion is that this that this um complies with all the minimal planting areas and the number of species um and provide sufficient shade trees um along the travel aisle and in the parking area and then there's the buffer as well so um maybe I would just turn it over to my um fellow drb members as to whether there are any questions about the landscaping plan about on the far left of the diagram so towards the end part of the building are you are you talking about to the um we'll say it left of the addition correct yeah far left yeah what would you be able to propose trees on that end so there's um oh hi delicia there there's a um if you're looking to the further north there's actually a natural area that is adjacent to the storage area and in any landscape one of the most important things is to preserve and protect the existing mature trees because it takes a long time for them to get like that and that's a big investment so if you can see in between where the wetland boundary is and then the fence of the um right next to the storage area that there's a section of natural um it's like a natural woodland area there we go that'll be protected so no additional trees are needed there that's not expected to be disturbed thank you and also um jean just to mention so a lot of this area in here is um sidewalk so it's it's to help people um give enough space so that the accessible vehicles and also these employee vehicles can access that front entrance and so we don't have any plantings directly on this um this area here i it is kind of a grassy area and we haven't designated plants there um that doesn't mean that there won't be plants standing up there thank you um did you ever remember if you have any other questions about about the landscaping and screening so i'd like to thank the applicant for a very well-prepared plan i think it saved us a lot of time here for our review and uh really makes the process go smoother so uh thank you very much this is great thanks rob okay if i think the follow-up questions were oh sorry did someone want to jump in there if we think a follow-up questions we're allowed we're allowed to ask them but it seems like that is a good overview of the landscaping on the project thank you sarah um so what we'll do next is turn to john rooney and hear a little bit about the architecture and i'm going to cross-reference that again with our staff report so this what what we need to determine is whether the design has compatibility with the with the neighborhood in which this project is located so it's on page 23 of our staff report um and it's section 3207 of the zoning bylaw i'm just gonna we don't do this as often because we so often get projects in um the design review district but i'll just read it section 3207 requires architectural standards for all projects requiring major site plan approval with the intent to ensure that proposed development will be compatible with and enhance the visual appearance of the street and neighborhood and exhibit consistent design integrity in all building components including roof forms windows and entrances building materials facade details etc um we're in the eastern corridor neighborhood um and the there are a series of architectural standards there at the bottom of page 23 um that i that i'm not going to read but um maybe we could hear from john just with a with a very brief like probably less than five minute overview of the of the design and how it meets those standards thank you for bearing with us john i can do it a lot less than five minutes all right do we have any the pictures up or everybody's familiar with the with the renderings thank you alisha thanks alisha um well as you as you know this is an industrial building and industrial buildings by their nature tend to be very blocky um because they're large they usually have flat roofs and and and this building is is no exception um but what we tried to do is through texture and color and and scale change the change the the look of the building and give it and give it give it interest plus um you know indentations and obviously that the existing building is a rectangular box or we are stuck with that but the a new addition we tried to break up the facade to meet the requirements and and to give the building um visual interest the the yellow orange part that you see at the back is where the offices are located so we use that change in color and height to differentiate the office space from the warehouse workspace um and then the the the materials as you probably read indicated on the around the bottom of the um the work the workshops we used a block in two colors to give a striation which um again is is applying texture to complement the the the metal siding which would be very you know is very smooth so there's a nice contrast in texture plus the concrete block is is a more durable material down near the ground where you have you have salt and you have um potential for damage from from vehicles and that sort of thing and the the office portion again is is is metal because metal is uh you know very typical exterior material for this kind of building so we thought it was very appropriate and on the on the um the warehouse or the industrial industrial shop side we used the vertical siding and and by using a couple of a couple of different shades again it just adds texture and color and breaks down the scale of the building and and and again with this type of building it just breaks it down from a monolithic kind of structure and to give it again give it a peel i cut there's a cut out in the corner where i put a canopy to protect the the entry to the to the shop and in hindsight i'm i'm looking at it and i think i would i would uh do the fascia of that canopy in the yellow to to draw in the color of the office minor detail i'm always tweaking the things like that and uh that's that's that's pretty much it um are there any questions thank you are there any questions the structure is a metal structure does it have a stone stone veneer in the bottom is that concrete block concrete yeah i'm i'm suggesting uh like a split face concrete block we may that we have two bands a darker and a lighter and i'm thinking the darker one may we do with a split face and then the lighter ones maybe smooth face again to play up the different textures yeah thank you other questions about the metal sheet uh what kind of metal is it and how do you expect it to age um well it'll be it'll be a a pre-finished you know factory finish it would uh it would age in order to paint it yeah but it'd be it'd be a factory they're factory finishes i'm not sure exactly what whether it's a kynar or um you know we haven't got to the there are a number of different manufacturers out there and we haven't specified exactly which manufacturer that's at this at this point in time okay i guess i would just be concerned about certain metal sheetings can rust or where they're riveted they can rust and that definitely affects the look of the building over time all right well they're they're yeah that but these the panels they're making nowadays are much improved over the past but and the vertical ones would would would be have hidden fasteners so you wouldn't they wouldn't be exposed okay thank you thank you other questions from board members about the building um i i appreciate hearing about um the the design characteristics the more the artistic pieces of it but i'm going to ask a boring question which is um could you i don't see any mechanical equipment any vents or compressors or anything um in the diagrams that in the um building diagrams that we're looking at now can you tell me where those will be and where they'll be visible from at this moment i i cannot we um we would need a mechanical engineer to provide us with but that is a very good point um it may be necessary to screen them unless we can put them back locate them back farther on the roof where there'd be where they wouldn't be um visible from this from the street okay all right let's just for thinking about that and for for drb members um consideration the standard we've got to meet there is mechanical equipment electrical meter and service components and similar utility devices whether at ground level or mounted on the building shall be screened from view at the front property line with materials that are compatible with the building's predominant exterior material that's what we're going for yeah Kevin yeah so uh this is directed to mr rooney uh when you get into the h-back systems and the compressors and so forth uh it would also be useful to you're not in any kind of residential area there but in the river corridor sound travels quite a quite a distance and compressors are one of the uh one of the things that often become the source of of noise pollution in a situation like that so i'd like to ask you if you would keep that as uh uh part of your review when you get into designing that the um no i don't quote me on this but the the office space which would probably be air conditioned and and obviously heated and it's it's only a small percentage of the square footage and probably great we'll probably be using i think we'll be using rooftop units which means that that they know they wouldn't the sound wouldn't be a problem the warehouse shop areas um my feeling is at this point in time they will probably just be heated internally so they won't have compressors on the exterior but i don't know i don't know this moment in time what our heat source will be our fuel source for for heating and cooling so even though it's a large large building a good percentage of it would have very little in in terms of uh mechanical equipment on the roof there'd be exhausts for dealing with the with the trucks and equipment um i'm just oh yeah at least you go ahead um i think there was also discussion about um putting it behind the raised roof portion of the building so a lot of the roof is 22 feet and then the office block is 26 feet tall so um there was a there was consideration about putting it kind of behind that already elevated um four-foot buffer of a roof um at least it would buffer from from certain sides and that's that's the initial thought all right yeah i forgot about that right in their communities that's everything behind that oh um i'm sorry i hear patrick trying to speak but i can't hear you very well so if you'd like to chime in um would you please try again did you hear me now yeah thank you then the units will be behind the lower roof addition the addition is going to be five feet higher the units will be behind that they will be okay okay thank you good um while we have while we have john ready here i want to ask one more question that is actually in a different section of the um bylaw but we're not tonight but on another night we're going to talk more about section 32 of 6 solar access and shading and one piece of that requires that the roof surface roof surface of new buildings be flat which it is and be physically and structurally capable of supporting a certain number of solar collectors um will this roof be physically and structurally capable of supporting some solar collectors yes i'm seeing and that'd be up to the structural engineers it will be john really okay okay thank you i'll make note of that roof will hold solar um thank you that way i know where we had the roof of the addition the roof of the addition good clarification oh they say for back that's good all right um great so that brings us through landscaping and so the design and compatibility considerations are there any other questions for john or sarah right so if it's amenable to all i would like to propose that um this application be continued to our next hearing is that still acceptable to the applicant yes so move okay thank you um we have a motion from kevin to to continue this to our next regularly scheduled meeting which is on july 6 2020 at 7 p.m is there a second all second okay we've got a motion by kevin a second by gene and now i will take the role um all those in uh joe yes rob yes michael yes gene yes kevin yes roger yes and i'm kate and i'm voting yes as well and claire i've left you off that because you won't be continuing on this sorry don't need to be left out great so the the application for 250 river street will be taken up again on july 6 um we look forward to talking with you more and thank you very much for being here this evening thank you thank you all right remaining business of this board for the evening is approval getting back to my agenda um reviewing and approving the meeting that it's of february 18 2020 and june 1 2020 um i'm moving to those in the big staff packet to see who can vote on each of these all right so a bit eligible to vote on the february 18 minutes are myself rob claire michael roger and that's all so um do i have a motion to approve the minutes of february 18 2020 i'll make a motion to approve the minutes of february 18 2020 thank you motion by rob second i'll second that second by claire i will do the role of those eligible to vote um to approve the minutes from february roger yes thank you rob yes claire yes michael yes and i'm cate and i vote yes thank you we've approved the minutes of february 18 next we will entertain a motion to we um need to approve the minutes of june 1 2020 eligible to vote are myself kevin rob um michael gene and joe so do i have a motion to approve the minutes as printed or approve the minutes as printed for june 1 2020 so moved motion by joe is that right no that was a second no so moved by rob motion by rob second by jean second by jean is there any discussion okay we'll do the role to vote um kevin yes rob yes michael yes jean yes joe yes and i'm cate and voting yes um very good thank you very much we've approved our minutes um caught up with our backlog other business our next meeting date is july 6 at 7 o'clock i believe it will be we will be zooming together again um any other business or announcements i'll make a motion to adjourn the uh just a quick note marita um and this is this video is also for the public and you'll get something in writing all the drb members a quick early notice that we are only going to have one hearing in august the second hearing the august 17th hearing is cancelled um but the to the august third will be the only potential drb hearing in the month of august thank you marita for letting us know well in advance good for everyone to know any other announcements i was hearing none i'll entertain yeah i was making the motion to adjourn our meeting this evening motion by kevin i'll second this is joe second from joe um i'm not going to do this by roll all those in favor please raise your right hand we are adjourned okay it is unanimous we are adjourned thank you all so much