 It is 631 according to my computer. I'll call the meeting to order. Welcome. This is the meeting of the Winooski Development Review Board. My name is Kevin Lumpkin, I'm the chair. With me in person and via Zoom is Matt Basowitz, our vice chair. We've got members of the board, Elsie Goodrich, Erin Gayet, David Weisberger. We've got five of us tonight and Caitlin Hayes just in time to be introduced. Sorry, Kevin. One second, I'm gonna hit record here quick. So it's gonna give us that here a moment. Sorry to interrupt. Recording in progress. Can I just ask you a question before? Do people feel more comfortable with where it is? It's up to you. Not required up to you. I would ask your immediate neighbors. We're far enough away. All right, so we've called the meeting to order. Before we started recording, I introduced the members of the DRB. Next item is changes to the agenda. Anyone have any changes to the agenda? Hearing none. The next item is public comment. This is a section required in every public meeting in the state of Vermont. It's not for comment on the actual items we're gonna hear tonight. It's more general thoughts about the city, about the world, anybody have any public comments? Hearing none. Next item is to approve the previous meeting minutes. These were circulated in your packets. Do I hear a motion to approve the previous meeting minutes? I'll move to approve them. Got a motion, a second? A second. Great, got two seconds. Let's call it LC, seconded for the official record. All in favor, say aye or raise your hands. Aye. We can't see the internet people. Oh yeah, can you switch that over to gallery mode? They both raised their hands though, Kevin. Great, both raised their hand. I'm gonna abstain because I wasn't here. But the minutes are adopted. Let's move on. We've got one substantive item for hearing tonight. It's conditional use review. And part of that is a waiver request, right? So we're hearing both the request for conditional use approval and the request for waiver, 62 Union Street. I understand the owner has sent, excuse me, the applicant has sent a representative who just introduce yourself and tell us what this is all about. Yes, hi, I am Greg Dixon from Krebs and Lansing Consulting Engineers. I'm the engineer on behalf of 62 Union Street, LLC. Eric, I think if we could get the site plan up. Yep, do you expect Connor to say anything? He's on, I can bring him over as opposed. He may, I'm not sure. Can I pause you right there? I forgot to swear you in. So everybody who intends to give testimony tonight or might give testimony tonight, go ahead and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give shall be the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury? I do. Great, go for it. All right, so I'm gonna share my screen here with the site plan. So we can start with this one. This is our existing condition plan. So we went out and surveyed the property. We have not performed a boundary survey on it yet, but did find a lot of evidence of property corners. But we surveyed it for coverage numbers and to sort of see what is out there existing right now. What is existing right now is a, in the main building is two dwelling units. So basically two apartments. And then in the back, as you can see, there is an existing, I think it's a three bay garage. That garage is in relatively rough shape. And so that will kind of be what we're discussing today. If you could pop to the site plan. As you can see, not a whole lot. This is actually the proposed site plan. As far as buildings go, not a whole lot has changed. We plan to use the exact same foundation as the existing garage for the building itself. It'll be a detached cottage. I think it's just under 1,000 square foot of livable space, like something like 990. It will be a three bedroom apartment unit, three bedrooms, two baths. And with this, we will also be bringing the site plan under a little bit more compliance with some of the other components of town regulation, mostly being coverage numbers. So this project was already over 50% coverage. And so as a way to do this project, we're actually gonna remove a bunch of impervious surface up there in order to get back under the 50% threshold or actually just right at it. As you can see in green, those are the areas that we plan on kind of revegetating and then reorganizing the parking lot to get as many parking spaces as we can. Even I think we're required five. And right now with the two bays, we're proposing seven. So that is the basic gist of what our proposal is. As you mentioned before, there are waivers we're requesting. The waivers we're requesting are to basically use the existing slab foundation for the building. It is already within the setback. There's five foot setbacks for both rear and side yard. And that is already within two and a half feet of that. We plan to use the exact same foundation footprint and just come straight up from there. So that is the waiver that we're requesting is to have the ability to use basically the same footprint of the building that's already out there. Let me focus you in on one other criteria for the waiver that I suspect is gonna be the most challenging for you. So the first criteria, and it says in granting a waiver under this section, the DRB shall find based on clear and convincing evidence of a specific need in circumstance that, among other things, no reasonable alternative exists for citing the structure, addition, or improvement outside the required setback area. So tell us a little bit about why a reasonable alternative wouldn't be something like make it smaller, move the foundation, pour a new foundation, get rid of this foundation, anything in that area. So I think the basis of the reasoning for using the existing foundation is to save money and to use that money in different places, like we're saying, to upgrade some of the parking areas, bring that all up to code, also have the ability to possibly add privacy fencing as well as vegetation during that and also some changes along the roadway. If we are not allowed to use the existing foundation, we will have to go back to the drawing board. I'm not sure the applicant is interested in doing anything. And so it would basically stay as a derelict garage in the corner of this property. So this is sort of a way for them to actually make something nice out of something that is not nice, and that's why we're requesting it. So can you give me, just in assessing the reasonableness, if one were to say, well, you're within the setback, you could site it somewhere else, you could move that foundation somehow or pour around it, you can tell that I don't know a lot about construction stuff. So give me an estimate of how much of a pain and how expensive that would be. I mean, they just push their numbers and it's not in their pro forma, basically. So it doesn't work for what they want to do with the property at this time. So I can't really give you an exact number. The reasoning that we can't just shrink it on the existing foundation is because foundations are set up to have support areas and then the interiors are normally just slabs. So if you kind of offset where loads are on a concrete structure, you're not actually gonna be able to support a building. So the foundation needs to have the walls where the walls are intended to go to have the force go down in the appropriate location. So we can't just kind of, I know that was an idea originally that we just sort of shift the slab would stay in place, but we kind of shift the building on top of the slab, but that is not doable. The only thing that would be doable, as you're mentioning, is tear it all down, rip out the foundation and then pour a new foundation. And that is not worth the applicant's time and money. So, sorry. Yeah, and I can jump. Connor Duffy, the owner or one of the owners is on the Zoom as well and is looking to say a few words as well here. Great. Yeah, and appreciate everyone being here tonight and looking at this project. So we bought the building in December of 2020 and the existing building, well, it's a beautiful 1920s building, it was in rough shape too. So we're really happy to bring the existing two-in-it building up to code and get it rented in the garage as we've kind of pointed out is in rough shape and the existing footprint is there. And the way that we've looked at this and tried to price it out, adding, removing the entire foundation and completely reconstructing the slab along with all the support structures is gonna be expensive. And I don't have the exact numbers because we haven't priced it out because we wanted to have this conversation first. But unfortunately, just because of the way that building is situated, if it becomes cost-prohibitive to not only demolish but reconstruct that foundation that it's probably not gonna make sense for us to do. And in that event, this building, it's just, it's not in great shape. So we were hoping to really wanna improve this entire, both units, get them rented, provide some additional units for the town. And we wanna have something that we're proud of. We spent a lot of time on the design. We think it matches with the existing building but not being able to use the footprint that is in place, I think we'd run into cost issues and as I'm sure everyone on the call's aware, construction costs are going up and probably not seeing them come down anytime soon. So that's really where we're coming from requesting this step back. Yeah. I think the cost savings also is apparent in what they plan to do with the building if you wanted to bring up the architectural plans for the building. It is a very attractive building that they plan to put on this existing foundation. And again, just trying to bring up the positive aspects of being able to use that foundation is that you get a better product at the end of the day. Let me take one more swing at this reasonableness criterion. It would it be fair to say that it's more than a couple thousand bucks to rip out this foundation and pour a new one? Oh, yes, definitely. 10s of thousands, I would say. Have you, it's gonna be major, yeah. Excuse me. Have you consulted with a structural engineer? Would it be possible to slice off five feet from one end and pour it on the other and use the remaining of this lab? So the problem there is the existing foundation walls that are above this lab could be reused to build the building to have the proper structural support. But if we were to move away from the existing foundation walls, it wouldn't make any sense because you'd be basically, you can't support the building on the slab. So you have to start over. If we can't use those existing foundation walls as support, then you really have to completely redo the entire foundation because it just wouldn't work. So we have, yeah, we have looked into what it would require. But if we can't use a new... The structural engineer? I mean, is the foundation adequate that's there? Do you have any evidence that it's adequate for the new building? So that'll be once we start the process of knocking it down to see what we're actually dealing with. So we'll need to have them come in and analyze the foundation once it's clear. I mean, we can get them to take a look now, but through the process of demolition, it's hard to see what we're gonna run into. So, Eric, question for you. What happens if we approve an application like this, the applicant moves forward in good faith, takes down the existing structure, and the foundation is just more rough than expected, can't make it work, and they decide not to move forward? Is that fine? They can just tear that down whenever they want. Don't need a permit or anything? They would need to get a demolition permit, but yes, there would be nothing. So demolition of the structure is not contingent on your approval. They can go out and tear that down right now if they wanted. Yes. It's just the reconstruction on the site that is what you all are discussing tonight. Got it. And it looks like there is an attendee with a hand up. I'm not sure if this is Andrew Gill or not, if that is you, Andrew, if you could just note that in the chat, please. Okay, so we're still, sorry, we're still on the applicant's presentation. I interrupt to do, if you have anything else to convey about the project, or if any other DRB members have questions, now's the time. No, I think the only other thing I was going to point out is that we're also intending to widen the driveway access. Right now it's maybe nine and a half feet, which is a little tight. And so we're going to try to jump it to 12 feet in order to just have better passage back there. And there's also a retaining wall that's kind of on the western side of the existing building, eastern side of the driveway right now that's kind of falling apart. And we're also going to fix that up. And in general, bring the side up to a little bit nicer stuff. Other questions from folks in the DRB, folks online? Matt. I have one, and it's just because I've been kind of Google mapping, street viewing the situation while you've been describing it. And I see a couple of very intrusive trees. One in particular appears to be between what looks like a shed at the neighboring property and the one, and your existing garage there. I'm assuming that tree is going to have to come down. And have you spoken with the neighbors about possible impacts on their property as a result of that? Don't exactly know what tree you're talking about. We didn't locate all the trees, so they would be on the site plan if you wanted to bring that back up again. The picture from Schubert was October of last year, and it's right between the shed at 70 Union and your garage at 62. So there is a 20-inch box elder that's actually on the neighboring property, on the Western property, so that would not be coming down. Okay, I see it leaning significantly over your garage, which is why I just have concerns about neighbor impact on this project. Yeah, I'm sure we'd have to reach out to the neighbor about maybe limbing some of the sections, but the base of the tree itself is either on the property line and or on the neighboring property, so we would definitely have to work with that neighbor to do anything about that tree. Okay, okay. Hey guys, this is Andrew Gill, one of the other owners that just hopped on the call. I just had a little bit more, it texted me that there was some stuff coming up about the construction of the slab and stuff, and I thought I could potentially help speak to some of that. I think that the, when I had read the report, the staff report for the hearing, and I think it said that there would be a specific need or circumstance that would exist, that would say that there is no reasonable alternative siting of the building. Our take on it was that the existing foundation is the specific need or circumstance that exists, and it would be unreasonable to sort of relocate it. It's a good foundation. To the question, we have inspected it, the slab is in great shape, the walls are in great shape, there's no cracks, there's no evident deterioration, that's a CMU foundation currently supporting a two-story structure. Two-story structures plan to replace it, and so there's really no sign that the foundations derelict or damaged in any way, or that it couldn't support the new structure. And so our overwhelming sort of feeling is that it's gonna work. To the question of impacts to the neighbors, I think reusing the existing foundation allows us to build the new unit without taking that tree down. Digging the foundation up, putting a new foundation in, even if we were five feet from the property line, which I think is the setback, that would hurt the root structure of that tree and potentially cause more damage, similar with all of the other trees surrounding the building. Sort of a less invasive process for everybody to not have to excavate. And so that was also part of the overall concern. And in terms of the cost of the re-excavation, it's probably in the 25 to $35,000 range to pour a new foundation, excavate, then footing drains, tie everything in, and get everything built. So it is a substantial cost. Typically your site work and foundation is 15 to 20% of the cost of the entire building process. And here, that's no different. So we're trying to sort of reinvest that in the site rather than in the foundation by reusing. And certainly to the question of what would happen if we got into the project, had a permit to build this, demolish the garage, and found the foundation to be unsuitable, I think we would proceed and build the thing and have to figure it out. We're not gonna get that far into the process. And in it, that's just not a viable option. So if we did proceed with a permit on this project, we would be obligated to complete it and we'd be comfortable with that. Great, so thanks for that information. Other folks have questions from the DRB, including the folks online. We can't see you people online yet till we go back to gallery mode. I want to say, Matt, Caitlin, you good? Actually, excuse me, thanks when I had it. I do have one question or maybe two. So what is the height of the current garage right now and what is the height of the proposed new structure? I don't know what the height of the current garage is right now, but I know it meets the current standards and so will the new structure. Okay, because I guess I'm just wondering if we're thinking about having a dwelling unit that's within the setbacks that I understand that there's not going to be windows on the back of the property, but it's just, if it is going to be substantially taller, it's just something I think that we would be interested in knowing. And my other question was, so for the comment that was just made, it sounds like if the structure is taken down and the foundation is not usable that the project will still move forward regardless. So that's, I feel like we just heard two different statements about that. Yeah, choosing seed and to spend that money and being in the middle of the project and having it forced upon you, I don't think are the same. So I guess what I was saying is that if we move forward in good faith to reuse the foundation and it works out that it's impossible. We're not going to be just leaving a hole in the ground like the mall downtown. We have the funds to complete the project. We just, we might not choose to enter the project knowing that that expense was there. I don't know if that is clear or not, but it'd be a lot harder to finance the project. The budget would be substantially higher. The, it might or might not pan out and it would just be a different financial commitment that I think we can handle if it's forced upon us, but it's not necessarily the choice that would make right out of the key if that makes sense. It does make sense. I do feel like, I do feel like that we just heard from your engineer that if the project would not move forward because it would be too expensive. So just wanting to, that's good to hear though. So I'm all set with my question. The other question to the height, the existing building is two stories for about a third of the structure with a gable roof. And then the other two thirds of the structure are one story with a peaked roof. So the height of the proposed structure is equivalent to the current height of the building. Definitely in the third that's already two stories. And so like proportionally, I think they're similar. We could get you that information if it's helpful, but it's currently a two-story structure with a gable roof on part of it. And a two-story structure is proposed. The roof actually is flatter in the proposed structure because more of a modern pitch. And so it's sort of in more in keeping with the overall height of the current building, even though it's two stories the current roof peaks like this and ours is more. I actually think the height is on the architectural plans of the proposed building. I could chime in. I drove by on the way here. It seems what's there now is like a story and a half on the gabled part. The renderings make this feel like it's going to be quite a bit taller, even if just in feel. This is a full two stories and that's really not what's there now. You've got a slope roof sloping towards the front of the house for two thirds of it. And then a gable on the one third, like you say, but it doesn't have a full wall at that gable. It's like a half a knee wall. So this just feels taller than me, is my impression just from driving by. So from just for clarification from the first floor ground on this mark line here to the bearing plate line at this point is 18, just over 18 feet on this plan. So then there's another four or five feet above it here. So about 24 feet or so tall roughly. The maximum height for an accessory structure in the zoning district is 35 feet just for reference. So this is within the standards. So Eric, can I chime in, sort of follow up on that? I have a question for you. I think some definition questions. Sure. Six, eight that they quote says the waiver can be granted to allow for additions or improvements to a preexisting nonconforming structure would, I couldn't find a definition for improvement, but would we consider this is basically a complete tear down and rebuild an improvement? That's certainly not an addition. I think in this case, we'd be looking at it from the perspective of granting a waiver for relief from the setbacks in order to build the structure. It'd be a new structure. Yes, correct. A new structure, a new nonconforming structure that we'd be allowing. It would be, so if they were to just be repairing the existing garage, I think we would be looking at it differently because it's the garage structure exists. In this case, they wanna remove the garage structure. So they would need the waiver to the setbacks because willfully taking the building down would require them to meet the existing standards, which would mean that it would need to be within or the foundation would need to be outside of the setbacks. But that's why they're requesting the waiver so that they can reuse, they can do both. They can take the existing structure down, but reuse the slab that is located within the setbacks. So it's like the ax that's had its head replaced twice and its handle replaced three times. I mean, is it the same nonexisting structure? It would be, in this case, no, because if you grant the waiver, then it's basically a permitted structure then. The waiver removes that nonconformity because you're granting the relief that they're requesting. So you're establishing, if you grant the waiver, you'd be establishing a new setback for this particular structure. So it would be then conforming with the regulations, in essence. Which sounds like it's against the goals of the city from the other part that I read. It says, it's the goal of the city of Wynuski that nonconformity shall over time cease to exist, become conforming, or at a minimum continue to be used in a manner that does not increase their degree of nonconformity. Well, it would meet that last standard. And I think I'd contend that we're not increasing the level of nonconformity. So that's my other question. Is that a valid assertion, would you say, Eric, that the degree of nonconformity is not increased here? Or is that some subjective? Is that something we have to- I think that's... Well, the degree of nonconformity is two and a half feet on each boundary. But it's got a full second story over parts. Well, I guess those parts aren't out of the boundary. No, the setbacks don't care about the other dimensions, though. Right. So it was about the height, though, right? Well, the height was never unconforming and it will continue to not be unconforming. So it's around 18 to 20 feet now. It'll be a little bit taller, but it'll still be under 35 feet. Correct. The height is not in question. The existing structure and the proposed structure both conform to the maximum height of the district. It's the location of the building. So to answer your previous question, by using the existing slab, they would not be increasing the degree of nonconformity in this case if you were to grant the waiver. Now, if you were to, if they were looking to go into the setbacks further, then that would be an increase of the nonconformity. What about the overhang on the front? So on this particular elevation, this would be interior of the property. So the side overhangs, there is a, in the definitions, it does indicate that, and I believe I wrote this up in the memo, there is a lapse. So I mean the overhang of the second, if you go to the other elevation, the overhang of the second floor over that garage door is new, yeah, right there on the right hand side of that top drawing. This one. That's it. Nope, the building itself, that's overhanging the foundation. The second floor sticks out. Oh, I see, this here, this bump out. So there's a little two and a half foot sliver of that that's now what it wasn't there before. And that is, that's gonna be interior to the site. So it's not on a, it's basically not on one of the side boundaries. He's saying at the corner and it's- The corner is, yeah. So we might have to offset that corner two and a half feet. I mean, doesn't it pick you out? I thought it was only the foundation that those requirements, but if that is a judgment of the board, I'm sure we'd be able to offset that overhang two and a half feet and it'd be a weird kind of kitty corner in the apartment, but, and we'd probably go from 990 to 987.5, but that is possible. We can do that. And then, I guess my last question, Eric, is this, will this building as an apartment building need to have a state permit, this be governed by the building codes? Yes, yes, because it'll be considered a public building. It would need state building permits. So I have some concern about the proximity of this building to the shed next door. The code typically requires walls to be fire rated when you have a building that close to the other one. And I see that you have windows on that wall that are basically looking right into that existing shed as well. Existing. I guess that's a garage, right? That's a garage space on the first floor. Yeah. So that there wouldn't be any, I don't know if he has that. It would be the western elevation. He's got two little windows there. There's no windows on, we attempted to have no windows on the, there would be, so it's that western elevation. There's two windows in the garage bay and two up high. Somebody else is in charge of enforcing that code, right? Cause I don't know. Correct. That would be addressed with the building codes. Absolutely. That's just a comment for you to be aware of. So I'm gonna make sure. I did not study about that. Yeah, no, we'd have to apply for that permit. We'd also have to get a water and wastewater permit from the state. Eric, I just have one more question. This is just maybe a definition thing. Is there a minimum size that a room can be for to be considered a bedroom? The city does have a, in our municipal code, it does have minimum housing standards and it does talk about the minimum size for a bedroom. I believe, and I'd have to look specifically, but I believe it's listed at 70 square feet to be to qualify as a bedroom. But it also has information on the ceiling height for that space, what you would need to have as far as kitchen amenities for it to be considered a place where you could prepare food and things of that nature. So we do, yes, we do have minimum housing standards in the municipal code. Okay, thank you. And there is architectural floor plans above and also in the packets. I think most of the bedrooms are over that 70 foot. It's a cozy apartment, but it's... A thousand feet for a three bedroom, yeah. Sorry, I just keep popping up. Have you given any thought to how you're gonna insulate the living space if you, underneath the under slab insulation, if you maintain that slab? Insulate, so... The energy code which you bring up in your letter saying that this building is gonna be much more energy efficient, energy code now requires that you have insulation under your slabs for any living spaces. But that's not gonna be possible if you... Yeah, I don't think this slab's gonna sit direct. So I don't think that bottom floor is gonna sit directly on the slab. So I think there'll be sufficient room to put in some insulation. Got it. I think to the question, I'm not 100% sure what the specific requirements of the energy code are for this particular project. I believe it's just the base energy code. There's a checklist in the code that you can use so you can pull points from various different areas. I think it often is the case that that's something that you can do things to offset things that you can't do. You know, we will 100% be complying with the code. You know, we'll fill out the RBES certificate. We'll, you know, file it with the zoning administrator report it. I would say that if we're not able to insulate underneath the slab, we can also insulate the exterior of the foundation so we could excavate the front and side and, you know, apply insulation to the exterior side before backfilling. Also, there might be ways within the code to provide for offsets, you know, by increasing the thickness of the wall insulation or the roofing insulation or, you know, using ZipR sheeting or having some sort of exterior seamless insulation, something like that. So we would look to try and avoid having to insulate under the slab. I think if it were a requirement, we would do it on the exterior so we would excavate and apply exterior foam insulation. Thank you. Other questions from folks on the DRB? I'm wondering about the driveway. We went to the driveway, 12 feet seems like a lot and I believe that also requires DRB approval, right, for encroachment into the setback of the driveway? You know, that's a good question. I don't, I think this came up in a previous discussion. I know there is an allowance for a shared driveway to encroach into the setback, but I believe that's for two adjacent properties. So I think, and at least I thought that I included information on the driveway encroachment in my memo about the waiver as well. If not, I think that's where I was looking to have the DRB make some comment on the driveway encroachment as part of the waiver as well. I think section 4.2 D access. What about that? But I mean, 12 feet is a lot for a driveway, right? And you've also got the trees there that are between the two parcels. It looks like it's on the neighboring parcel, those box elders. I think you'd be, I think you'd be into the tree roots because it's kinda humped up next to the existing driveway. Yeah, I mean, the reasoning for the driveway was to give better access for emergency vehicles or something like along those lines was my thought process. If that is a worry of the DRB, we can definitely remove that. It was more just to provide, I think 10 feet's a little tight for this many cars back in there. And then they'll be the building itself that if access needed to happen, it would be better to have a larger driveway. And that was the reasoning for it, I don't disagree with the reasoning, but the trees that are there, I don't know, I guess you'd have to have permission from the neighbor. We're not really changing the grades all that much. I guess there is a hump right in the middle of it. And maybe we can even bring the grade of the driveway up a little bit. So it wouldn't be as much of a cut into that hump. The other thing we can look at doing is pushing back the wall on the eastern side closer to the existing building and maybe making up a little bit more room on that side. Have you coordinated with emergency services to find out what they need? I reached out and nobody got back to me. I hope not on the emergency line. No. Any other questions from folks on the DRB? So is there only cutting, as a follow-up to that, is there only cutting of existing pavement or is it all gonna be repaved? What's the... I think just with how much pavement is changing, it'll at least need to be resurfaced to be a consistent, one consistent driveway. But I don't think we've really figured out exactly how we're going to do that. That the driveway out there right now is paved. And I don't know if it's in great condition or not, but we'd probably try to salvage as much of it as possible again to save costs on construction. I don't want to deal too much in hypotheticals, but Eric, is it possible that if we were to approve this, it would be contingent on the fact that this slab is functional as is to go forward and that if it did have to be torn up and re-bored, that that would not be allowed. That if it had to be redone and they were still interested in going forward, that it would have to be in conformity. Good question. That's a good question. I think we could address that through any decision that's issued where we could either look at it, again, if you're inclined to approve the waiver, you could do that and that way that would allow them to use the existing slab. But I think we could also condition it so that if for some reason the slab needed to be torn out that then they would have to cite the building, the new slab with outside of the setbacks and be in conformance with the existing regulations. So I think we could do it so that they wouldn't have to come back before you all to say, hey, the slab was no good. We have to move the building two feet in further onto the property and thereby get it out of the setbacks altogether. Well, I think Elti's concern is if the slab needs to be torn out and re-bored anyway, then if we didn't say something like this, then our permit might suggest they should do it on the existing footprint. Correct. So just throw it out to the applicants. If you're halfway through the process, you know you're gonna have to tear out the foundation anyway because there are problems with it and the condition where, well, if you already have to do that and you're gonna re-bore it, now you gotta be within the five foot setback. That doesn't, you already spent that money then, right? So that's a reasonable condition we could impose, right? I'd probably defer to Andrew to... I think that's fine. Yeah, the only thing that we would request is that the condition be something that the zoning administrator can enforce, right? So that it can be a quick turnaround in terms of the alternate site plan or potentially maybe we just submit an alternate site plan that has the structure and conformance and get it approved with the permit. But there should be, as long as there's a way to sort of get to what plan B is quickly, I think it's fine. So I think either having an alternate site plan that we approve now that is in compliance, if the slab has to be removed or just having the zoning administrator be able to make that determination in the field or via submission. That would be consistent with what things we've asked you to do in the past in terms of enforcing conditions. Yes, that's correct. Okay. Last question, I think, for me. What's the building on the property behind your property that's also very close to your new building? Is that another garage? I believe so, yes. It's actually, David, just, sorry. The owner of that property is also here. So he can speak to that when we open it up to public comment. And we're definitely further from that building than the one to the west. So that, at the risk of saying that's a great transition to hearing from our next person in the room here, anybody else have any questions for the applicant? Great, why don't you all switch seats and we'll hear from what I understand as an adjoining property owner if you could let us know who we are and where your property is in relation to this proposed structure and what you'd like us to know. Great, well, my name is Herb Sinkinsen. I've lived at 69 Maple Street, Winnowsky. The property that shares the property line with this particular property on Union Street. I've owned it since, I can't remember when, it was 1986 or 1987. I am recently retired two years ago from the state of Vermont where I worked for 43 years as probation and parole officer, supervisor, worked at the Correctional Center. Originally, I went to St. Michael's College, graduated 74, was hired by the Department of Corrections in 1975. I wanted to really rehabilitate people, people that were offenders. I was not the lock them up, the longer the better kind of mentality. I was, I actually graduated with a psychology degree and people used to kid me like you can't rehabilitate everybody, but I always tried and that followed through till I went to probation and parole. I spearheaded a program called Repertive Probation which morphed into community justice centers and you have one of the good community justice centers in Chittenden County here. But I started the first Repertive Probation Board in Chittenden County before there were ever community justice centers in 1995 and I was responsible for educating judges, stakeholders and the public about what restorative justice and Repertive Probation was all about. It's a nationally award-winning program that I submitted an application just, I'm getting a little off the subject of this but I just wanna tell you who I am and what I do a little bit. So you get to know that I am a human being with needs and I had goals, certain goals and I still do and I had certain dreams and I still do. Some of them have not quite come to fruition or yet but I'm working on it. So I put in an application after I wrote an article with a professor from a college in Massachusetts that came up to see the Repertive Board and he suggested why don't you put in an application to the Innovations in the American Government Award in 1998, I did so and we ended up, I got a call a couple weeks later from a judge, he wanted to come up to see the board in progress and he said it blew him away, it was way beyond what he thought it would be. We won $100,000 to expand the program and that in turn helped us get community justice centers and going into the rest of the state. Just a couple of other quick things about me. So I am currently the, I haven't stopped working so I bought 57 Maple Street right next to 69 Maple Street be a year and a half ago approximately because I was troubled by what was going on there for the past 10 years. The initial 20 years that I lived there, I knew the people that lived there, they were working people, they were some of them were friends of mine, had a great relationship with them and that went downhill so I said, instead of just allowing somebody else to take it over and maybe neglect the property further which is gonna hurt my property value at 69 Maple Street, I share the same driveway with them as does the house in front of me which is 71 I think. I decided hey, if I can buy it, if I can swing it, I'm gonna buy it and gradually improve it. So I'm in the process of doing that. It's been a long slog, it's only just beginning because of COVID and a whole bunch of other factors but anyway, that's beyond the scope of this but I do believe in revamping older buildings as a matter of fact, mine is about a hundred year old house 69 Maple Street and so is this property 57 as well. They both have fieldstone foundations. The one at 69 Maple Street is in very good shape. The one at the other needs a little bit of work as does just about everything at 57 but I'm working on it. Okay and I also am still part of the system so I'm part of American Probation and Pearl Association and the region one representative, there's five of us across the country and I represent, my region is all of Canada, Maine and down through South Carolina and I have an area representative for each one of those states and one for Canada and what we do at American Probation and Pearl Association is ensure that whatever we're doing at Probation and Pearl and community corrections is meaningful and is evidence-based so it's gotta be pretty much researched because a lot of the programs we used to do we found I guess what they don't really work. Repetitive probation by the way when it was studied reduces recidivism by 24%. So I feel that what I've done in my career has been meaningful not just for me personally but for my clients, for their families and when I say clients I mean people that are offended against the state et cetera or community and victims and community at large. So that's a lot about what I'm about. So when I bought my house, I really loved it because it's a post and beam house. It's got tin ceilings in two rooms which I love. Wonderful. Mr. and Mrs. Yando, Ron and Cecil Yando were an elderly couple. They owned the place in front of me which is 71 I believe Maple Street. I had worked at Ireland Construction first and then Ireland Concrete so I had to separate the water lines and I operated heavy equipment amongst a whole bunch of other things I did for them and I dug a trench from the road out to 69 Maple Street because I had to separate the water system from 71 because at that time the Yandos owned both properties and the water line went right through 71 to my place and I had to agree to separate it out. So I can get things like that done and I know a little bit about construction as a result to this day. I love the house because it had nice views of the mountains this way, even though they were partially blocked by trees but especially upstairs looking west is nice. I used to look out my kitchen window, bathroom and rear window in my living room and there was grass and there was a couple of small buildings. There was one garage and a small garage or shed on 62 Union Street. I came home from work one day and there was construction going on and this great big building was going up and I kind of shook my head and said, what is going on? And I saw the footprint was 10 feet from my property. My building was already just a few feet from the property line. And so what was just a small building became this long building along my borderline and I was immediately concerned about the water runoff as well as the noise as well as the possibility of fire as well as no more view. And, but I didn't really have a lot of time as I told you some of what I did. I also ran nonprofits so I helped get mothers against drug driving, Vermont chapter going during that period in time. I was attending University of Vermont to get my master's in public administration. I was also on the New England Council on Crime and Delinquency, Board of Directors at that time and several other things. So I didn't have a lot of time to, and I didn't know that much about real estate, real estate law, zoning and all the rest of it. I kicked myself now because I should have made an issue of it. And I had a great lawyer, Doug Walensky who unfortunately passed last year. But I just, you know, I was too busy. I didn't have the money to hire. I thought Doug or any other lawyer. So I just said, okay, and I'll deal with it as best I can. But it's created a lot of problems for me, a lot of problems. And let me just say that this is six feet from tip to tip here, from finger to finger to finger. Another four feet is where their garage and other building department or offices. So you put another two feet here and another two feet here. And that's 10 feet. And that's not, that is not a lot of space. Does anybody have a bedroom that is 10 feet long here? I don't think so, probably not. I mean, maybe, but 10 feet is awfully, awfully tight to use the term that this gentleman used a few minutes ago. So this is 10 feet right here. This is 10 feet right in there, yeah, right there. So from here you guys, 10 feet. And the pitch of the building, mostly it is towards the back, some of it's off to the side, but it doesn't matter because the water has nowhere to go, but a 10 foot area of lawn, dirt, trees, et cetera, it has nowhere to go. And I've had moisture problems in my basement ever since and dampness. I don't get, I don't have water running into it because it is tight, but it wasn't like that when I first moved in. Once this thing was there, it was a problem. Things that are metal in my basement rot. Something, if this ever was to happen and this building continues to be there or an expanded building gets put on this spot, at the very least I would want a major engineering survey done and something done about my moisture because the moisture is largely due to this building being there. It's a slab so all of the rain that comes down if this is the footprint of it, it's gotta go somewhere. It can't go through the ground like it used to before that huge building was put in there. Winooski, I'm so glad that Winooski told me about this, sent me a letter. Unfortunately, when they sent the letter originally, I don't know when it was, probably early 90s I would think or maybe late 80s or something. Wasn't too, too long after I bought the property. A letter was sent about this proposed property going in. The trouble was it went to Ron Yendo, Ron and his wife Cecilia Yendo who still lived in the area. And when I called about it, they said, well, yeah, we sent that to the owner of your property. I said, no, I'm the owner of that property now. It's not the Yendo's. And the Yendo's just figured, hey, I must have been copied but I wasn't copied. So I never had a chance to actually fight it. I mean, I could have after I saw them beginning in the work, but it was already kind of late in the game, I figured too. So I felt it was a raw deal because guess what? I come from New York City, well, just outside New York City. And I used to visit my brother when he was living in New York City in a tenement high-rise apartment fifth floor. And he had about, well, he had about 30 feet between his apartment and the apartment next door. But I thought that that was really tight to use that term again. And it was kind of depressing, because, well, he could look at it as another building, but he didn't live there for long and he moved out to Long Island to a house. But, so instead of my view on my back windows, now I see vinyl sighting. And if this is approved, then it'll continue to be that way. And that's just the beginning of it. Oh, by the way, it's 10 feet between the two buildings. It's about seven and a half feet between their building and my chimney on the back of my house. So it's even tighter. Plus, there's even less if you take into account their soffit and facists that came out, you know? So, so I'm just, the 10 feet was just from sighting to sighting. Additionally, it's so close to my garage too. So I have a garage, detached garage. And that's infringed on too, even more so. So that's 92 inches. I just measured it today, 92 inches from the back of my garage to the back of that building. Now, I'm gonna redo my garage. Well, if I get a permit and I plan to eventually. But, so I took down the front part of the garage. The back part is still there. But the back, that whole slab that I have is 92 inches from their slab, in other words. Do you see that at all? Are you able to see that on your? By the way, I have some photos. So I don't know if you need to see those now, but I can certainly send those to you. And I've taken photos of how close it is. How close I am. Their property is to mine. Oh yeah, so you can probably. You can show us more of it. Pardon me? So is that existing building that's your house? So, yeah, so this is, yeah. So this is my garage. So you see how close that is to there. This is my house, and that's how close it is. Got it. So that's about 120 inches. The garage is 92 inches. So one of my dreams was really having nice view. And I did in the beginning. And I still do, I can still look out west and see some of the mountains. But that's about, nothing out the back door that interests me, we're back windows. Not only that, but there was noise. There was so much noise from that building when East Coast printers was printing, was doing a screen printing business there, printing t-shirts for several years. And East Coast limo service was operating out of there. So the three bays had limousines in it. And so I thought it was a residential area. So I never really expected that. But again, I didn't know the law. And I didn't really, I guess I didn't object when I should have, I really should have. So again, I kicked myself. But the worst part was is that they exhausted, they exhausted the air from inside directly out the back towards my house. So I used to smell dyes and paint sometimes. Very unfortunate, but anyway. So the visual was not so good. Plus then I was worried about fire. And I used to be a chimney sweep. I had my own chimney sweeping business with a guy by the name of Reg Bushy. We were partners and we did that while we were working for the Department of Corrections. And we did that for two or three years. And so I know a little bit about fire codes and about fire and it scares the heck out of me. So I figured, boy, if that building goes up, guess what? I'm gonna be awfully lucky if they can save mine because it'll go up real fast, be in 10 feet from it. And at least, and my garage too, for that matter. So the things that I had in my garage, my car, my boat, just that and the other. So it could be a total loss. So and the noise, I could hear voices in the building. I could hear music in the building. I could definitely hear pounding in the building. I could hear people walking up and down the stairs in the building. So again, it was like living in an apartment all of a sudden rather than having a house. And that's, even if there's a lot of insulation, my fear and my belief is that I will still hear way too much. So, and you know, with the air traffic going right, right smack dab over the property, I'm already, we're all in Winooski to a degree but we're right smack dab on the flight path. So it's noisy to begin with and I don't need extra noise to deal with and I hope I don't have to. So I heard some, you know, no reasonable alternative. I think I'm the one with no reasonable alternative. I don't think the owners, one of the owners who said they had no reasonable alternative or were talking about no reasonable alternative or perhaps this gentleman was, I'm really the one with no reasonable alternative. They have an alternative. I called a construction company, I called Ireland Construction today or yesterday and I gave them the dimensions of the payout approximately. They said it would cost about $7,000 with frost walls built first and then the slab. And I said, what about just the slab? Well, it's gonna cost about the same thing either way and he told me why and so it made sense. That's not a heck of a lot of money when you're buying a property like 62 Union Street and you're putting in all these renovations into it like they did because I watched it, they changed it and they're talking about this project on top of it. So I think $7,000 is like a drop in the bucket. As a matter of fact, I would be willing to share the cost of the new slab with them if they wanna do that and put the building off to their side where they have plenty of room. They have plenty of room because there was the other tenants in the building before the current ones, before they transferred, before it was sold, for years had a great big garden over there and that was only part of that yard off to the side in the back. So if you look at their property from the street, the whole left side is just a straight shot back to 57 Maple Street and the border that they share with that which is just a parking lot. That would bother no one if they put that building up there and they could be close to that border, I wouldn't care because I own that property. Eric, can you put the map back up? I just wanna make sure I understand what you're... What I'm saying? Yeah. So we got the footprint of the existing garage in the lower left. You'd like that. I'm here and very clearly that... Okay, so there, let's see. You wanna move it over here. You're looking at the lower right is where you say a better site would be. All right, yeah, yeah. So, so there, yeah. Is this their property boundary right here? Yeah. Yeah. So they have, they have, they're gonna tear this down if you heard. So anyway, that's just a little shit, but they could put that building right there. Yeah. And in a way, I mean, that's not gonna be the best, but it's so much better than what it is. Why won't it be the best? Because I know this will be a parking lot and I'll be dealing with, you know, people's headlights when they park or come in. But that's way better for me. I think what I'm hearing you say is you'd love for that garage to not exist at all. Right. And if it weren't for that foundation. Yeah, I mean, they could, they could take, that's about that size, right? The width? Well, let me... Yeah, go ahead. Let me just finish. Yeah. If it weren't for that foundation, I think you're suggesting that a more natural place to put this accessory structure is in that lower right corner. Yeah. Kind of rotated 90 degrees. Right. And this is a parking lot on 57 and I own that property. So I guarantee the owner will get that. No problem with, you know, I won't object. Let's put it that way. Got it. Can I ask real quick, had you proposed this alternative prior to tonight's? Yeah, have you talked with them about like, Talk to who? The owners. Oh, I did talk to one of the owners. I don't know which one, but I met one of the owners. He was over there with his wife and a child. And I told him why I would, you know, I said, Hey, it's nice to meet you. But, you know, I don't want to start off on the wrong foot, but this is really a big deal for me if you're going to do this. And, you know, I told him that I would not agree and that would adamantly fight it. But, you know, can we work something out? But he wasn't interested, you know, my impression was he wasn't interested and he was going to forge ahead. So. But you haven't talked in any detail about this idea that you floated to share the cost of reporting. Oh, no, not yet. That just occurred to me today. But, you know. I'm not suggesting that you work it out here in this meeting, but it's always helpful to know if there's any history of discussions there. So, you know, the problem was is that that original building was not in compliance. And I didn't know about it in a timely fashion. And by the time I knew about it, it was already in the process of being built. And it was, it's huge compared to what was there, you know, and. Sorry to interrupt. So. Sorry to interrupt real quick. I know you said you've owned that other property for quite some time. Can you give a timeline as to when this existing garage was built? Do you remember what it was? As I said, you know, it's difficult to remember, but it was within just a few years of after I bought my property, I think. And. I don't remember exactly. I would say, do you know? Yeah, early nineties is about right. Yeah. Okay. But I had, you know, I really used to, I loved it because it was just, you know, I had sunlight coming in through my windows from the back, even though it was north facing, but it was just nice, you know, and I never would have bought the house even though I love the house. If that building had been there, I never would have bought the house, which tells me that my property value has dropped considerably because other people would, that would be a deal breaker for some people, I'm sure. And it was a deal, it would have been a deal breaker for me. So I wouldn't have bought it. I just, you know, especially knowing that the water situation and all that, so anyway. And I do tend to get kind of mildew and that sort of thing. And I have chronic conditions. I'm on, you know, I'm on more medications than you can believe, but anyway, one of my things is sleep is essential. And, you know, with noise next door, which I used to get, sometimes it was stuff that would wake me up, especially if I had my windows open. And I tend not to use air conditioners. I like to have, you know, a more natural kind of flow of air. So that's a problem. And, you know, with having any mildew or fungus in the house and the basement at all, something I need to keep on top of, it doesn't just stay in the basement. It tends to, you know, blow through the house, I would assume. So I have to be careful about all that stuff. Let's see. Oh yeah. And then, you know, hammering, voices, music, people walking up and down the stairs. The, just a second, excuse me. So anyway, I just kind of wanted to emphasize that I hope, you know, that my rights and my interests are taken into account here. And I'm glad to be able to share, you know, what my concerns, rights, as I see them. I'm not in a position, but I have, you know, I have some interests that I've tried to outline to you folks. And let's see. Let's see. I have the photos. I think I've made all these notes, but I kind of had it all in my head anyway and already said most of it. So let's see. Yeah, I just think, you know, if there was a, you know, an engineering, I mean, this is, if worse comes to worse, I hope I really pray and hope it doesn't come to it. But if it is allowed, then at the very least, I would want to insist on a in-depth engineering survey be done and with, you know, people that know about water and water abatement and all that kind of thing. And I would think that they would have to, I wouldn't be sharing, I wouldn't think it would be fair for me to have to share any of that. But I would want to know from, you know, the engineering firm that, and they would have to be a neutral party, not somebody that got hired by the other party, I would think, you know, or I would have to hire my own engineering firm to kind of look at the plan and see if, you know, putting in the drains and all the rest of it and whatnot, you know, maybe pumps and all that sort of thing was gonna really make the difference or not. Let's see. Yeah, so I think that's about mainly what I wanted to present. But again, I do have the photos that will show you just what I'm talking about and really how close it is. You know, think about your car. How many feet is your car? It's probably, unless you have a real super duper compact, it's way more than 10 feet long. Yeah, I think it's pretty clear, at least to me, from the aerial photos, they kind of show it from above. If you'd like to get those into our record, you would want to submit them to Eric because we can't pass around your phone and have it. Yeah, no, I didn't know if there was a way that I could send it to you and you could put them up. Yeah, not really. But you can send them to Eric so they're part of the record. We kind of do that after the fact, like folks, I can't come, sometimes send letters. But at least for my purposes, I think it's pretty clear the distance is just from the aerial photo. Yeah. So folks on the DRV have additional questions. Let's start with the people online. Matt, Caitlin. Caitlin, she popped off already. So she had to leave early, so. Matt, you're good. Good. Anybody here, more questions? Eric, when did the regular? Could I say a couple of words just to Herb, just because I haven't talked to him for six months? Sure. Why don't we talk about what was brought up? Okay. I just, you know, so I think, I just like to say, you know, I appreciate where Herb is coming from. You know, it was me who we talked to a few back when I was up there with my wife and daughter, you know, checking in on the property. You know, I heard what Herb said at that point were his primary concerns. And although we haven't, you know, had a chance to catch up about it, you know, we did put a significant amount of effort into this project to alleviate those concerns. So you'll notice that the roof of the building sheds left and right, doesn't shed back towards Herb's property. So the existing roof dumps water on Herb's property and our roof won't. It will dump it to the right and the left. It'll be guttered down onto the pavement and it'll exit the front of the property into the stormwater system for the city. You know, drying that out, solving that problem for him. Didn't put a single window in the back of the structure. We've tried to insulate the walls and add, you know, and keep things quiet for him. You know, to the concern with fire, I mean, certainly the existing dilapidated building with antiquated electrical systems is much higher risk than the new apartment building. Certainly with somebody living in new, you know, fire-rated walls that would've butt those areas that are in close proximity. You know, we've offered to put in a fence along the property line. We've offered to add landscaping, certainly amenable to all of that. I think, you know, our goal here is to improve the property and improve the situation. And, you know, I certainly recognize that. Your property, not mine. Well, I certainly. Let's just be clear about it. You're looking to improve your own property. You're at the distinct cost to my property and my property value and what my property is worth. So let's be honest about it, please. I didn't interrupt Herb when you were talking and I just like to finish what I was saying. That's okay, just to the board. You know, we bought this property with the idea of trying to improve it, of trying to make use of what's there. I think that there's a perfectly good structure in place that we're looking to improve upon and it is an improvement for everybody because the current structure is a dilapidated water leaking fire hazard and the new structure will be a high efficiency building with, you know, good people, good families who need housing living in it and, you know, achieving a goal of the city of Winooski of increasing the housing base and it's not going to be a t-shirt factory or a limousine service, which it was in the past. It would be a residential compliant use. So, you know, the project really is tough to pencil out right now. You know, we're really counting on being able to reuse this foundation. The estimate of $7,000 is just, it's not accurate. My estimate is, and I think, you know, to ask somebody over the phone for the cost of some square footage of concrete, it ignores the cost of the demolition of the existing foundation, the excavation, the stone, the stone compaction, the footing drains, footing drain, daylights, what other components, the structural engineering and architecture involved in redesigning an entire new slab. I mean, this isn't just S.D. Ireland showing up with a truck full of concrete. And I don't think that they could pour an 800 square foot foundation for $7,000, even if that was all they were doing. So, I would say to the board that the cost is meaningful and, you know, we've tried to be as thoughtful as possible. We are certainly willing to, you know, have the engineer document stormwater systems in any ways that we can drain that out. We're willing to put up a fence. We're willing to add trees where you can decorate the back wall or add windows if it would make it more attractive. But we are, you know, doing our best to sort of improve upon a situation we didn't create. You know, I think we can all acknowledge what happened in the 90s or in the past, you know, maybe it wasn't ideal, but the situation exists currently. And, you know, to the conversation earlier, we're doing our best not to make it worse. So. So, Herb, can I ask you a question? Yes. So, I want you to imagine that the board is inclined to grant the applicant's request. I don't know if that's true or not, but one thing that's helpful for us to know is if we were gonna say, you know, yes, you meet the criteria laid out in our standards, but we have the opportunity to attach conditions. You've talked about doing some engineering specifically on the runoff, but I just heard Andrew offer some additional things that help with, you know, privacy concerns, view concerns, specifically a fence, landscaping, maybe changing the look of that back wall. Is any of that something you'd like us to consider if we are already inclined to grant the application? I'm not saying we are. Yeah. Fence? What's a... Fence isn't gonna do anything about the water runoff. By the way, in looking at the runoff off the roof, the side going west is part of the concern too, because there's another building about six feet from that building that's an old, dilapidated garage next door to the 62 Union. I don't know if you folks are aware of that, but so the water that goes in between there, it's only gonna go down for the most part because it's not gonna go, it would have to go uphill a little bit, I think, to go up their driveway and then down to Union Street. I think I heard it's gonna go east and west, but the gutters are gonna take it north with the goal that it goes basically down the driveway along the Union Street. Well, that's assuming that gutters catch all the rainwater in a heavy rain. My experience is that gutters don't catch all of the runoff by any stretch, so. If our stand was a heavy rain, we probably wouldn't have a roof or anything. Right. So we gotta work with it a little bit. Yeah, but can I ask, I forgot your name. So Andrew. Andrew, yeah. Are you a civil engineer? I know, but Greg is. Fine. Okay. So Greg, is that correct? I don't know if I can do that. Is that correct understanding about what would happen to the stormwater? The existing buildings, it's a high point, to both the east and the west, gutter it and push it north, where the rain transitions and all that water goes by. So could you, you've reduced the impermeable percentage of the property. Yes. A lot coverage, but might we end up seeing actually more stormwater running into the street because of this change? There's a chance, yes, but it's going to city infrastructure. That's where it's supposed to go. It's supposed to go into the city, stormwater drains not into it and joining property owners backyard, right? But I didn't think, I was told, I wasn't supposed to drain into the sewer line because it would overload it from my property. So I, I. So you came to the municipal sewer. Right. Okay, I thought it was all one. Maybe. Separated it? Okay. Okay. But anyway. Well, let me, let me ask, you talked about a fence and it doesn't sound like that's something that's interesting to you. What about landscaping along the boundary to put up some good looking plants, trees, something like that? No, because the water issue is still going to, the water has nowhere to go except for down and then it puts pressure on my foundation. And that's the issue. So basically if pavers were installed all along that and, you know, they were they were to be slanted towards his building, that might something along those lines might work, but, you know, trees and bushes and shrubs, I mean, give me a break. It does have a tendency to mitigate. Am I wrong about this? I don't know a lot about this, but I feel like people plant trees to. No, understood. Yeah, but, you know, it's difficult. I mean, I can't really be growing flowers and stuff like that that need a lot of sunlight because first of all it's on the north side. Secondly, the building blocks, you know, substantially what's on light gets in there too. So there's no point in trying to grow things there. And, you know, a fence is small potatoes really compared to what I'm concerned about. I'm concerned about the viability of my foundation and, you know, the moisture in my house and fighting, you know, fungus, mildew and all that kind of stuff. And the fact is that I can't keep anything in my basement with even running the dehumidifier, which is very costly. And all of this happened after this building was built. So there was not a problem before that. So I, that's what I'm really concerned about. And that's what, so all this other stuff is just, you know, it's just frosting on the cake. It's not really... So just to that point, I want to reiterate that the existing roof dumps water on the property line and the proposed structure, the proposed improvements will not, it will solve an existing problem which is creating this issue. So, you know, we have a civil engineer on site who's designed the project to mitigate that issue. And that was part of the design of the building with the sort of roof that was draining in opposite direction to what sort of makes the most sense. You know, from a constructability perspective, it would be easier to drop trusses the same way on the roof that they're going. But we have a sort of complicated roof system at a low pitch running in opposite directions in order to mitigate this. And so, you know, if the project does not proceed, the water and intrusion issues will continue. And if it does, I'm confident that the situation will be greatly improved. We'd also most likely be installing a drain, a French drain around the base of the foundation, the existing foundation to ensure that the water, any water in the ground in the back of the house was brought around to the front to sort of avoid water intrusion in the new structure as well. But also aid in drying out that backyard. So I'm very certain and to represent to the board and we would certainly accept any conditions related to installing that stormwater mitigation on the project. So part of the challenge we have is are only options are yes or no. And if we say no, the applicants are well within their rights and probably will just go back to the drawing board for a while and that garage stays. And the south facing roof stays and you don't get any relief for your runoff issues. And that could stay that way forever. So we don't really have the power to say no. And by the way, take down that garage and recite the foundation to the other side and build whatever you want to build there. Right. So that's part of- I understand. But there is or there are cracks I believe in the, it's got cinder blocks on top of the sled and there are some definite, at least one very pronounced crack about this wide going down the cinder block wall on the corner of the building towards 57 Maple Street. And it's not a port foundation wall, that little short wall that sits on top of the slab. But anyway, my thinking is that, well within a few years I would, unless some money is put into the roof and some renovations done that it, I would think that at a certain point it's gonna be come to the attention that this is not a safe building to the authorities. Yeah, unless it's occupied, you're going, people tend, the authorities tend not to care about unoccupied structures that are falling down. I have many clients who own those. Except that this one happens to be, seven and a half feet from my chimney, 10 feet from my actual building. So they should be because- Let me ask a remix of Elsie's question from before. So let's imagine you're approved as proposed with some conditions, but you go forward and you figure out this existing foundation is cracked. It's not gonna work. You gotta tear it out anyway and pour a new one. So in that circumstance, we originally said, well we might condition it on staying within the setback. Why not condition it on staying within the setback? Oh, and by the way, go to the other side where you're not, you know, pretty close to all these other structures. Question for the applicants, it's similar to what I asked earlier. If you have to redo it all anyway, are you okay going over to the other side where that existing shed is? I think we'd have to sort of look at that a little bit more carefully because of the way the building's configured and with the garage still function, would you be able to pull in? You know what I mean? That the architecture of the building might need to change in order to be on a different part of the site. Certainly we can take a look at that. I'd hate to need to sort of continue the hearing, but potentially that's an option if the board thinks that we should have a firm answer to that. I think, you know, in answering the question earlier, my sort of working theory was we would just move it forward, you know, two and a half feet and to be in compliance. Yeah, well, that's what I was thinking as well, but next would sort of function and then the form of the building would function similarly versus shifting it to the left. You know, the other problem there is that, you know, I think that the owner, Herb is the owner of one of the adjacent properties, but not all of them. And certainly those folks might not appreciate a new structure that doesn't currently exist, you know, in their side yard. And so they weren't, you know. If you're within the setback, those adjoiners have less standards that can entangle. Certainly. I think, you know, we could certainly look at whether Greg could make a parking configuration work in an alternate scenario where the building shifted to the left. If that's a direction you guys wanna go, I mean, we can take a look at it and come back, you know, I don't know how often you meet, but we could come back with that plan and make sure that it all works. Yeah, well, in this scenario, so the configuration of the building itself, the standards don't really care how the building is configured. That's a different part of code. So it could work without coming back here with the review authority vested in Eric that it is indeed within the setback, generally where we said it should be, and how you configure it is not something we actually consider as part of these regs. But as you can tell, I'm talking in a lot of hypotheticals. So let me stop talking. Yeah, that's understandable. I appreciate that, and that would certainly be our preference if that's possible. Can I just make a couple other comments? Sure. So Andrew, the offer that I was talking about earlier, if you are willing to take a look at that and if you are open to that, I will contribute, maybe I don't know what percentage, but I would contribute to the new slab and excavation work. And I actually did get that exact footprint. It was what I thought it was. And I called JB, who does the cost estimations at Ireland concrete. So that's who told me, he knows his business. He's the guy that does all that kind of figuring. It was $7,000 for the slab and the insulated walls. So it's a footings, it's not just a floating slab as they call it. It's footings, insulated footings with the slab. And I said, well, wouldn't the slab be cheaper? And he said, no, well, maybe, maybe a thousand bucks. But he said, you're much better off with the form, with the footings. And that's been my experience too. But that's not for the excavation and taking the slab that's there out, but maybe you don't need to take the slab out because that could be part of the parking area. So if that garage and other building was taken down and I could even help you do the excavation because I've done that kind of work with backhoes for years. So I don't know, maybe we do a neighborly kind of a project, a little bit part of it. But anyway, it doesn't account for the excavation work to prepare the spot for the pad. And it doesn't account for the three-quarter inch crushed stone to go in either. But he said that would be probably less than 7,000 above that. So in other words, he said it would be let, you know, that's most of the cost is the 7,000. Yeah, so I'd like to move forward in this hearing because we're already a little past eight. So I think what happens from here, I'll open it up to final questions in a moment. But what happens from here, we have a couple more items on our agenda, then we go into deliberative session, which is non-public. I have heard some conversations between the applicant and a joiner starting. It's possible we will decide not to even deliberate this evening and do it via Zoom some other day. I'm gonna pose the question to the applicant. Totally your call. Have you heard something you'd like to explore before we deliberate? Say, for example, tell us, hey, why don't you not deliberate tonight? You know, figure out some Davia Zoom next week, whatever. Give us a couple of days, let's talk about it. Let's see if we can come here arm in arm with a new proposal that nobody opposes. Do you wanna take that time? Or do you feel like that's just not, it's not gonna work out and you'd like us to decide it one way or another tonight, or whenever we decide to decide it? No pressure. And I know there's two of you, so. Yeah, you guys are putting, making me think. So I would say that there's no harm in having a conversation. And that, I'm not opposed to having a conversation. And I think, if there was a way to make this work that enabled the project to proceed in a way that works for us and works for our neighbor, that that's obviously the best outcome. I haven't had the chance to talk with the neighbor. And so maybe there's something there that we could figure out. I'm happy to do that. And then circle back with you guys and let you know the outcome of that conversation if there's a change that we can agree to or if it's sort of just we're still where we started at the hearing and we weren't able to come to an agreement. But I don't see why we shouldn't have a conversation. You know, we're not in that big of a time crunch. Your engineer will say something. I just have a quick question. Would you guys, could you vote on the overarching conditional use like the fact that we could move forward with actually having it detached, building in this backyard where it is situated, could be on Eric and I to decide with her, with having all those conversations. But after the actual conditional use which has to come before you guys, you could vote on saying, yes, you can have an attached house in the backyard dependent on it falling within all the necessary dimensions and conditions that Eric could do. Is that something you could vote on? And then just so we wouldn't have to fully come back to the DRB and come back and I think it would be like May. Yeah, so it's hard to approve. I'm just speaking out of the top of my head here. I totally get where you're coming from. The conditional use doesn't help you at all unless you have the waiver with your current proposal. But I think what I'm hearing you say is if the waiver's off the table, you'd rather not have to come back just for the conditional use. If you agree on the citing your adjoiners on board, I don't know that we're allowed to do that. We kind of have to approve the conditional use based on a plan submitted to us. And I think the owners of the adjoiners to where you might wanna move it to might have something to say about that suggestion. So I think you do have to come back, Eric, am I in ballpark? I would think probably what we would look at is continuing the hearing to a time certain which would be our next meeting, which would allow the applicant and the adjacent property owner's time to meet and discuss and try to come to a resolution on a new location, which would then result in a new site plan that we could look at and review and consider at that time if that's something that they're amenable to. The other option is we close the hearing and make a decision based on what's in front of us tonight. If you continue the hearing, you don't need to notice it again, right? I believe that's correct. I think we can just make the decision tonight to continue the hearing to a time certain, identifying our next meeting, which would be May 19th. And then we don't, I don't believe we need to notify adjacent property owners or re-warn a hearing because we haven't closed this hearing. What could you accept the revised plan at that hearing? I think we can because generally, as I understand it, one of the reasons for continuing a hearing is to get new evidence. So an updated site plan could be that new evidence that you wanna see before you make a decision. Yeah, so. If that is something that they can agree to. So this is because I'm open. Sorry. That was Matt. I know that there's a burden on the applicants every time that they have to appear before us. Would that continue as well? Or would they need to reapply or repay anything? No, we would just, yes, this would all continue as is. There would be no need for the applicant to do anything else other than attend another meeting. Okay. And I mean, maybe there would be some cost potentially in developing the additional site plans, but there wouldn't be any need for them to reapply or provide the fees for noticing adjacent property owners and noticing the public meeting. We would basically just continue it as is. Okay, thanks. So this suggestion to continue this hearing doesn't allow for the possibility that we could make a decision on the application as presented. So it's a little bit of a morph from my suggestion to delay deliberative session. We would be holding the whole thing open. You can't get a decision from us either way until next month. But I'm sensing enough vibes from my fellow DRB members that we're a little sketchy about how it's currently presented and there are enough open questions that you might not want us to deliberate on it as it's proposed, I'm just guessing. So I think you could benefit from the continuance. I think you could also benefit from an estimate from somebody who can tell you the exact cost of redoing that foundation, either two and a half feet away or elsewhere, because it is hard, at least for me, to evaluate the reasonableness of that without a number that I can say, well, of course I'm not gonna make you spend $30,000, but I might make you spend seven, so. Yeah, I think that's a great suggestion and we will get the foundation estimated and we have an alternative plan ready and we'll bring it to you guys in two weeks and we'll, in the interim, if Greg get Herb's contact information, because I'm not already done, we can connect with him as well on his cost sharing proposal and see if there's something where we can make it easier for you guys at the next hearing or not. Well, I've been running ahead of my fellow DRB members with all this speculating. Is everybody cool with this plan? Anybody think I'm crazy? Yes. I just had one other question. Is there anything else while we're doing this that the board wanted us to reconsider any other aspect that would be us? Great. I have serious concerns about the tree that I brought up earlier. If it's still there in between the shed at 70 and your current garage, I am almost positive that if you look at Google Street View and get down and actually look at the photo that was taken, I think it was October of 2021, it's a sizable tree that is in between two buildings that are three feet apart. And that is gonna have a direct impact on 70, which is why I think that there needs to be a conversation with the owner of 70 to find out how you wanna share that burden as well. Unless it's already. Are you seeing it, Kevin? It's there. I saw it when I drove by. It's a large tree very close to both buildings. This is the 20-foot box elder right here. Yeah, it's located on the floor. If Matt, if that garage goes to another part of the property, does your concern go away? Cause now it's not. It does go away, yeah. Well, yeah. Maybe a problem solved. I think that tree, as the buildings currently stand, I think that tree needs to come down anyway. Not that, yeah. If you go down one more photo to the right. Oh, right there. Look in between the two buildings. Yeah, you can see it, you can just barely see it right here. Look at that eagle eye. There's a tree right in there. Yeah. And then you zoom out and look at other pictures. It clearly sprawls over the garage structure. That's the other run. You can see in that picture, if you go back to that just for a second, you can see the other old garage that's sitting there that's just six feet from this property and will be still there when this, if this new building is put in there, which I, if I were building that and I own 62 Union, I would be concerned about because that is so close. Again, if that catches fire, they have a real problem. And I know they do store gasoline as well as mowers and things like that in there, in that other one. Now, the other thing I was gonna simply point out too, to kind of just get people aware of is if you're moving into that, this proposed building there, I mean, people have no windows on the south side, which is desirable. You really wanna have windows on the south side if you have plants and all that sort of thing. They won't have any windows or maybe a couple of small ones, but it sounded like they didn't wanna put the windows in deference to me and the noise and whatnot. But versus if this, if that same unit was put over on the side, there's no issue. They'd have windows anywhere they want them all around that building. And so much more desirable to their tenants. I think the challenge the applicants are facing to be fair to them is if this existing garage and foundation wasn't there, it's not like that's a natural place to put an accessory structure on this lot. But they've got the existing footprint and the path of least resistance is to build on that existing. Oh, I'm aware of that, right. So I think if that garage were never there, if that foundation was totally busted and couldn't use it, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. No, I'm aware of that. But I'm simply saying that put yourself in the shoes of tenants that are gonna be paying good money to live there. Would you rather have no windows at all on the south side or would you rather have windows on the south side and have some space? Or would you rather be looking at my place and my garage if you do have a window? I wouldn't want that. So I think they'd be better off and living next to an old rundown garage six feet away. I wouldn't want that either. Sorry, let me get back to the question. Any other things for the group to think about in the next month or so as they re-approach this issue? That we would raise next month and we should raise now. So it's not a surprise then. I would think it would make sense to, if you can't come to some agreement and you want us to consider the current proposal and when I'm going ahead with the existing foundation, you'd want to have somebody take a look at it and make sure it's actually got frost walls that goes down a certain depth that it's adequate for the intended use. I don't think we've heard anything about that. Mr. Chair, I identified two items that you may be interested in as well, but just based on the conversation, there was- My dad calls me Mr. Chair. There was the conversation about the widening of the driveway and getting some feedback from emergency services if they're interested in that or if they have any issues with the existing width of the driveway. Sure, call again. To try to follow up with them. Call them on the emergency line this time, they'll love that. And then there was another item that I identified potentially with the existing location or a future location. If you all want to see any type of grading plan to show how that runoff may be addressed. Yeah, we're looking at the grading and it looks like super, super duper flat on this unless there's grading that's not depicted, but the whole thing looks pretty flat. It's dead flat. Yeah. Or I guess unless there's any proposed grading to address the runoff, as was discussed. It's also, it's 230. Right now the building says that I point this out. Okay. 225. More water. More water. More water. Got it. So how does one continue a hearing? Do we vote to do that? I think yes, you'll need to make a motion to continue the hearing to a time certain. The next, like I said, our next meeting is May 19th at 630. So if you want to make that as a motion or if somebody wanted to make that as a motion, I believe that's all we would need to do to be able to keep the hearing open. With that in mind, you wouldn't be able to talk about it. Any issues related to this matter either tonight or in the future until we have that hearing because we are still basically in a hearing. Got it. No problem there. Does anyone want to say the words so moved? Second. All right. We have a motion. We have a second. All in favor? Aye. All right. This hearing has been continued to our next ERB hearing. I really appreciate the progress that the applicant and the adjoiner have made tonight. Thanks, Andrew, by the way. Yeah, no, I think it's a great plan to meet up. I hope it works out. It's possible it doesn't. That's what we're here for. But I definitely encourage you to get together and really think about this. And I'll tell you the thing that judges always tell me when they're trying to get me to compromise. A great compromise, everybody's gonna feel a little bit bad about it. But that's how you know it's a good compromise. But a little bit good about it, too. You mostly feel the bad, though, right after. You mostly feel bad. But that means you did well. Okay. So we do have other items on our agenda that are more organizational for the DRB. Thank you. You can watch the Sausage Making of Government or go home. That's an option, too. So our next item on our agenda is discussion of DRB organization and membership roles. Yeah, so this was an item that Kevin and I had talked about having on the agenda, as Kevin has mentioned in the past, he's looking at potentially taking a less prominent role with the Development Review Board, potentially stepping back to an alternate position, which would allow one of the current alternates, either Elsie or Caitlyn, to be elevated to, I'll say a full member, for lack of a better term. That would also then mean that we would need to vote in a new chair. Generally speaking, this would, probably a logical time for this to happen would be in July when we do our reorganization anyway, when Mayor and Council generally appoint any new commission members or reappoint existing commission members in June to coincide with the end of the fiscal year in the beginning of a new fiscal year. So we typically do a reorganization in July, at our July meeting, or the closest meeting to that anyway. So this is something that would happen. We could have this happen in basically with, have it take effect, make a recommendation to Council for reorganization of the body at their June meeting when they make appointments and then when we meet after that, we can reorganize for chair, vice chair, secretary as we do anyway. So that's kind of the overview of everything. I don't know, Kevin, if there's anything you wanted to add. Yeah, so I think the official action through Council would just be to swap me with one of our two alternates. Correct. I've historically suggested Elsie because of seniority, you've been waiting longer and then at our first meeting with the new composition, we would vote on chair, vice chair, secretary. Right, and I guess I would need to look to see, I'm not sure when your terms are up, Elsie and Kevin, if you were interested in that. So it may be, it may just be a reappointment with your existing terms and you would just swap positions or a full reappointment if you're interested in being reappointed. So I have not looked recently to see when people's appointments are expiring, but we do have a list of all that. Yeah, I'm sure we'll figure that out. As you know, we are currently house shopping and there are not very many houses in Manuski even for sale under any condition. So part of the reason is I may not live here for very much longer, but who knows? There could never be a house for sale that we are capable of buying in the current market. So we'll cross that bridge if we come to it. Everybody cool with that plan? Yeah. So I just want to verify that you're going to run out the term as president until June, July, is that what I mean? Don't physically live here anymore unless you're really looking to house me. You can make a motion right now. I'm ready. So there are certain aspects of my situation, which is why I've been unable to commit to what you proposed even back in, I think it was December when you first brought this up. Then I'm not comfortable talking about knowing that this is on reported and things, but there are certain aspects of my situation that are evolving and changing. So, but we can talk about those at some point when we are in a closed deliberative session. And I can explain that with more depth because I'm assuming we'll probably be in close deliberative session before June or July. So all good. And the question of who chairs the body once I step back is an open question that we don't need to answer until that time. So, we can deal with it then. Okay. Yeah, I think really the bigger question, and I'll follow up is whether or not, Elsie, you're interested in taking on a permanent seat rather than an alternate seat with the board. Yeah, that was the end of the year. Life, time, award, you know. Forever. I'm also not sure when my term is up, but I would be interested in that. Yeah, I'll reach out to everybody just to, as we get closer to that June meeting to see if people are still interested in serving and about the roles for those that are, whose terms are expiring. So, okay, I think that is, unless there was anything else on that, I think that's- No, we're on to item seven. Other business? Any other business? I don't believe I have anything specific other than if there's updates on any projects that we've discussed that you all wanna know about or talk about. There's still some lawsuits happening that are making their way through the court slowly. The appeal on 379 381 Main Street, that project, I believe that was the last meeting you all had was hearing that appeal. That was not reappealed then. The appellants were, I guess, comfortable with the decision that you all rendered and what was provided by the applicant. So that did not get appealed to the e-court. So the applicant is gonna be working through the conditions of that approval to meet that. And then to issue zoning. Otherwise, I think things are fairly on track other than our next meeting will be May 19th at this point. So please mark your calendars as we will have a meeting. Eric, I was just at a presentation on housing in Vermont and Winooski was held up as the gold standard for promoting affordable housing goals through zoning. So, good job. Well, I definitely cannot take the credit for that. I think that's been something that the city leadership and past boards and commissions have a large hand in as well as the residents themselves. So I for sure cannot take credit for that. You all should be. I'm gonna push back on that a little bit because having a ZA that is willing to work with applicants and get them in the right lane and actually take their calls and work collaboratively towards something that is compliant is not a universal feature in Vermont municipalities. I will agree with you there as I just have these discussions with applicants, they do tend to say the same thing. So I appreciate that. Thank you very much. All right, any city updates? The only thing I would mention is that the city staff has, we finally have hired a new HR manager who started last week, Jesse Acre is his name. So he's been in for about a week, doing a great job and our new city manager will start on May 16th. So we are excited for that transition to happen as well. And just for the four year old information if you need to, Wendy Harrison who was our interim city manager her last day was on Monday, this past Monday. So John Rauscher is our public works directors acting as city manager until Elaine starts. So if you have any issues that you need to talk with the city manager about it would be John Rauscher at this point, so. Hope no big issues happen during waking windows that need the city manager's attention. Cause that's right before the new one starts. That's for sure. So, oh, and just one other item, the city council I believe they scheduled it officially May 21st. We are doing our annual policy and priority strategy setting meeting. It's a Saturday. It's typically when council gets together to talk with basically to talk through what they want to prioritize for the year. It is a public meeting. So that will be warned public is encouraged to attend or welcome to attend. But as I mentioned, it is a Saturday. We generally do it from like a nine to one timeframe. So there'll be more information on that coming out as well. Cool. All right. I would maintain motion to adjourn. So moved. All in favor? Aye. All opposed say anything we are adjourned. Great. Thank you all very much.