 We take up items generally in the order that they're on the agenda and when we call each item we ask people to come up to the table here and we take testimony under oath and we'll swear people in at each item. There's a sign up clipboard on the table there if you're interested in getting information or having party status, testifying on a project, we encourage you to sign in on that clipboard at some point during the evening and when people do testify the acoustics in here are terrible so we ask people to really use the microphones there, it really helps us. First item is the agenda and for a variety of reasons we are swapping two items on the agenda. The first public hearing item which is 1315 George Street. We're going to move that in place of Daniford Road, the reason is we have several people recused on the George Street and we have one member of the board arriving late so we want to make sure we have as many board members as possible hearing that item and the folks from Santa Fe Road apparently are okay with our making that change, other than that I think we have no other changes on the agenda. I want to welcome Ravi, our new board member, alternate welcome and we have communications we have one comment from Public Works on 68 Pearl Street and we have some minutes in our packet for March 19th and March 6th which I know Lane is anxious to have them signed it and filed away. So the first item on our agenda is under the consent item is 400 Pine Street is the applicant here so this is consent, it's an application to get a time extension on your current project to finish construction of the multi-use building, obviously we see you're well underway on it. Thank you. Are you okay with the recommendations in the approval recommended by staff? You know I did not see anything posted. Didn't you get a letter or email? I got an email with the agenda, I don't think I got an email with the recommendations from staff. Mary is going to hand it to you. Two very short items, why are you looking at that? Does anybody on the board object to having this as a consent item? I have one quick question but we do not need a public hearing. Okay, before we get to your questions, anybody in the public hearing for 400 Pine Street? No, do you want to ask your question, Austin? Yeah, I just was, you're looking for an extension and I couldn't quite tell whether you're looking for and the notes say that you're looking for project completion May, June of 2019. Correct. Are you asking for an extension until June, let's say June 30th, 2019 or do you need more time than that? I don't think I'll need time though with construction projects, things do happen so I would take whatever time the board would allow me. I think July 1 would be a pretty darned reasonable time to have this completed. Thank you. Can we have a motion on this item? Yeah, I would move that we approve the application for the extension of time, adopt staff findings and conditions and just clarify that the extension will be to July 1, 2019. Second on that, AJ, any discussion? All in favor? Opposed? I'm not opposed. Great, thank you very much. Good luck. Thank you. And then our next item on our agenda is 251 Stanaford Road as a public hearing. Thanks for accommodating the agenda. No problem. And is anybody else here for 251 Stanaford Road? Okay, can I have both of you raise your right hand and just sort of tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth under pain and penalty of perjury? Yes, sir. Okay. Maybe we start by introducing yourselves and sort of if you go ahead. We have the packet here with some of the documentation which I think your relatives. I'm sorry, say that again. Is it your mother that lived here? Yes, so it was my grandparents' house. Again, your name is. Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Erica Redick. I am trying to purchase my grandparents' home. It is currently owned 50% tenants in common by my mother and my aunt. Yes. The home being 251 Stanaford. Yes, sir. Yes. I'm John Franco. I am an attorney in Burlington and I'm representing Erica in this. So basically you're presenting a case that it has always been a three-unit building. Oh, no, not always, but long enough. No, always. It's been a triplex since it was built. Do you want me to hand these out? I'll hand these out. Whether it was used as a triplex is a different question. We have a handout here showing that. You want me to do it, John? Pass them around. The handout is a zoning permit that was granted by Ken Lerner back in August of 1988, where it indicates at that time the use of the property was as a triplex. And attached to that is then the certificate of occupancy granted later in August by Ned Holt. In one of our grounds is we think that that actually has a preclusive effect under section 4472D because it was for changes to what was described as a triplex. And there's a couple of cases on this. There's the graves versus town of, town of town of Whitesfield, and also town of Bennington versus Hanson-Waldwood-Schulner home to say in these kinds of circumstances, good, bad, or indifferent, it has the binding effect of section 4472D. And I would add to the board, this is the third case I have of what I call these long-tailed triplex conversion cases that we seem to, seem to keep coming up now by the enforcement, by the enforcement office. This property was constructed in 1964. If we use this as a benchmark in 1988, that was almost 30, 31 years ago. I have another case which is on appeal to the Supreme Court, the Zhang case, which is going to be argued two weeks from today as to whether or not the statute of limitations applies to both the construction and use. That's one of the grounds we've also had. That was the case where the conversion occurred in 1992, which was 25 years ago. And I have another case where the conversion occurred in 1972. And I think it might be, these are, I understand the interest in not having a lower medium use residential zone be inundated with cutting up both houses and creating multiple units, but these are cases where these facts have been in the ground for decades. I may have a situation here where apparently Erica's grandmother went in and applied and obtained this permit in 1988. And now here we are in 2019 and the family is being told, oh, no, no, no, this is illegal and it can't be used this way. So the three grounds are that this has preclusive effect under 4472D, alternatively that the 15-year statute of limitations applies. But also we had a belated claim that it might make sense to treat this as a conditional use under the non-conforming residential use ordinance and essentially recognize what's been the fact now for at least three decades. So if I catch the import of this is that this point in time sets it as a three-unit building in 1988. Being used as a triplex, it uses the term triplex. And that 4472, that's the exclusivity of remedy. It's not appealed in 30 days, it's final. So your position is the city didn't appeal this determination, no one appealed this determination, it's written existing use of property as triplex and that's that. The case, the oldest case I think is the, I think it's grades versus the town of Watesfield was the applied for a permit for mobile homes in the town of Watesfield. It was granted, it turned out that the zoning administrator allowed two mobile homes and only one was allowed. Supreme Court said it doesn't matter. The other case is one of my favorites, the oldie by Goody, the Bennington versus Hanson-Walbridge funeral home case, which is, they claim that they applied for and got a permit for a funeral home. They didn't mention there was a crematorium. Supreme Court said, wait a minute, you didn't disclose it was a crematorium, you can't be bound by that. And also there's another related case, the Costeblot case. That's a little different because it had to deal with, it's either a DRB or a ZBA determination, but what it said is, look it, if you've been told what the use is going to be and you don't put in conditions saying you can't do certain things too bad. I call it to speak now forever, hold your peace, rule. And let me tell you how old this was. You know who the attorney for the planning department was when this permit was issued? Me. John, let me ask you another question just so I have this right. The Triplex was a non-conforming use in 88, right? I think it's always, well, way back, I think so, way back in the before time there was a provision that in these types of zones you could get what they called and in that year they called it a special, I think a special exemption or special exclusion for an additional unit. There's no, here's the problem, there's no record that we have that that was actually obtained prior to then, but again the problem with this is that unlike land records we don't really have a coherent and reliable record of what the permits were, which is one of the problems with these long tail cases. So then you're saying well what happened 30 years ago, is anybody around? Are they still alive? What are the records? I mean I had another case, the Jean case. We actually were able to find the person that made the conversion because for whatever reason he moved from Florida back to Vermont and back to Colchester and we were able to locate him. But this is endemic in these kinds of cases with the problem of trying to establish what happened. But this is, I think this is at least a, if you will, as a benchmark of what was going on and it's at least 30 and a half years ago. So I just want to, the city's position, and Scott on this thing, is that it never had legal status as a three-unit building. Triplex. Yes, is the short answer. And 1964 would have required a special permit. Yes, special exception. And that, again, it's the use, not the structure. Right. We're talking about the use. So do you want to get into the city's position or is that just a quick question? Quick question from me. May I make a comment? Yeah. Further to that point, there's also no original building permit. So if there had been something, assuming there was something submitted for the conditional use, the records don't go that far back to begin with. So that's why John picked this one, because we know specifically for sure this is a date that is good. And this, if I'm not mistaken, this was a hockey. Yes. It was a build-by house. In other words, hockey built it, and then it was built to spec, and then her grandparents bought it as a constructed unit. No, they actually purchased it before it was built. Oh, okay, we purchased it before. You had a question, Austin? Yeah. So you may have already answered at least part of this. So there is not a permit for a triplex when it was built in 1964, nor for anything else. There just, there isn't a permit at all. There's no, there may have been one where there's no record of it. Okay. And that's sort of the second part of my question. Do you, I can't, I know the city's had problems or had some conflicting opinions on what permits they need to retain and how long. Do, do you know if permits have been discarded by the city for this period of time or just, we don't know one way. There's no permit. We don't know why. When I spoke with someone at, I think it was Department of Public Works, she said that there are some plans for that neighborhood, so the Standford Road, Standberry kind of area. They have like a dozen building plans or something like that from hockey, but they're on like lot numbers. So you can't tell what the address is. You can't tell anything. And they said that they were going to ask for clarification, but no one's gotten back to me in the last month or two since I had that conversation. Okay, all right. Well, I'm equally anxious to have the Vermont Supreme Court tell us how to interpret this rule. It's been a problem for a number of people. We'd like to have some clarity on this. But can I ask you a question, John, about your other point? Can I just add, can I just add to the previous question just a little bit? Sure. I had another case involving a property across the street from the old Adam School. And there was an, there was a parking terrace that was put in and the neighbor complained that there was a pre-existing, had never got a permit or whatever. And in that case, we were able to track it down to the 1970s because it just so happened that the planning department had an old Polaroid photograph of this in the file like circa 1977 and we were able to locate the property had once upon a time been used as a, as a student housing for Champlain College and we were able to locate the, what was then called the dorm mother who lived there. I mean, this is, I'm just trying to explain about, you know, unlike land records, we, when you go back a certain distance. We have heard all sorts of horror stories. So I understand the problem again. I'm just trying to, if, if there was some permit issued when the house was built, that would be a starting point. In this case, we just don't have it. We just don't know if somebody applied for it and got it and it's been lost or whether there, there was never anything issued. So I get that. The other part that you meant talked about a conditional use for, can you explain your argument there? And my basic question is, at this point, what we have before us is an appeal of a finding of, not approved as a triplex. You're suggesting that we examine whether conditional use for a residential something, and I can't remember the term you used, would be appropriate. Yeah. The, the, it's under article five section is not conforming residential use. It's on page five dash 17 of the current ordinance. And let me explain the logic of, this is something we added later. I think the nature of, of Erica's inquiry was really for all in terms of, all intents and purposes request for a declaratory ruling. I think that's really what we're dealing with here. So the thinking was, well, if we're doing that and since if there's a nonconforming residential use, it's got to be approved by the DRB. We're here and it's kind of a de novo review of what happened before the administrative agency. It would make sense to bring it up now. And that's why we did it. Didn't you say I shouldn't have even asked for a zoning variance? Yeah, I don't think a variance is the right, I think it's the right church, but the wrong appeal. A variance is very tough to get over my impossible. It's really to prevent a regulatory taking. That's the only reason for it. This is really, this is a conditionally permitted use, conditional use approval says pursuant to article three, part five. And it's a change in expansion of nonconforming residential use. I mean, we clearly have that here. The department doesn't, has argued that this, this section doesn't apply. I, I don't know that I quite understand the navigation through that, but that's also a consideration here. So I'd like to get to the city's position. If anybody on the board has any questions for the applicant at the moment, we'll get back to you too. So just a second. I think Scott, I think I'll just have you maybe present the city's position. I think one of the questions I have is there is a ordinance in here from, and it's not clear where it's from. It's obviously an old ordinance that talks from 62. That's from 62. And it does list multi-unit and that page. I don't know if the next page, it talks about them being additional use, but it doesn't talk about it on that page being conditional use. Maybe we could explain that too. I'll answer that and then get into the position. So if you read above where it talks about multi-family, it says, I'm paraphrasing because it's not under my nose. It says the following uses are subject or approved, are approvable subject to special exception. You can say that in there. You say any of the following uses. So number five, any of the following uses, one authorized as a special exception by the zoning board of adjustment. A, apartment houses of three or more family units, hotels, tourist cabins and motels, E&C are irrelevant. That's what I'm referring to. Three or more units, special exception. I'm familiar with that. I think probably current parlance, it would be considered a conditional use. They called it special exception back then. And then I think of Scott, if I'm not mistaken, then there was another amendment. I call it the anti-hippie amendment. It was about 1970 or 71. That then added a definition, a more exacting definition of what a family was. And then I don't know what the next iteration was when that was changed. It might have been in the 80s. Well, 71 was when family definition was tweaked. Right. At group quarters. I called it the post-woodstock amendment. That's not on trial tonight. Scott. Okay. So this is not an enforcement action. Attorney Franco said something about the enforcement office. Code's not involved in this at all. This was a request for determination to bless the type like shoes. As a preexisting nonconformity. Sorry to do the 22nd recap on that. For something to be a legit preexisting nonconformity it needed to be okay when it started. So the house was built in 64. The 62 zoning code said single family duplexes are okay in this area. Three more homes needed a special exception from the ZBA. So administrative zoning permits pre-early 1970s are not in our files. We're looking for them. We have zoning board of adjustment decisions back to the 40s. And you'll see even for this property we have a ZBA decision from 1968 for real estate office. I assume it was a home occupation, but there's not much in the way of detail. Anyways, the point is we have ZBA decisions back to the 40s including one for 68 for this property. So 62 said you needed ZBA decision approving it. House was built in 64. There is nothing anywhere in the file or in the permit log that was in use in the time that said anything about their triplex shoes. That's really the punchline. Most of the city records point to two units which is a little bit curious if it always had three units. There are some records like Vermont gas and the affidavits which point to three. But I think the punchline really is there's no ZBA decision approving this. So then we're looking at the statute of limitations. You know on the drill on that maturity Franco correctly points out the 204 North Avenue jang case of the Supreme Court. And depending how that goes that could have significant implication for this case. On the use. Yes, the use violation. So your position is that the, no matter how it's been used in intervening years the fact that it never had a legitimate use and it's a use violation. Right. The other is predicated on being legit when it began. Except that we claim that that changes with this. Yes. Thank you for reminding me attorney Franco. So in your packet tonight you have a zoning permit from 2017. The application forum refers to existing proposed use as two units. So then you say it's reversed by the 2017 application. I don't think is assertion that the triplex from 88 is legit but if you were willing to entertain that we have the permit from 2017 referring to two. Permit in 2017 to do what? That refers to two units as existing proposed use. That being said that was submitted by my aunt who was not very well. Didn't pay super great attention to things. We have a variety of permits and records in front of us that talk about two units and three units. Sometimes it's just a single family house when things are being applied. So it is confusing. And this permit really it approves screening in an existing porch. It doesn't it's not a change of use. It's hard to say the city was reviewing and approving the preexisting use really wasn't critical to this decision. I hear what you're saying but I can throw the zoning is in derogation of common law property rights and it's supposed to be construed strictly against the city and liberally favor the property owner and throw Hanson Walbridge and the other Graves case back at you. I understand what the legal argument is. I could argue your side of it too. And just I don't know if it matters or not but as Scott mentioned this wasn't a violation. Well I mean it was but like we didn't get caught you know. We've been with code enforcement forever. We've never had any violations. Code enforcement has it as a three unit property. We've always paid all of our bills on time and everything so there was no like this would not have come up if I hadn't gone to get a mortgage for the property and then you know the appraiser was like it's a three unit and the city was like no it's a two unit and they were like sorry sucker you can't get a mortgage now. So that's how we've gotten here. You're not I mean that's a spot where a lot of people get caught at that point. I'm not caught in consequence. Yes caught up. Yes. At that moment you know people try to resolve that and usually it's the same kind of issue that it's got more value as a triplex than as a duplex I suspect. Oh a considerable difference. In fact it is to the it is such a considerable difference that if I have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to convert it to a duplex it will no longer be feasible for my family to keep the home. Well you know whether you can use it I've talked to Mr. Franco about this as to whether or not you can use it as a triplex or actually have to do any structural conversions. I have I'm sorry can you say that into the microphone so I can hear you better. I think again we're into this realm of structure versus use. So I know that I know that the environmental division has taken that position since Judge Wright first articulated it 20 years ago. I said I know that I know that the environmental division has sustained that reasoning for the last 20 years. To me it makes absolutely no sense. Why would you build a deck if you can't use it? Why would you build a third apartment if you can't use it? And what we will be arguing to the Supreme Court is Occam's razor the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one and that the statute of limitations applies to both uses and to what structures. And otherwise it makes no sense. And I've also asked like is there some way that we can you know change this fix this like can I just call Patrick my roommate so that like you know not to be dishonest or anything but like what can we do to just not make it so that my family can't keep the home that my grandparents purchased 60 years ago for our family. And what I was told was that the renovations had to be significant enough so that it could not then be converted back into a separate apartment. Which is reasonable. I don't even like I can't even argue about it. So Scott from the city's point of view whether this has been in continuous use as a triplex or not is not a factor. Is that correct? It's irrelevant. It was built in 64. 62 was the cutoff for special exception. So I should have had a ZBA permit. If I may briefly just about making it legit maybe you're referring to attorney Franco's comment or not anyways I'll address it. So there's in the appeal documents request for consideration under the nonconformity condition to use. So I'll say two things there. One is if they want to pursue that right they would have to file a condition whose application more significantly and this might be confusing explanation because it's confusing. That provision is in there to enable otherwise nonconforming residential uses that are approved through adaptive reuse and residential conversion. So in other words if you're in the residential low density zone and you have a commercial structure and you do the residential conversion you're not limited to just a single family or duplex. That provision is there to incentivize conversion or adaptive reuse is maybe the case by increasing the allowable density. So that's basically there to allow your result in triplex or quadplex or whatever it was. That's not here because you're not doing an adaptive reuse. Correct. And we use that for North Avenue right? The multi family was an adaptive reuse therefore there was sort of a density bonus for conversion to residential. In which North Avenue the one on I'm trying to avoid calling it the mayor's project. Yes, that was right. I will know. I mean we have other projects in the same kind of category as this where I don't think any but he tried to get away with anything. I think it just happened over the years that now because of the mortgage thing you're you find yourself caught in a non-compliant situation at least from the city's point of view. And I think the board has tradition I had a lot of sympathy for that but it's a struggle as we feel bound that we have to do something that fits with the zoning regulations and trying to find some solution that works with that is the challenge. And I, attorney Franco, if this 1988 was final but as Scott says there's something in 94 or something, a subsequent one that talks about being a duplex again. So we're sort of we would have I mean if this was a trial we bring in a number of people that say that that representation in 2017 is just incorrect. It's been a been a triplex for for decades and included in our package is the is affidavits from the folks who literally watched the house get built and I had asked if I should there are more people in the neighborhood that I've met that remember my grandparents they were friends with my mom and my aunt and my uncle and whomever and they all said that they were happy to provide affidavits as well and I was told that it wasn't that we had to and that they probably might not matter anyway so but like it's I mean the neighbors have known that it's a triplex see the testimony in here they're quite clear about that Scott nobody's contesting any of the facts it's just how you apply those facts to the requirements of the ordinance even if you accept that as 100% true we still have legal issues that we need to get passed I understand that well we don't know Scott I understand this right is it's sort of by there not being a ZBA permit unfiltered we don't really know what was actually applied for in 1963 or four we only know that that does not exist in the file sort of a negative kind of thing that permit does not exist in there but there's no record of actually what was applied for right well it would make sense that a single family or duplex would have gotten an admin permit and again in the 60s we don't know where they are if they're anywhere but we do know where the ZBA decisions are because we have them yeah I guess one makes the assumption that if it needed a particular permit it would have gotten that particular permit not like what we see sometimes where just as an example we've seen before the coordination between public works and planning and zoning where permits were issued by public works for a project that was not approved by zoning a two-unit building or three-unit building where the zoning permit wouldn't have allowed it and that people have building permits for those kind of things and once upon a time the zoning ordinances were administered by the building inspector in the city of Burlington way back in ancient times of 40s, 50s, and 60s I think Ray Wiel maybe was the building inspector I mean so you've got a whole and what's really brought out this problem of the history of permits was when they had the Bianchi decision that made the lack of permits staying on the title and it was every I don't do real estate law but the real estate practitioners were pulling their hair out because they said look it we don't have a recording system like we have for deeds and that kind of thing for the permits and that really created a mess and I would just say in my opinion that it's hard to say that it's a complete file of all of the permits if you don't have the actual building permit I don't know how you can say that you have everything when you don't have everything and the record of buildings which is old also even shows that the second floor is separated into a two bedroom and a two room so it's unfortunate that people were not diligent about crossing all of their tees or their eyes just I think we've got I was going to leave you with one last thought make it a good one this house was built when the Beatles run Ed Sullivan just to put it in perspective any other questions for the board and nobody's here for this I believe thank you we're going to maybe deliver at the end of the day I have a question for staff there was an instance where we did recently I can't remember what yes it was on something where they said remind me why that worked because it was we were trying to establish I'm sorry can you guys speak into your microphone I think on that case if I remember quickly we were trying to establish continuous use and that was the only thing that they needed to statue as Zeroy said what we were trying to establish was that it was not continuously it was always there I did not hear half of what you guys said in a prior project before the board it was a similar issue but not identical the question was had a non-conforming use ever been abandoned for longer than a year I was trying to remember whether we were doing the six months or a year rule but this one was a year the building was abandoned the use and so we had to take affidavits from people who said not was always used as such okay and that is not helpful in this case it was a factual issue and as we talked about earlier if we accept your facts 100% we still have some problems and I just wanted to make sure we talked about public caring so it's on record got it and so then yes our affidavit does show that it's been in continuous use since it was built according to the affidavit thank you for asking that so the next item on the agenda is 1315 George Street I thought I could close it actually before we're officially closing that public hearing will we be deliberating tonight you think on this one or not? are you refused on the next one? no we are and if we want to stick around we could maybe deliberate on this later we'll stick around that's all right and two of us are recused Jeff has left so Jim stepped out for a minute I think it makes sense to wait for him to join okay why don't I just call it but we won't take any testimony until he's here yep so the next item and again just for the record Brad, AJ and Jeff are all recusing themselves so I will be serving as the chair for this application this is 19-0533 C.A. slash M.A. 19-0532 C.A. slash C.U. 19-0534 C.A. slash M.A. 19-0535 C.A.றld Street 68-8090 and 70 Pearl Street so the applicant is here is there anyone else in the audience tonight who thinks they might wish to make comments or ask questions about this application can you all raise your right hand so I can swear you in do you swear the testimony you're about to give in this matter will be the truth under pain and penalty of perjury before they do their presentation. Make sure, do you want to wait for Jim to return? I think it would be good to have as many board members participate as we can. So that's a yes, you're going to wait for Jim to return. At your choice. Let's wait for Jim to return. Just for those of you who have not been here before, the applicant will present the application. Board members can then ask questions of the applicant and then we'll give an opportunity for members of the public to ask their questions, make their comments, so that will come. OK, Mary. I wanted to give just a short preamble before the board hears this case, because it's relatively unusual. Part of this application is being reviewed under the standard articles of the ordinance and that's the residential portion. We have two zoning districts and two sets of regulations. If you were reading your supporting material online and you opened up the folder for the project narrative, it was followed by a great deal of information, a lot of checklists. None of those are for you. That is the staff portion of the review. So for the article 14 section for the form districts relative to the Pearl Street properties, your review is limited to the request for extra height and that's in your findings or in your staff report, article 14 on page 22. That is the limit of your review is the extra height. The remainder of the staff report is relative to the residential portion, which is in the high density residential zone and those are the George Street properties. So if you have any questions about what you're looking at or what your review is, I'm happy to help you with that. Mary, thank you. And I get the distinction. There were a couple of areas where it was very hard to look at this as two separate projects with two sets of rules. One was traffic, because I get it, we have traffic generated by the senior housing, but it's impossible to, which is, I think probably relatively minor compared to the traffic generated by the hotel and cafe and also parking are interrelated. So I think we'll need some assistance on figuring out how to apply those two criteria given the two projects in two different zones with different standards. That was my reaction. You do bring up a good point. I have provided you with the most recent parking and traffic study from the applicants, but this afternoon DPW provided their analysis, which is before you. So that's in your communications packet. Okay, right. So I'll turn it over to the applicant. If you could identify yourself and then what do we, what do you wanna tell us? Well, it's been a long time. I think the last time you saw us was in 2016 when the sketch plan. So we've come a long way since then. I'm John Alden with Scott and Partners Architects and I've got Rick Boe with me here and I've got a lot of consultants that are waiting to answer all of your detailed questions. So I know, well, there's a lot of parts and pieces to this and you're right to point that out. So we do have a hotel building, we do have an apartment building and we do have a parking approach with an underground piece and a surface piece and it does all relate together. It's one big project and we're just gonna walk you through a short slideshow. I might have some of our panels here explain the details of some of them but I'm trying to keep it brief because I'm sure you have already read it and you have questions. So let's see what happens here. So this is from an older slideshow because you've seen it before but I just wanted everyone to remember where we are on the city map. So we're in the box here. That's the existing Victoria Place. And then because zoning's changed since the last time we were here we now have the red line indicating the difference between the RH zone and what is now the form district five and there's also an overlay E for height. Okay, so part of the project, the apartment building is actually over here in the RH section and the hotel is over here in the FD5 section. All right, so here's the existing site plan. You can see the buildings that are in place now include two former single family homes now apartment buildings along George Street. These two lots here. This is the standard house which was recently rehabbed quite nicely by Rick. Victoria Place, the former Bolv's restaurant, Social Security and the large parking lot that exists now, 48 spaces, surface parking, 18 belong to Victoria Place in the standard house and the remaining 30 are metered by the city. Those 30 spaces are being, there's a purchase and sale agreement with Rick for him to take over all the parking. So that entire lot comes to be part of this project application and there's a deal between the city and Rick that 30 spaces will remain available for public use during the day, not necessarily metered by the city, but however Rick wants to do it, he still has an obligation to retain access to 30 spaces so that people, anybody could use them. And we'll get into that later. It's part of the parking. The proposed site plan, I'm gonna have O'Leary and Burke help me with this one, but there's a lot of material going on here with regard to underground things. This is the surface plan. This is the ramp down into the garage from George Street. This is the apartment building. This is the hotel with the restaurant or while it's a commercial space on the first floor fronting onto Pearl. This is the existing driveway that's been redeveloped as a more of a shared use. You've got pedestrian, you've got cars and we'll show you how that works later on in the slideshow. And this other little piece here is just the stair coming down from the wing of the hotel which you might be able to pick out. There's a yellow line here which outlines the upper level of the hotel starting on level two. It is over the parking lot. You guys wanna do the fine points on maybe the underground structures and so forth? Please. So Brian Courier, O'Leary, Burke Civil Associates. So John, so the utilities for the George Street loft building will come off George Street. We are doing a slightly water line replacement along the road. It's an old six inch clay line corroded. So we're gonna replacing a section of that with eight inch PVC, adding a hydrant at the end. Sewer comes off the existing sewer service along George Street. He mentioned the ramp going down to the underground parking. The hotel is gonna be served by the existing utilities on Pearl Street, water sewer, just upgrading the existing services for the restaurant. The stormwater system has been reviewed by the conservation committee and the city stormwater department. It's inclusive of a underground storm tech system, promotes infiltration and overflows to the combined water sewer on Pearl Street.