 I am going to call this meeting of the Montpelier Development Review Board to order. It is Monday, September 21st. And welcome. Thank you for being here wherever here is, Zimland. What I would like to do is start by going around and having DRB members introduce themselves. My name is Kate McCarthy. I chair the DRB. And I'll just say your name and you can introduce yourself. Please unmute before you do. Starting with Jean. Hello. Jean Leon, DRB. And Roger. Roger Kranz, DRB. Abby. Hi, everyone. Abby White, the newest member of the DRB. Welcome. Joe. Joe Cannon, DRB member. Rob. Rob Goodwin, DRB member. Hi, Rob. And Michael. Yeah, Michael. DRB. Hi, Kate. Hi, Michael. Welcome. And we are also joined and assisted by Meredith Crandall, who is our zoning administrator. We are being filmed by Orca Media and Tammy Furry is the recording secretary who makes this all into minutes that we can understand, which we appreciate very much. Alright, so with introductions, we'll get to the next item on the agenda here, which is staff review of procedures in the zoom format. So I'll turn it over to Meredith. There we go. So I am sharing this document. It's mostly for people who are viewing on Orca at home who if they decide they want to then join the DRB meeting, they may. So those viewing or media, you can participate in this development review board meeting. If you so choose, you can log in to the zoom meeting using this link here directly. You can also call into the meeting with this phone number. Using the meeting ID and password. You can download the complete meeting packet or even just specific application materials through this link here that links you to the agenda and all those meeting materials. If you're trying to get in and you're having problems, please email me here at M Crandall full email address is right there. I will leave this up while I finish the other participation and procedures information. So this new meeting is being recorded as well as streamed live via Orca media. Turning on your video is optional. Public testimony will be taken verbally. The chat function should only be used for troubleshooting or logistics questions. You can chat with me directly if you have any issues with how to use different functions. And the chat will be added to the public record if it's used. Please keep your microphone on mute when you are not speaking to reduce background noise. And for those participating by phone star six will allow you to mute or unmute as a host. I can also usually mute or unmute people, but it kind of depends on your brand features. So I may, you need to do a little thing that's asking me to be asking you to unmute. If you're interested in speaking on a particular matter and you didn't say that you'd like to speak on that when you first logged in or you're an applicant for one thing, but it turns out you haven't interested in something else. Please raise your hand either physically or by using the raise hand button on your toolbar. For those of you on the phone, you can press star nine to raise your hand. Or you can just state your name if you're unmuted, if you need to do it that way. And then once the chair has recognized you to participate, please unmute your microphone, confirm that you can be heard and provide your full name and address for the record. This is mostly for people who are commenting, not necessarily applicants. We have your information in the application file. For those commenting on applications, once you've been recognized by the chair, you're free to provide your questions or comments, aiming to keep them to two minutes. If you have questions or comments, please raise your hand. If you have questions, please raise your hand. And those of the board will then have the opportunity to respond or ask questions of you. And the applicant may have an opportunity to respond, but please everyone address the board, not each other. The chair can grant additional time for speakers who have follow-up questions or comments. After you have finished your microphone will be. Sorry. Somebody waiting. Microphone should be muted again. And then the chair will move on to the next person who wants to speak. For people who do have comments. If you decide you want to talk again, you can speak again. You're not limited just those two minutes, but please make sure that it's with, you've been recognized again by the chair. In the event the public is unable to access this meeting. If we are getting comments, if I'm getting emails and people just can't get in, we'll have to continue this to a time and place certain. I already mentioned connectivity issues. If you're having trouble seeing the documents and screen share mode. Like I said, all files are uploaded to the agendas and minutes page for this meeting on the city website. You can email me if you're having issues getting them. Please note that all votes taken during this meeting will be done by roll call vote. On that hand, the meeting back over to. The chair, Kate. Thank you. Thanks for that overview, Meredith. We appreciate it. All right. So the next item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda, which we will do by roll call. Are there any modifications to the agenda from board members? All right. In that case, do I have a motion to approve? I don't know. I don't know. Okay. That is something that we can update for the record. Thanks for noticing that, Rob. All right. With that in mind, is there a motion to approve the agenda? So moved. Motion by Roger second. Second. Second from Jean. I'll call the roll. Jean. Roger. Yes. Abby. Yes. Joe. Yes. Rob. Yes. Michael. Yes. And I also vote. Yes, we've approved the agenda. Thank you very much. All right. The next item on our agenda is comments from the chair. And the first thing I would like to do is extend a welcome to new board member Abby white. Abby, thank you so much for stepping up and being part of this board. Thank you for your interest. And for what you're going to bring to it. We're really looking forward to working with you and getting to know you as a board member. So thank you. The other comment that I want to share is that I want to let folks know about a temporary shift in the way that we're going to be doing things. We've been doing zoom hearing since about May. We've all been on that ride together. And you won't be surprised to know that one of the things that's been very challenging. Is running meetings as efficiently on zoom as they would be run in person. And in addition, we lack the same sort of interpersonal clues and clues for interacting with each other with applicants. And that can make having a smooth discussion a little bit difficult. Out of respect for the public's time. And to ensure that board members are fully able to deliberate on each application to come up with the best conditions possible. And to do that without feeling rushed. We have decided to pilot a closed deliberative session. To make decisions on each application. But the sessions will be closed. We will still be issuing a written decision. And we're going to pilot this approach for about three months. We're going to see if it works for board members and for the public. We're going to be revisiting this as an agenda item on our late December or early December. Meeting. So I'll have a chance to talk about it and hear from people about what worked and what didn't. If anybody has feedback on this approach in the meantime, board members, members of the public, applicants, anyone at all, please contact Meredith and let her know your thoughts. We do want to hear from you. So thank you for being willing to try this. Thank you for bearing with us. This is very much in the spirit of making sure that we have solid fair decisions for applicants. And I think we're going to be able to do that. I think we're going to be able to do that. I think we're going to be able to do that. I think we're going to be in the spirit of making sure that we have solid fair decisions for applicants. And we're doing it for all applications because we want to avoid singling out individual applications for the deliberative session. We're just going to do it uniformly and predictively. So that is something the board has discussed previously, but I wanted to make this public statement about this shift. Temporary shift pilot shift. In this approach. So do, do any board members have any questions about that? I think we're going to be able to do that. I think we're going to be able to do that. And then the next agenda item then, which is meeting minutes, voting on the meeting minutes of August 3rd, 2020. Does anyone have any edits to those minutes? I have just one on page two at some point. It says amphibious migration. And I think we want to say amphibian migration since that's what we've been, we were talking about. And that's what the condition pertains to. So that way it'll just be consistent. Okay. So, um, I will accept a motion to approve the minutes. Okay. Do I, who made the motion? I'll make the motion. This is Joe. Motion by Joe. Thank you. A second by Jean. Is that correct, Jean? Great. Thank you. And I will call the role of those eligible to vote. Um, Rob. Yes. Joe. Yes. Michael. Yes. Roger. Yes. Jean. Thank you. And I also vote yes, we have adopted the minutes of August 3rd. Very good. All right. So we're going to shift to our first application, which is for 11 Baldwin street. And I will be recusing myself from this application because it is my employer. And our vice chair is unable to be here this evening. So I would like to invite a nomination to have Roger as vice chair for the 11 Baldwin street application. I would make that motion, I guess. Joe. I would second the motion for Roger. I would second the motion. Roger. Roger. Roger. Roger. Roger. Roger. Roger has said that he is willing to serve that role for this application. And so I would like to invite a nomination to have Roger as vice chair. To be the vice chair of this. Thank you. Second from Jean. And now we'll call the roll on that motion. Jean. Yes. Roger. You're muted. Abstain. Okay. I thought that's what you said. Thanks. Abby. Yes. Joe. Yes. Rob. Yes. Michael. Yes. And I also vote yes. I am going to hand the reins of the meeting over to Roger and put them in Roger's very capable hands. I'm going to go off camera until the conclusion of this. And I'll be back for the next application. Someone can send me a text message. That'd be great. But I'll be nearby. Thank you. Over to you, Roger. Thank you, Kate. This is the application for conditional use review and minor site plan at 11 Baldwin street. And that is represented by Mr. Schup. Is that correct? Mr. Schup. Yes, that's correct. And I'll swear you in in a moment. Are there other people here to testify to this? Application. Yes. Asher Nelson from Vermont integrated architecture. Is here. Doing probably a book of the talking and Kate Stevenson from helm construction management is also here and may provide some input. Anyone else. For this application. Well, will you please those that will be tested? Yes. Meredith. Sorry. I just, I want to make find out there's a Peter's iPad. Whoever that is, if you could just tell me who you are so we can figure out what you're here for. Hey there. Peter Ricker. I'm a joining landowner of Mary Hill. The next project. Thank you, Peter. I appreciate it. Sorry for the interruption. Roger. I just wanted to make sure that we knew who everybody was. That's, that's great. Thank you. Please are those who are going to testify, please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth? The whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes. Great. Thank you. Okay. So let's get on with this application. Meredith, would you give us a, this is kind of an update. Would you please give us an update? Yes. So as you said, this is an application by the Vermont natural resources council for conditional use. It's to expand a conditional office use that the board approved last year by converting an additional 1,295 square feet of a former residential building into office space. This expanded use also increases the minimum number of parking spaces required under section 3,011 by one space. So when it was approved by the board last year, it only needed five spaces as a minimum. Now it needs six. So when it was approved last year, the board actually granted VNRC the application. To have fewer than the minimum required parking spaces. And so the VNRC is asking for a similar allowance here. A reminder to the board members that you can only evaluate those factors that are actually changing between this application and the prior permit. So even though they haven't actually, constructed, say the, the parking second parking area off of Terra street, the board already approved it. So we have to, or you have to look at that as almost as already having been built. So they're just changing what they're asking for from that to spot parking space up top to a one spot parking space with some different design features. And that's, you know, same with changes to the site plan. So they previously had additional parking spaces down by the main building off of Baldwin. They're reconfiguring those and adding an additional one. So you're looking at the changes between the previously approved site plan. And this new proposed site plan. Great. Thank you, Meredith. Mr. shoot. Would you like to. Speak. Sure. I will briefly think, I want to thank the board for your time. So as I represented to the board, I think there's a lot of new faces since last August or September. The NRC was in a kind of a. Surprisingly good position to be able to acquire this parcel and convert the former Gibson residents to our office space. At the time of my application, we hadn't hired a design team yet. I just wanted to make sure that before we went ahead with the purchase that we were able to use the, the property for the intended purposes. So we really weren't sure about some of the site design features that we were going to be designing. Also at that time, there was, we didn't anticipate using a portion of the entire, the, of the building. There's an unheated currently unheated room above the garage. And there's two rooms on the third floor that we felt like we were going to be able to use. And not use for office space and hold that for future expansion. But as we went through the design process with our design team, we decided that we really, it was in our best interest now to go ahead with the full upgrade of the building. So that expanded the amount of office space that we hope you use. We also had a very rudimentary site design plan last time. It didn't adequately address, it didn't adequately address, it didn't adequately address, it didn't adequately address storm water management in my mind. So we made some significant changes to the site design for better water quality management. And we weren't sure how to deal with some minor kind of ledge removal that's adjacent to the driveway. And as we've got in and did some site exploration, we decided that there was more opportunities to improve the function of the area next to the driveway up, up by the back of the building. So that's, that's kind of what brought us here today. We have a more complete design. For my integrated architectures can answer any questions or present an overview of what has changed since. Last September. And I guess I don't. And maybe when we get into parking, I'll have some more to add to that. But I think that's pretty much where we are. Asher, could I. Yeah. I guess, Mr. Chair, how would you like to proceed? Would you like a more background on what has changed and what we're proposing? Or would you rather have the board. In choir. I would like to move fairly briskly through. Chapter 300 general standards to get right to the issue of parking and loading. That seems to be the major change. If that's agreeable with you, Mr. Schupin with, with, with board members. Does that sound agreeable board members? You can shake your head at one way or the other. Okay. Well, let's, is that okay? That sounds great. I think that makes a lot of sense. Okay. Well, let's, well, I, I have the staff report here. So I'm going to. Move through. The. The general standards. I'm looking at dimensional. I'm looking at section 3002 and 3003 dimensional standards. And I'm going to skip right on page five to the staff finding. The staff finding says the subject parcel and proposed site plan changes meet the minimum lot size frontage and coverage requirements for the MUR district. Further proposed office use complies with the MUR. The MUR district's density requirements. I'm going to go to section 3004 demolition, not applicable. Repairing and rights, not applicable. Wetlands and vernal pools, not applicable. Steep slopes. The staff finding is that 3007 steep slopes does not apply. 3008. I'm going to go to section 3004. I'm going to go to section 3004. Erosion control. Staff findings are applicants expansion of the driveway will need to comply with the best practices listed in 3008. D. But a professionally prepared erosion control plan is not required given the small amount of land impact. Section 3009. The public works has not asked for additional stormwater plans. The nearby municipal stormwater storage infrastructure. And applicants proposal to increase on five consign infiltration of stormwater flow. Staff suggested the board concludes the, sorry. Staff suggests that the board conclude that this proposal complies with section 3009. Now we come to 310 access and circulation. And I would like to correct me if I'm wrong here, Meredith. I would like to move to section 3011 parking and loading. That seems to be the major issue before us on this application. Really. Okay. 3010 is really there's, it's a minute point that's flagged just because technically the changed upper parking area, but ultimately if the board decides that they're going to grant. Applicant, they're reduced parking numbers. And don't worry about that. Parking area that it doesn't even matter. Okay. Well, let's, let's, let's, let's move to 311 section 311, which is on page 10 of the. Because of the expanded use in the buildings. Now six spaces are required. And the applicant has. And his application and their application has. Proposed another one. Which moves it to five. On the property. And we have the authority to wave. That the requirement of six and leave it at five, if, if we wish. And so, so let, let, let's look at that. Let's look at that question. If that, if that's all right with, with you and Mr. Schupen with your colleagues. Absolutely. Do you want to talk more about those requirements? I think the short story is that. When we increase the amount of conditional office use requested, we're. That, that drives the increase one to one more parking spot. In this case. We are also increasing the amount of area. We're also increasing the number of parking spaces. And so. Brian mentioned the removal of some ledge. So we've actually expanded the flat area. Basically what we're calling the upper level. It's it's maybe eight or 10 feet above the street level. To the northeast of the building. And that allows us to add one more. Parking space at that level. In the last hearing, last summer. We were able to do that. We were able to do that. We were able to do that. We were able to do that on the terrace street level that were waived. In this go around, we're proposing five on that level. With our expanded area. And that allowed us to reduce the one on terrace, just to one on terrace street. But we're also requesting that to be waived for similar reasons. If you try to fit. Two parking spaces on terrace street. Nose in you will need to build retaining walls to create that much flat space. We were proposing to burn a single space because we have more with this point. In the findings that the. Department of public works actually suggested a parallel parking spot there, which I am like kicking myself. I was basically working from. Where we were before with two nos in parking spaces. So I narrowed it to one and made that work, but a parallel space there would be much less impact. You know, I think we'll still request a waiver, but I think there's an easier way to do it than what was drawn. And that came through with the public works comments you've seen probably. I'm sorry. Go ahead. I'm good. Okay. Would you in your application and in the staff report, we do have the reasons for granting a waiver. And your responses to those. Could you, could you go over those for the board, please? Sure. I think to start at the highest level, which probably isn't listed in the staff report. And that's something that we're really looking at. We are actually working on an organization that is trying to work actively to reduce transportation. A single car use and reduce our environmental impacts of our transportation choices. So. Any encouragement of. Public transit or alternative means of transportation. That's right. In with this organization. That said, we are providing a covered in. storage and showers. So people who do want to walk, jog, or bike to work have a place to store their bike. It means to get clean and change before work. We also are proximal to multiple public transit options. So I think there are many of the same reasons that were presented in Alaska around. So making sense at an organizational level down to the options that are available and also seasonal parking on Baldwin Street. I think it's the last one. If I could just add to that, those are the basis of our request for a waiver. And that's what you need to rest your decision on. We do encourage carpooling and walking and biking to work. Several of our employees live in Montpelier and currently walk. And we are in conversations that are promising folks at the Christian Science Church. This is not a commitment on either part that this will result in offsite parking. But they use their spaces on a very limited basis. And the lot that's part of the Union Mutual Insurance Company. So we are exploring a variety of different ways to minimize on-site parking. But the most important one, as Asher said, is trying to minimize the use of automobiles coming to and from the building. All right. OK, great. Thanks. So 3011.C3 has the criteria of board members. It's on the page 10 of the staff report. I think Mr. Schupin and his colleagues have addressed each of those criteria. Now let me ask board members, do you have questions for the applicants about this question of waiving one of the requirement for six and waiving one of those parking spaces based on our authority to do that? I'm just wondering, do you have a design visual available that you could pop up on the screen of the area space? Asher, let me know if you don't have the share screen option for some reason. And I can always pull it up from the application package. That'd be great, Meredith. And are you referring to the terrace street lot or the main parking area down by the building? The main parking area. Oh, there we go. That's the former one. Yep. There, can you all see that? Yeah. Now one, two, three, which is the ADA, four, and five. And just to be clear, the terrace street spot is not shown on this. This is only the lower portion of the site. Can I make one additional comment? Yes, certainly. Yeah. And this is just for background to understand how the regulations apply to different uses along Baldwin Street. My initial plan had been to widen the driveway all the way down the Baldwin to be able to use parallel parking up the driveway. That's a practice on Baldwin Street. A couple of the state office buildings allow that. And the only residential property owned by Down Street on the corner of Bailey and Baldwin also allow that. Because we're a non-residential building that subjects a meanest view, unlike the state buildings, we're prohibited from doing that. But that is a common practice on Baldwin. I just wanted to point that out as far as how parking is considered by the city's bylaws. Great, thank you very much. I would like to move to, are there other questions from board members about this waiver request? OK, I'd like to move to page 12 of the staff report. And the staff has said on page 12 that we have three options regarding this waiver request. The first is to deny it, require all six parking spaces. The second is to approve the waiver with just the five lower parking space spaces. And an option to construct the sixth, that would be on terrace, we have presumed. And three, approving the application with just the five lower parking spaces but disallowing the redesigned Territory Parking Area. Under option three, applicants 2019 permit that authorizes a two-space parking area off Territory would still be active until 2021. I'm not sure how to proceed. I would ask the applicant, which of those would you like? Certainly you don't want number one, where we disapprove the waiver. Between two and three, do you have any place, any preference? Ryan, I'll have to defer to you on that because basically, do you want the future until 2021, the ability to construct the two on the upper, on terrace? But not the requirement, but the option to? Right. Yes, I think that would be better. I don't anticipate it, but I like keeping options open in case we find renovating houses way cheaper than we thought we would. And we have extra resources. Maybe we would decide to do that. I don't anticipate that though. But so I guess I should be more clear, option two allows you to construct that at any point in the future. Am I correct on that, Meredith? So all zoning permits are good for two years. But if the board approves your reduced single space up there, it really overrides your old option to build two spots up there. But what that does mean is if you come back and you're like, no, no, no, we really want to be designed to just do this one parallel parking space instead of the two that you already have permitted, you'll have to come back for an amendment to the permit or a whole new permit. If it's if your old one from last year expired, there's a little bit of strategic thinking about this. A amendment to go from the two that were authorized last year to a single parallel parking space might just be an administrative amendment. You have some options on how you want things to look at here. It's just it's a little things evolved a little bit in this application so that we didn't really have a chance to have this conversation before tonight. So I understand. That would allow us to go ahead with one space? I'm confused. Sorry. We'd allow you to go ahead with one space. I think option two would be the preference because that would allow us to construct one space in the next two years. And it's two years from now, not two years from the prior permit. Right. And a year on it. And if we decided we did want to do two spaces, we could come back for an amendment, whether by the board or administrative amendment. That would be our preference, yeah. So option two. Option two. Thank you for taking the time to have that discussion. OK, great. Then I think the operative question for the board, which we will take up in our deliberative session, is should we allow the waiver and should we agree to option two? Does that make sense? OK, we'll save that for then. Any questions from the board about that? Pace forward. OK, let's move to chapter 320 site plan standards. We're now getting into this is a minor site plan. And I'm going to move briskly through this, if that's OK with everyone, because it's not very tough. Access and circulation, staff finding is pedestrian facilities are fully developed with sufficient sidewalks and internal walkways, as well as a nearby bus stop. Further bicycle storage will be provided. Therefore, this application complies with the requirements of 3202, access and circulation. The next is landscape and screening. The staff finds this parcel complies with the total landscaping minimums in the proposed site plan. Changes do not appear to require additional screening, given the plans to retain screening vegetation around the revised parking spaces. Section 3204 outdoor lighting, not applicable. Section 330 conditional use standards. So now we're moving to conditional use. And the first part of that is 3302, capacity of community facilities and utilities. The staff finds that applicants requested expansion of the total square footage being used for office space at 11 Baldwin will not cause a disproportionate or unreasonable burden on the city's ability to override community facilities and utilities. Board members, if you have any questions as I'm going through these things, just raise your hand. It's pretty pro forma. I think applicants request for expansion of the total footage. OK, I did that. Traffic staff findings said staff suggested the board determined that the proposed change complies with 3302 requirements, even with only five parking spaces, given that the expanded office use will be unlikely to have an adverse effect on traffic in the neighborhood. That's a good suggestion. Character of the neighborhood, 3304, staff finds that the proposed changes of use to an office does not have additional undue adverse effects on the character of the redstone neighborhood as the impact of additional landscaping on the front of the parcel would act to enhance the neighborhood character. Conditions of approval, performance standards, staff finds that given the other uses in the immediate neighborhood and that the expanded office use will not be concentrated in the daytime and therefore less likely to conflict with the residential uses within the greater redstone neighborhood. Staff finds the proposal does not require additional performance standards as conditions of approval. So we've gone through the entire application. And I would like to see if staff have any questions, final questions about this. If our applicants have any final comments. And then I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing and move to deliberative session in due time. Are there final questions or comments from board members? I have a question. I'm not sure if the applicant can answer right now, but I'd like to get a sense of how many people, maybe a minimum or maximum number of cars you think would be driving to the office on any given day is an estimate. With the five spaces, we're going to be limited. To be very honest with you, we have occupied nine Bailey for over 35 years. And we have a slightly larger staff than we did. Probably the larger than we did when we first occupied nine Bailey. But it would be comparable to what we've been experiencing. I'm hoping that a more concerted effort to get people out of their cars and onto public transit or parking at the Department of Health building and taking the shuttle over during the legislative session will reduce the number of people that we're experiencing driving into our office now. We now have six spaces in the back of our building and two along Bailey that are sometimes filled, not always filled. Sometimes they're filled beyond capacity. One of the reasons we expanded the additional space is I believe in the future, we're going to, at least in the foreseeable future, we're going to have fewer shared offices. So we just need more rooms for people because of COVID. And I also am pretty sure that we're going to have a lot more people working at home permanently because it's turned out to be very effective for us. So I don't think there's going to be any more traffic than we currently generate. And I expect a reduction in traffic. And that maybe doesn't answer your questions because I'm not really as hard to come up with a number. No, that was good. Thank you. Great. Any other questions from board members? Final comments from applicants? Meredith, do you have a final comment? Asher, it looked like you were going to say something. I was just going to say thank you for taking the time to consider our application. So I'm good. I'd like to make a motion to close the public hearing and move to a deliberate session. Talk to you in the motion. Motion by Rob, second by Jean. Yes, Meredith. Just discussion mode since we've had the second. Make maybe a little friendly minute by somebody to make sure that we're moving to the deliberative session after the close of the full public meeting. Rob, do you have a procedural question? Listening to what Kate said when she opened the meeting, do you close all hearings, deliberate privately, and issue a written decision after tonight? Yes. Great. OK, thank you. A motion by Rob, second by Jean. I will call the roll. Jean? Yes. Abby? Yes. Rob? Yes. Joe? Yes. Michael? Yes. And I vote yes. The motion carries. I think that is it. Great, thank you all for your time. I want to thank Meredith for the excellent staff support. Good job. Excellent. You're welcome. If Roger is ready, I will assume chairship of the meeting. I would great pleasure to turn it over to you, Kate. Thank you, Roger. Thanks for doing such a great job and for stepping in to help out. All right, so next we will move on to our next application of the evening, which is for 420 Murray Hill Drive. And folks who are here to testify on this application, if you could join us. There we are visually. If you choose, though, that is optional. Very good. So the first thing I'm going to do is swear in the witnesses. So if anyone wishing to be heard on this could take the oath. If you're on camera, you can raise your right hand. And do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury? I do. OK, I heard Jim Tringe and Stan Welch, both sworn in as witnesses. Was there anyone else who was wishing to be heard on this matter? I believe I see. Peter. Are you someone who would like to be heard on this? Yeah, I'm just observing. OK, that's fine too. Thank you. All right, great. So this application 420 Murray Hill Drive is an application for a second access to a parcel within Murray Hill. And I would like to start by asking Meredith to please give us an overview of the project. Happy to. So first of all, the staff report for anybody looking on at home on this begins on page 47 of the meeting packet. The applicant is seeking to add a second driveway on a privately owned parcel that currently contains a single family home and some water infrastructure that serves the Murray Hill planned unit development. And this privately owned parcel is part of that PUD. And the second driveway would be part of a transfer of the Murray Hill water system to the city of Montpelier. And the second driver would provide a separate municipal access to what will become a municipal water pump station. That pump station is currently there, but the city's taking it over. There's really two big issues here. Is the pump station a water supply-related facility? And if so, is it a previously existing non-conforming use that has been enlarged, extended, expanded, or intensified? And then we'll approve the requested second driveway. And that's under section 3010 on the packet. OK, great. Thank you, Meredith. What we typically do next is turn it over to the applicants to speak about the project and give a brief overview and share anything that you want to make sure we know. And then as we go through the staff report, you'll also have an opportunity to speak then as well. But for starters, please go ahead and tell us about the project. I think that would be you, Jim, right? Yes, good evening. My name is Jim Tringe. I'm a Murray Hill resident and board member. I've lived in Murray Hill development for about 14 years. And I'm currently serving as the secretary of the Homeowners Association Board and also as the liaison between the board and the association and our other stakeholders in this project. I'm going to give a brief background just to expand a little bit on Meredith's comments. But I also want to point out that we also have Stan Welch, who's a professional engineer with the brain group who has done the engineering for this project. So the Murray Hill Homeowners Association represents 85 homes and condominiums since 1983. The water system, which is privately owned, has been supplied by two bedrock wells. And it's provided reliable, high quality water for drinking and domestic purposes during that time. Several years after the Murray Hill neighborhood was established, the city of Montcullier invested in additional water supply infrastructure that made it possible to serve higher elevation areas northeast of the city, such as the Murray Hill neighborhood. So our challenge has been that, going back to 2018, when there was a pretty severe drought, the Murray Hill well yields declined. And the well level observations seemed to be historically low. We were able to restore well performance with some unplanned maintenance. But this experience in 2018 underscored our need to investigate alternatives. So with the uncertainty of the reliability of the bedrock wells and higher costs associated with operating and maintaining the wells over the long term, the Board of Directors contracted with the Dufresne Group to explore water supply options, ranging from drilling new wells and alternative routes for connecting Murray Hill to the Montcullier public water municipal system. Additional stakeholders in this project have included the Montcullier Department of Public Works, Hoffer Consulting, hydrogeologists, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation, Drinking Water, State Revolving Loan Fund. So after reviewing all of the options based on the monetary and non-monetary factors and with the long term stability of our homes in mind, the Board entered the association into a water system conveyance and water supply agreement with the City of Montcullier in October of 2019. So fast forward to this summer, once again a very dry summer and some sort of an anxious time for the residents here. But we have proceeded forward with the final design of the system and the improvements. And you're tonight reviewing the portion of the proposed improvement that would provide an access drive from the cul-de-sac on the upper end of the Murray Hill development to an existing structure and plumbing that supports the water supply for the existing wells and water distribution system. As part of the agreement with the city, the association included an improvement of the access drive to that structure. And that's what's being considered. I will say that we have a number of permits that are in progress. And we recently received our permit to construct. So we are eager to continue to move this process forward with the hope of starting construction before the end of the 2020 construction year. So I'll pause there. I hope that was helpful background. But I'd appreciate the Board's consideration of this request. Thank you, Jim. Before we get into the staff report, do board members have any questions about what they just heard? OK. Jim, I think I heard you say that, just to help me get my bearings, I heard you say that the agreement with the city includes the improvement of the access drive. Does that mean that there is an existing access drive to the water supply to the station? The original, excuse me, yes. So the easement that exists when the property was developed referred to an access drive. However, there's no visible drive there now. So what we're, you can probably see from the drawings that we're looking to make some great changes as well as some structural changes that will support a vehicle getting access to that structure. OK, thank you. All right. What I'd like to do then is move into the staff report and discuss the threshold questions, if you will, that Meredith raised at the beginning. So we're going to start on page four of the staff report. I'm sorry. I don't have the page number within the big packet. I'm looking at the standalone staff report. But page 50, all right. Once you're there, you'll be able to know where to go from there. All right. So page 50 of the big packet, page four of the standalone. And our threshold question is regarding water supply facilities. They are defined as water supply, pump stations, dams, water tanks, wells, water treatment and purification facilities, and reservoirs in our zone. And these are not an allowed use in Res 9, the zoning district where this is located. However, we know that nonconforming uses can only, it can be a preexisting nonconforming use so long as it is not enlarged, extended, expanded, or intensified. So our threshold question is regarding whether this is a water supply related facility. I believe it is. Do others have, do others see it differently? Because it is a pump station, right? Sorry, was that question directed in? Oh, I guess it was. That wasn't clear, though. Thank you. Yes. It's a, so there is a booster pump station there that takes the pressure in the existing supply line and increases the pressure to serve 12 homes at the upper elevation of the system. OK. And there's also a storage reservoir there as well. OK. So it meets the definition of the thing that today would not be allowed there. However, it's a preexisting nonconformity. So we have ways to deal with that. It is our, we need to make the determination about whether it's being enlarged, extended, expanded, or intensified. So I'll ask you, Jim, is this being made bigger so that it can serve more houses? It's not, the size is not changing. It's going to be serving the existing homes that are there. OK. And there's going to be the addition of some monitoring infrastructure. Is, could you describe what that is and how big an impact it has on the area, if any? Yeah, that was, that was another requirement of the city to tie it into their existing wire. Sorry, radio communication system so that they can do remote monitoring of the system without actually having to drive a vehicle back there to have an understanding of if water is flowing or if there's any, any components that are in an alarm state. OK. We don't have that, we don't have that type of monitoring now. OK. And is that like a three foot by three foot cube? Or is that a little box like a CB radio? Do you know off the top of your head what constitutes monitoring infrastructure? I think I'm going to ask Stan to comment on the footprint of the, of the communication infrastructure if, if Stan can chime in on that with Dufresne Group. Or Stan will Dufresne Group, I'll prepare the design. So the monitoring infrastructure in terms of footprint applies is relatively small. It's basically the size of a small electric panel, something you'd have in like your garage or something that mounts to the wall. And then the pieces that tie into that are sensors, pressure transmitters. So there's an intrusion alarm that's like a magnet that would be kind of like what you'd have on your window for your home security system, a temperature monitoring alarm that's basically the size of a thermostat, some pressure monitoring infrastructure, which is going to go on some plumbing modifications. And another point to note here when we're talking about the size of the water system infrastructure being at larger extended is that that 34,000 gallon reservoir that's currently acting as the source or the storage for the water in Murray Hill is going to be abandoned and is no longer going to be part of the water system. I would just like to note that that's kind of actually reducing impact in terms of water system infrastructure on this individual parcel. Okay. Thanks, Stan, for that good description to help us picture it. I appreciate that. So it sounds like the staff recommendation is that we find that this proposal is not for all intents and purposes, enlarging, expanding, expanding or intensifying the existing water supply-related facility use. And I am comfortable with that recommendation and allowing the non-conforming use to continue. How do other board members feel? I'm seeing some nodding indicating comfort. Okay. I have a question. Yeah, go ahead, Gene. Is there a, so does the site have a water systems operator? Is that the city? Yes, we currently have a Class 3 licensed water system operator. It's the original developer of the neighborhood, Ken Seneca. Okay, great. So I think as a board, we've collected the information we need to make this determination about the use of the non-conformity. And we can, we see this as a non-conforming use that can continue because of very minimal changes to that use. So with that, I'd like to move on section 3002 and 3003, which is dimensional standards. So the question here, or what we have here is, no, it meets the setback and the coverage requirements. And the question is regarding, I believe, sorry, I'm just gonna look at something here. Staff determination is regarding impervious surface is that less than 2000 square feet are being added. But it mentions porous pavement that will allow for the growth of grass and therefore be permanent. Are we talking about kind of lattice-like concrete pavers that have dirt and grass growing through them? Is that what you're using? Yes, that's what's been specified on the plants. Okay, great. For the portion that's most visible from the roadside, the portion that's closer to the structure will be for typical crushed stone. Great, thanks. So I believe that staff finding is that dimensional standards, accessory structures and uses are met. Any questions from board members about those sections? Okay. I'm going to not spend time on the things that don't apply, but if there are questions, of course, we can ask them and have them addressed. So the next parts up, sections 3004 demolition, 3005 riparian areas, 3006 wetlands and vernal pools and 3007 steep slopes. They don't apply because those things are not present on the site. Section 3008 is erosion control. There is no erosion control plan required due to the slopes present. Are there any questions or concerns from the board about that? All right, 3009 stormwater management. Staff are suggesting is suggesting compliance because the standard is that it must be in accordance with plans approved by the director of public works. And this whole project is coordinated with the director of public works. So I think that stands as evidence that DPW is okay with it. Okay, so we believe confined that that is that is met. All right, so we're going to move on to section 3010, access and circulation. And you got warmed up on this one in the previous application. So, and most applications that we see in fact. So this is where the criteria for evaluating the appropriateness of a second driveway live. It's where those criteria are. And this is about adequate access and circulation. Shared access between parcels is strongly encouraged. A lot may be served by only one access point, except that the board may approve more than access, more than one access on a lot when necessary to accommodate unique physical conditions on the property to provide adequate emergency access or to provide adequate circulation within the site. So those are oars. So could you speak a little bit to how those are required in terms of any unique physical conditions on the property that require the second driveway or the necessity of emergency access through a separate driveway, those criteria. Sure. So the intent of the second driveway is to not disturb the traffic of the owner of the residents. There is a large bedrock outcropping, sort of separating the existing driveway access to the residents, to the proposed driveway. And that large outcropping of ledge pretty much divides the two, would divide the two. There's some other landscaping that exists between the proposed access drive and the existing drive that would be disturbed if this access alternative wasn't allowed. So those are a couple of the features that went into the decision to seek a second access drive. How frequently do you suppose the pump station will be accessed by a vehicle? My sense is it may be as frequently as quarterly. You know, that's one of the things that we don't typically access it by vehicle currently. It's really accessed by foot traffic right now, but with ownership transferring to the city and no longer being accessed by the resident water system operator without this accommodation, it was appropriate. Okay. Are there questions from board members about the access or anything related to the criteria we need to find in order to grant a second driveway? In previous times when you said to you during the drought did you have to have some water taken out there to the storage tank? Thankfully, no. We have not had to have water trucked in to the storage tank, knock on wood. But that's certainly been weighing heavily on our minds over the last couple of years is the need to haul water in from offsite. But no, fortunately we've not been in that situation yet. So you would, so this driveway would be essential in case that ever there was an emergency of sorts. As Stan mentioned, the actual water storage reservoir is going to be taken out of service after the municipal connection is complete and the reservoir will no longer be used for water storage at all. So any sort of water supply would be the responsibility of the city via the existing distribution lines that are in place now. So after interconnection, there would be no more need for reservoir or water hauling. Thank you. Other questions from board members? Abby and then Rob. Go ahead. Thanks. I'm just wondering if any growth in this area has anticipated any additional problem and how that may affect the water infrastructure needs going forward. So the 12 homes that are served by the booster pump station, those lots are built out with homes. And so there's no more developable lots that would be served by the booster pump station. The lower areas of the development are currently, we have one lot that is undeveloped. But that would be supplied by the residual system pressure and would not be using the booster pump to supply the pressure. So there's also three homes in the lower area that have their own well system. That's completely independent from our existing system. And that's completely outside the scope of the project to connect with them. But once again, they wouldn't be served by the booster pump. They would get residual city water system pressure. Thanks, Abby. Rob. We have a quick observation here to get to the heart of our driveway spacing which seems to be kind of the crux of this application. And that this is a proposed additional access on the cul-de-sac, which the regs don't appear to be written with a cul-de-sac in mind, especially with the reference to an intersection. So with that regard, I think that it's very appropriate as for reviewing the spacing. And I don't think there should be an issue. Thanks, Rob. That's a nice segue to the next part. You did my work for me. So do others have questions or comments about the fact that the minimum driveway spacing is not met? Typically it's 45 feet between other driveways. We're looking at plus or minus 10 feet and plus or minus 35 feet between the 420 Murray Hill and this new driveway as well as 399 Murray Hill. But it's on a cul-de-sac as noted. Any questions or anything more that you'd like to know about that? I think we have what we need to know for that portion, 310 access and circulation. So I'll just tie a bow on it. The last two items in the staff reporter, 3rd, 3,011 parking and loading and 3,012 signs, neither of which are applicable, but are there any questions? All right, any final questions from the board about the project? Okay, and any last comments from folks presenting about the project? Appreciate your consideration. And we appreciate the support of the City of Montclair. They've been very supportive in this process. It's a great, having access to municipal water supplies is a great option for our neighborhood and we really support their engagement in this project from the first time we approached them back in 2018. Great, all right, thank you, Jim. All right, since I believe we've collected all the evidence that we feel is necessary and so I will entertain a motion to enter deliberative session at the conclusion of the public portion of tonight's meeting. I second the motion to go into deliberate session. I'll take a... So moved. So moved, thank you, Joe, and a second from Jean. I made it sound like I was making the motion but I was actually just making a suggestion so thanks, Jean and Joe, for covering it. Very good, we have a motion and a second and what I will do now is I will call the roll. Jean? Yeah. Roger? Yes. Abby? Yes. Joe? Yes. Rob? Yeah. Michael? Yes. And I vote yes as well. We will consider this in our deliberative session and get you a written decision as soon as we can. Thank you very much for your participation. Thank you guys very much and thank you, Meredith, for all your help in any of the applications. Appreciate it. You're welcome, Stan. All right, and now I am... Okay, back to our agenda. So the next item on our agenda, sorry for the angle, is other business. Our next meeting will be October 5th. Is there any other business that people wish to announce? Okay, in that case, I think, Meredith, what we do is we adjourn to deliberative session, correct? Correct, and I present all of you an email that has the login information for the deliberative session of this completely separate student session. Sounds good. So what we'll do is after we close this meeting, we'll take five minutes so people can stretch their lights and then we'll come back and we will deliberate. So is there a motion to adjourn to deliberative session? Wait, it's not quite adjourned. Close the public hearing and move to deliberative. That's what I meant. Sorry, we don't want to use the adjourn. Thank you, we don't want to do that. Is that all right? Okay, a motion to close the public meeting and move to a deliberative session. Thank you, a motion from Joe? Second. Second from Abby. We'll take the vote, Jean? Yes. Roger? Yes. Abby? Yes. Joe? Yes. Rob? Yes. Michael? Yes. And I vote yes as well. Let's return using the link provided by Meredith in our emails at 818. See you then. Thank you all very much.