 Good evening everyone, I'm going to call this meeting of the City of Montpelier Development Review Board to order for Tuesday, September 3rd, 2019. My name is Danny Richardson, I serve as chair. The other members of my right are... Kevin O'Connell. Michael Lazorchak. Meredith Grandle. Staff. Kate McCarthy. Rob Goodwin. All right. The first order of business is the approval of the agenda. Does anyone have any changes to the agenda? Mr. Chair, I'll make the motion to accept the agenda as presented. Okay. Motion by Kevin. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Kate. All those in favor of the motion to approve the agenda as printed, please raise your hand. And we have an agenda. No comments from the chair this evening. We have the minutes of August 19th. And those in attendance are myself, Kevin, Kate, and Rob, and Michael. So we are all eligible. Does anyone have any corrections or changes to make? Staff would make a correction and the date needs to be revised. From the 20th to the 19th. From the 20th of 2018 to the 19th of 2019. There we go. Completely different, different year. With that correction, anyone have any other corrections or a motion to approve the minutes? So moved. Motion by Kevin. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Rob. All those in favor of the minutes were eligible to vote? Please raise your right hand. The minutes are approved. Excellent. So the first item of business is nine Ewing Street. And Sheriff, I might have a moment. Yes. We have some updated comments from the Department of Public Works following some site visits this morning that I would like to pass around. And these actually apply to both of the applications coming before us today. And these have been circulated to applicants. But if anybody needs a copy, I do have them. Would you like one? Okay. Should I submit this now? Yeah, I would submit that now. I'm thinking, would you want to hear a summary from narrative? Yeah. Yeah. I think that makes sense. I'll just have the applicant introduce themselves. Swear them in and as well. I don't know. Are you here to comment on this application or are you here for the next? For the next application. For the next application, okay. No, I need them. Not a problem. I usually keep one. So Will, what I'm going to have you do is introduce yourself. I'll swear you in and then Meredith is going to give an overview and some background about the application. Sure. And then we'll turn it over to you. Sounds good. You'll state your name for the record. I'm Will Shea-Bowne with Steeple Chase Design and Build. Okay. And you're here on behalf of the applicant? Yep. On behalf of nine new entry owners. Okay. Peter and Andrea, yep. So if you raise your right hand, do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give for the matter under consideration shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of burgery? I do. Excellent. Meredith, why don't you give us an overview as to this project and maybe some of the background details? So the only reason this application is here before the board is that it is an addition that impacts some 30% or greater slopes. It is a single edition on a single family home. So normally this would just be an administrative approval. However, you have the steep slopes at issue. The additional Department of Public Works comments that I handed out at the beginning with regard to nine new angel, that's the first paragraph in the email. Department of Public Works had had some questions about how stormwater was going to flow off of the site given that there's a fairly steep drop off to the west of the driveway down to the next property. And so there was a site visit this morning. Zach Blodgett and myself and Don Marsh and Will were all on the site in discussions about possibilities about how to potentially regrade or run the stormwater given that the proposed addition is going to create some flows to the east and some to the west in front of the house as well as some to the west behind the house. And per the updated comments from Zach Blodgett, the Department of Public Works would prefer to add a small yard drain in connection to the storm system running along the edge of the road, something preferably that's going to be to the west of the driveway. Not a major catch basin or anything like that, but a small yard drain that connects directly into the stormwater system. However, there are some questions about exactly what this flow impact is going to be. So the Department of Public Works is willing to wait and see what the actual impact is going to be of this and do visit in April or May when you have the most flows between runoff and the fact that you don't have a lot of foliage to take up that water at that point and then decide exactly what to do at that point. That's a little hairy, but I just wanted to throw in that that's one of their thoughts. Most everything that I have reviewed in here seems to be compliant with the steep slopes requirements. There's some question about exactly why some area to the far south of the parcel is getting regraded and what purpose that has with the rest of the work. But there aren't a lot of red flags. It was really stormwater and some regrading. The Department of Public Works had some questions about exactly what fill quantities were going to be used for some fill areas on the site. Where is public works envisioning this yard drain and what would it tie into the storm sewer? The storm water line runs straight down Ewing Street, right in front of the parcel. So you can see where there's a blue line with a note that says regrade is needed to direct runoff to Edge of Drive then to City Catch Basin in Street, just to the west of the driveway. So instead of having that, the Department of Public Works doesn't want additional stormwater flows going onto the street on that hill and potentially freezing and creating ice. So instead of having it run down the driveway into the road, they would rather direct it partway down the driveway and then off into, there's a garden here on the edge into that garden and put in a drain there that then connects directly into the stormwater system under the road. It's like the rain garden over at UES where the outlet would tie directly into the stormwater. Exactly. And the water gets to the ground by going in a pipe underground rather than along the road until it gets to the storm drain. Yeah. Which, given the topography in this area and a lot of the city, the way that these drains are behaving lately makes sense. Yeah. So that's their preference. They are willing to wait and see what happens. But this is something where the Board has discretion as to how they want to time things. Well, I'm going to go ahead. To a degree. I want to understand what the wait and see option means. I think what you have just read this very quickly, having just received it, but the hook for installing that underwater drain, if needed, is the certificate of occupancy for the new... That would be a way to tie a hook in, yes. It wouldn't be the certificate of compliance. It would be adding a certificate of occupancy as a building permit. But yeah. It would be adding a certificate of compliance. Certificate of occupancy as a building permit? Certificate of occupancy in my pillar is what's required after a building permit for zoning that certificate of compliance. But do we typically issue certificates of compliance? Not anymore. If the Board wants to do a certificate of compliance, they can add it as a condition. Are there other conditions or hooks that would lead to... Not... I forget what is it called usually, like condition subsequent or whatever. That's really the best hook, but that does mean that they cannot use or occupy the addition until they get the certificate of compliance. That makes sense. Okay. I don't mean to point us in that direction necessarily. I'm just... As we start to lay out the range of issues and where they lead us. If you were trying to do a... I'm thinking it through not recommending anything at this moment. I'm still learning. Well, I don't know if you do need to hear from the applicant about some of this. Yes. Absolutely. Well, since we seem to be focusing on this, I understand this is not the central part of the application. But have you had an opportunity, Will, to review the Public Works comments? I have. I was present at the meeting this morning with Zach and Don and going over some of the options and whatnot. I understand the concern for mitigating waterfalls down the street. But within a reasonable common sense approach that's not going to require the homeowners to dig up the street. At first, the conversation was catch basins and things like that in the road. Then we sort of steered it into a more modest proposal next to the road. I'm aware of the situation. If I understand they want a small yard drain in connection to be made to the storm system running along the edge of the road. That's still tying directly into the storm system. That would be tying in, you know, dig in and then go over sideways somehow. I'm not exactly sure the technical process to do that. I think a qualified excavation contractor would. Right. But just, I mean, the proposal is, at least on the table, what DPW is saying is they're willing to take a sort of wait and see approach. Which I think makes sense. I mean, it's a heavily vegetated site. I mean, the front yard is, for the most part, most people would say it's flat. You know, you look at the slope map or whatever and there is slope to it for sure. Of course, water is going to follow that. I think the wait and see approach does make sense. Because it's not quite shown on Don's map here. But there is, you know, a significant swale, you know, stone line swale that sort of circles the driveway, which is where the majority of the water is going to originate and kind of go through. And then this vegetated area between the driveway and Ewing Street is kind of like, would be the sort of last area where the majority of it would sort of come out. At least the majority of the water. So I think that's, you know, Don's concern was like, if it even is an increase in flows, then we should do something about it. But it's hard to say if it's going to be that dramatic of an increase. Well, the thing I would struggle with is just how, what is the trigger for this? Is this something where the DPW, if they determine that this is unsatisfactory to them? I mean, you know, we don't have a baseline measurement as to what the flows are now. Yeah. And we're not going to because you're presumably break ground before next spring. That would be the plan and before snow falls. So if that's the case, then, you know, next spring we're really dealing with this new universe. And the question is, what does that new universe look like? And in which case DPW was really looking at this as, well, is this causing puddling and icing as it is now, regardless of whether it did before? Because I mean, unless there's testimony that shows this is a particularly troublesome area. Yeah, I'm not aware that it is. You know, it might simply be some discretion left to DPW. But the question is, is the applicant comfortable with that, where DPW would make that essentially unilateral determination? Because while we have some flexibility on these conditions subsequent, we're going to, if we put one in like this, it would be phrased so that it would be a fairly simple straightforward tie-in. And if it's the certificate of compliance, then that's a huge hammer. Because, you know, if there's a dispute about whether or not DPW should be doing it, it's going to tie up whether the applicants can live in their new addition or not. Yeah. And that's, I think I just want, obviously, you and us to go in open-eyed about that. Yeah. And whether that makes the most sense. And whether, you know, it sounds like it could be anything from a simple yard drain to almost like a rain garden type situation. Yeah. They have the option, it's a single-family home. They can put a rain garden in there any time they want. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. I mean, if they see something happening before, say Zach or Kurt gets out there and they're like, oh, you know, there's a hole plus some rocks and some plants and then, you know, that stops the problem, then, you know, they... Just a concern I would have this approach that DPW is recommending is that once the addition is built... Kevin, can you play your microphone? Once the addition is built, I would expect it to be highly unlikely that they're going to say, no, there's no way. This isn't going to work for us. The other issue would be we have an exceptionally wet spring this year. It would just be one sample period versus what the norm would be over several seasons. Yeah. I'm just wondering if there's another way to accomplish the same goal without having to use the occupancy. Yeah, I mean, I happen to actually be there the day of like the heaviest rainstorms that we got this summer. And, you know, it was definitely wet and rainy, but nothing struck me as out of the ordinary. Right, but I mean, there's a difference between that and, you know, the spring and early spring and late winter... Yeah, this was sometime in July. ...where melt and, you know, the lack of vegetation. I mean, right now the ground's going to suck up anything that falls down as opposed to, you know, when it's frozen and it cheats off. Yeah. And that's really when it's more dangerous in a lot of ways. You know, you create this sort of ice lake. Yeah. I mean, especially given Ewing streets. Yeah. You know, on a slope here. So forgive me, I have an Infrastructure 101 kind of question. It would be in an ideal world. It would be very nice if the storm water coming up off of the new roofs could be captured by gutters and put through the basement away. But the only exit from the basement would be through the sewer, right? As opposed to the storm drain. And we want it in the storm drain. Well, yeah, I mean, I think typically we tie gutters into perimeter footing drains, which then... Perimeter what drains? Perimeter drains, footing drains around the foundation. So they don't go into the sewer, but that's, they usually just daylight. Oh, I see. And to say a swale or catch basin or something. Okay, so there's nothing in the house that already connects. So the storm drain, how does it connect to sewers? Okay. There's that. And ultimately, I mean, the preferred is to have it infiltrate in the ground. Yeah. And treat that way and spread out. But yes. Right. So you want to keep the water on the property, let it infiltrate as much as possible. Yeah, that's the goal. Sink it, spread it. Slow it. Slow it. Slow it. Sink it, spread it. Slow it, spread it, sink it. Yeah. I mean, I think Kevin is articulating some of the concerns that are here is that kind of giving DPW an open ticket. And the question that I would have is, you know, how do we tie this to... I mean, we need to make sure we put this on here that's a meaningful condition such that we don't end up with a half-finished project. You know, you're... You as a responsible builder are, you know, terminated and you never finish your job. Well, yeah. And or we finish the project in February and they just, like, you know, can't get into it yet. Exactly. Yeah. I mean, from a practical standpoint, I don't know how many banks would be willing to loan for an addition if there's a potential that they could never be used. I'm not sure we can consider that. Yeah. I mean, I think the solution from my understanding with talking with Zach and Don this morning is that, you know, if they did say, like, hey, we need to do this, that it would be a day or less of work with an excavator and a mini. So it's not asking the clients, for instance, to be digging up the street and this and that, you know. So it'd be a fairly small fix, you know, and I think... If it's looked at, it's just a tweak. Yeah. I mean, maybe if it's then my concerns. Well, yeah. It would be the kind of, you know, I mean, that's kind of a standard process, you know, as a builder is, you know, there's times where we get things put back together and then winter comes and then there's still some fine tuning, especially with sites, you know, come springtime. And if this is one of them, you know, we'll just be like, well, we have to do this. You know, of course, they don't want to be creating a situation as residents and neighbors that is impacting the street or their downhill neighbor. Okay. Well, we can come back to that. I think in part that largely answers that question. That's just really for us as a board, we have to figure out what the right mechanism is. But, Will, I'm understanding that you're at least comfortable with the proposition that we make this a future condition to completion of the permit, which is that it would be a condition of the permit that, you know, would be triggered by DPW signing off one way or the other. Understanding that they may say, we want you to do this project, but your understanding with them is that this is a relatively quick and easy fix. Yeah. It's a tweak as opposed to a redesign. I mean, there's certain elements of the project already as far as, like, final finishes that the homeowners are like, well, we'll do that. I was like, okay, if you want to do some built-in closet pantry stuff, fine. Obviously, but, you know, they're not going to have them excavating storm catchments, you know, so that would be on us. So let's talk about the southern part of the property. There was re-grading going on, just so I understand in the sort of lower right-hand corner. Yeah, they basically, so that's kind of like the top edge of the, sort of, knoll, and they, it's pretty much for the most part, existing overgrown edge of forest scrub, you know, not very usable space. And they basically just kind of want to flatten it a little bit, just to make it a little bit more of a usable backyard. I mean, essentially, the current house just kind of is tucked into the hill and there's an existing deck which we're tearing away. Right. Just to make it a little bit more user-friendly. Okay. And then that fill is going to be moved over to the western part of the property? Yeah, something along those lines. That would be the plan rather than trucking it off-site, you know, use what we can, if possible. Sorry, so that's unrelated to the addition that's being requested? Yeah, it's unrelated. But I mean, obviously I think it triggers some of the slope. Yes. Okay. And just a question. That might not happen also, just as far as, you know, they want to get the permit for it and then if money allows. Just for clarification purposes, the square footage marks on the, the site EPSC plan that we received today. The one with Don? Yeah, from Don, the 790 square feet, 616 square feet, and 338 square feet. That's the area, but we don't actually have like the cubic yard. I think you calculated 120 cubic yards. 120 cubic yards? Yeah. Okay. I was looking for his email where he said that. Okay, so that would be removed and then put either at that excess fill to fly to the ground area or maybe, or because you have this plastic here. Yeah, we can also use some of it to create the, the, the, the swale, you know, the. We grade that area to guide the water. Okay. You know, I think ultimately in practical, I think more fill would probably be taken off site versus moved over to the western side there. Okay. A couple of issues going through in the staff comments. Unless anybody had any other questions about that. Recreating. So it's essentially to create a usable yard. Yeah. Back yard. A little bit more private in the front yard. A little bit more of like a grassy lawn as opposed to what it is now, which is kind of hilly. Yeah. Forced. So on the staff comments, um, talks about the, um, the parking area, driveway and shed that are in the setback area. And I don't see the shed. Where is the shed? That's not on the most recent, um, if you go to the site. Or it's on the original slope map. Yeah. A03 or A04. Yeah. Um, and this is just a, it's a technicality that the board needs to decide on. And that, you know, we don't have an exact build date on that. Um, but these are essentially existing. We have no reason to believe that they were put in by this owner. We know they weren't put in by this owner. They weren't put in by this owner. Technically, they might not meet the definition of a nonconformity because I'm not sure that they were conforming when they were built. But I think that's what makes the most sense to find it as. Yeah. So that's just a suggestion that we consider those can, and those aren't going to be affected by the project at all. They're not changing the parking area or, and that shed is just a, yeah, it's like a bikes and stuff. On the Thursday did take the tree to the tree fort down out back. We've had those issues. Remember the tree fort on Liberty Street? Yeah. Yeah. Um, that is a structure. Um, okay. Does anyone have any issues with that treating those as existing nonconformities that are really not affected by this project? No. That's good. Okay. Um, and then the. Uh, steep slope issue. Why don't you talk a little bit, Will? I'd like to hear, um, let's get into the meat of the actual addition, how it fits into the existing steep slopes. You know, you said this house is, as it exists now, is kind of built into the hillside. Yeah. Um, and walk us through in a similar way to what you did with your last project. Yeah. So essentially we're adding a two story addition on the sort of eastern side of the existing house, which is going to serve as a sort of mud room, which will be sort of split between the two existing levels. And then there'll be a master bedroom sort of above that on the same floor as the main living space. And then from the mudroom you'll step down into the, the ground floor of the existing house. And, uh, yeah. So it's kind of, you know, where the, the current deck is, is sort of, you know, the sort of, it's kind of bold. The slope is bold into the house a little bit. So, you know, we're just kind of extending it off that eastern side. And, uh, kind of keen it into the hill. So it'll be a stepped foundation and you have the engineered foundation drawings in your packets that DeWolf has gone over. And, uh, is there any proposal to change the grade? A little bit, you know, necessary. I mean, if anything, it'll be flattened out on the sort of south side, but essentially the east side is essentially going to stay the same and just, you know, still built into this. Yeah, it's pretty much, you know, it's designed to sort of fit within the existing grade and not change it in any, in any dramatic way. And as you said, this is kind of, and I can sort of see, and at least the current drawings, it looks like it overlaps with the existing wooden deck. Yeah, the existing wooden deck is just going away. Yeah, I mean, obviously, the footprint of this sort of, it's larger than the old wooden deck, but it's roughly in the same location. Is there a proposal to build another deck on the back of this? Um, let's say sort of a deck or patio. I think it's, um, yeah. Yeah, there weren't, there's not a lot of details about the deck or patio option. It's just, I mean, you can see it on the, the drawings we got today from Don, where it says the proposed deck patio area. Oh, okay. Um, because I think it, whether it's a deck or whether it's a patio will kind of depend on if it's actually at grade there or lifted up slightly. Yeah, and also sort of, and sort of budget as well. Yeah. Okay, and we have a letter from Don. I believe in the packet that talks about, uh, his opinion that with a proper construction site can be developed without causing adverse impacts on public health safety of the environment. Um, and so your testimony will is that this is essentially going to be built into that hillside. Yeah. And it looks like, and just to be clear, and this is what I was searching for is so that the patio or deck is going to be behind the house. Yeah. And it's really going to be where the existing deck is. Yeah, because the current deck wraps around. Right. And so the house, the house addition is actually, it looks like it's going to be built a little bit towards the side and towards the front viewing street. Yeah, a little more to the northeast, northeast corner. You know, and then the deck will sort of wrap down onto the southeast corner. And then the varying calculations is to what kind of runoff this is going to create with this roof. I mean, obviously the shed roof is going to send half of it into the, uh, to the west side and half to the east side. Yeah, there's two, there'll be two valleys created that's a little bit about a quarter of the new roof will shed into the sort of front quarter of it will go to the back and then half of it will hit that eastern slope where it will sort of drain into the existing, whether we do tie a gutter into the perimeter drain or if it just naturally slopes into that swell that then loops around the parking area which is not noted on these, on the plans that Don prepared but there's definitely already sort of an existing stone lined and I think Meredith can attest to seeing that there this morning. I mean, there's a stone wall along the walkway but you're saying that sort of beyond the staircase of the existing deck there's a sort of swell on the east side. Yeah, it goes around if you, on Don's most recent site plans it goes along really along the edge of where you're seeing the tree line there. And then it kind of goes under the shed. Yeah, it kind of goes under, sort of under the shed. Yeah, sort of. But around the existing, existing paved parking area there's a swell that loops around and then ends up at a heavily, a lot of lilies area between, in that little triangle between the driveway and Ewing Street and that's where there's some concern that you're going to have excess flows that then come out of there, hit the driveway and then go out or just cross the driveway and then flow down to the neighbors. That's where some of the stormwater concerns come from. Okay, does the stormwater that goes into a lily area just sort of sits there and infiltrates? Yeah, I think for the most part it probably does. And then also if there's anything that goes down the hillside towards the neighbors that's also a very heavily vegetated overgrown hillside as well. Okay. Does anyone have any questions about the 30% slope? All right, I think that, go ahead. I was just going to say, so there were a couple of conditions that the Department of Public Works had put in earlier that are noted on page six of the staff report. Yeah, I was just about to get into those. Okay, that's where I was going next. Okay, then you go ahead. You were moving on from 30% slopes. No, well it was just as far as any sort of initial questions just the 30% slopes. Now DPW is proposing, you know, essentially three conditions. One is that, you know, the fill quantity estimates need to be provided, which you've started to do. Yeah. And when disturbing earth to flatten and roll specifically the amount of earth to be altered, the fill area shall be compacted from the bottom and work towards the top where slopes of greater than 30% will be created or altered. They shall be inspected and approved by a professional engineer. If that was a condition, you know, could you comply with that? Yeah, I think that seems very reasonable, you know. Okay. Basically whatever we move, you know, I think Don's provided the volume. Right, and this is an erosion concern that we want. If you're going to re-grade to make sure that that grade is stable, you know, these are all just techniques to make sure that the fill is stabilized. Yeah, we're not going to put something over on a pile here and it's going to slide down to the neighbor's driveway. Mr. Chair, just to clarify that, do you read that first condition as pertaining to the null area being created, especially, is that part of what would be inspected? Yes. I mean, I would see it as any of the, although I see it as broad enough to apply to any of the disturbed earth areas where they're re-grading. That an engineer simply sign off that these are stable. Yeah, I think my understanding is it's more in regards to the western area where the fill is going to be put. Right. You know, I mean, we're not going to be, we just take a bunch away and we don't need to. Right, but I mean, if you're digging out, I mean, Yeah, it always gets... Anytime you disturb earth, you're changing, but not only where you put the earth, but where you've taken it from. Yeah. Yeah, okay. The reason I raise that is that the null flattening just seems really, it seems unrelated, it seems discretionary, it seems like not what this... Yeah, it's totally... What this bylaw change was meant to accommodate in order for people to use their property more reasonably. Yeah. And so it seems to me a little outside of scope. I think we have the law that we have, and I think it generally meets the requirements of alteration of steep slopes, but it just, it raises my eyebrows as far as what this should even be pertaining to and why we tried to make it easier to develop on 30% slopes. I don't think it was for this purpose. Yeah, I mean, if you look at the slope map, and then based on where Don has drawn the flattening, it's not even 30%. I think it's less than... Okay. Anyway, I'll just make that point and leave it. Okay. Like that. I think it's a good best practice to, you know, have engineers look at those slides. With regard to the null specifically, I think the PPW just wanted to make sure we knew how much earth was being moved. Yeah, I think, yes. And then the second, you know, the third and fourth sentences in there are the actual conditions that... The fill areas being compacted from the bottom will work towards the top, and where slopes are greater than 30%. Given that the bylaw allows it, that condition ensures that it will take place reasonably. I'm making a commentary. Yeah, no, I get it. So the second condition that PPW is proposing is that additional silt fence is needed along the western property line. I presume that this is a condition that would be for construction until everything's seated over. Yeah. I mean, it looks like, I don't know if this is just the one I'm looking at that Don provided today, but there he does have silt fence. Right. Sort of more to the north of that hillside, the fill area. And then the third condition is that, based on sight, what's not really a condition, it's just noting that additional details design are needed for creating the runoff to the roadway. This is what we've already covered. Yes, the last one. And that would incorporate that condition that we're talking about, a future condition. Right. And I think this one would actually be moot because we're no longer talking about getting the runway, the runoff from the driveway into the street, we're talking about getting it from the site into the pipe. Right. I didn't have time to update the staff. Of course. I didn't have time to read the memo yet. All right. So I think that, you know, the remainder of 3007, you know, talks about not creating, you know, limiting the amount of disturbance, clearing existing natural vegetation and impervious surface in order to minimize potential for erosion stormwater runoff, flooding and or water quality impairment. What I'm hearing from you, Will, is that, first of all, the addition is being built into the hillside so that it's taking advantage of the natural slopes. You're not looking to alter them radically similar to the last project you proposed on North Street. It's working with the topography as opposed to against it. You know, this flattening out and back to the extent that we're reviewing this as potential for a 30% slope is really about altering the topography within the yard in a manner that is not likely to alter the way the runoff occurs. The second question we have to consider is whether it's creating any slope steeper than 30%. None of this here appears to be creating any slopes steeper than 30%. In fact, in some respects, leveling off steeper slopes. The third is to preserve distinctive natural features, the general topography of the site and the existing natural vegetation. And what you're testifying to is that essentially you're talking about receding but adding vegetation to the site, making it more water-retentive and not altering the existing swales and or vegetation that is absorbing a lot of the water. And then the fourth is maintain or reduce pre-existing rate and retain pattern of stormwater runoff leaving the property. And that's, I think, where we get into the condition, the idea that if there's additional stormwater what we're likely to see is down by the driveway where we're most concerned about because the rest will be absorbed elsewhere on the property and that's where we have the DPW condition, that sort of a wait-and-see condition. Yeah, it's basically just the half of the additional roof that will then be directed into that area, so. Because as it exists now, and I'll just make a sort of further point, is that where the eastern slope of the roof is going, that's where water is already falling as it exists today. It's really the one, the western one, that's shifting it further along the driveway that may be adding a certain amount of water in this direction here. Yeah, that's going to add water to the west. This is going to add some degree of water. But I mean, it's already covering the deck. Yeah, and the way the water, the way the topography is, it's already going in that direction now. Yep. It's just simply my point. Yep. Okay. Any other questions, comments from the board? I think this is fairly straightforward in that respect. You know, there are further sub-components to this, including producing a final grade, it's compatible surrounding natural terrain. This appears to be a case, creating a harmonious transition between graded slopes and natural terrain. Again, we're not really altering the natural terrain, so this transition is as it's existing, avoiding creating continuous unbroken slopes or linear slopes. That also appears to be the case from the proposal and from the topography. Contour graded slopes by varying slope increment to produce a final grade that undulates both vertically and horizontally. Very cut in fil banks and terraces to produce final grade as visual interest and allows for naturalistic landscaping. Again, there's no proposal to make this some sort of artificial sheer cliff or something. No. Consider use of retaining wall and terracing rather than cut and fill banks. I mean, apart from this sort of cut in the top that you're proposing, I mean, that's exactly, you're fitting it into the existing bank and this cut at the top is what it is, which is either cut to make it more level, to level out a playing field or you don't. Yeah. I mean, I think there will be some very small detail stuff in the front entrance of the addition, but that's just sort of normal. Right. We're talking small cubic yardage, not massive amounts, you know, as far as... To level out the... Continuing that stone wall, you know, take it apart, do the addition, put it back, make some steps. So... Okay. Vary the pad elevations on site with multiple structures to follow natural terrain. That's what this project proposes. Provide roads and drives of falling existing contours. No roads are being proposed. Use compact building forms and or multi-story buildings to minimize building footprint. That's what's happening here. Use split multi-level building forms to step up and down the slope again. Those are all being done. So... Just to save some time, a lot of this is the same comments we've talked about with erosion control and stormwater. I've repeated some of DPW's comments as they're applicable. Right. And this is the 4207 certificate... Okay, so this is the certificate of compliance. This was an option. It's one way to affect making sure things are done, but that's the big gun. Yeah. And... You know, it's not necessary. So... Well, it's... I think it's at this point bringing it back to the board. I mean... I don't think that there's any reason to... I don't see... I think that's the sole condition that we really have to consider. I mean, the rest of it, the additional sill fencing, the requirement that they build the... any fill be added so that it's compacted from the bottom so that creating stable additions are all pretty straightforward conditions. It's really this drainage condition that's a future condition. I mean, do we want to tie it to the biggest hammer we have? Or is this something where we would feel comfortable simply making it a condition... a condition subsequent where the applicant... if DPW required the applicant would have to comply with it or they'd be out of compliance with the permit, but not necessarily tying it to a certificate of occupancy such that they didn't comply and they'd not be allowed to occupy the space. I think your point is well taken. This is precedent setting where we're... the wording that we're going to use for tonight. So I... I do believe that the certificate of occupancy is overkill. So if we could find a way to step it down a little bit, I would be much more comfortable with that. Small hammer. Is there a smaller hammer? And hammer, I don't like that word because we're talking about a hook. We're not talking about being mean. We're asking for something to be done and ensuring that it does. That doesn't need to be hammer. So is there a medium? We will accept other suggestions from the toolbox. I don't know. I just look at the topography on-site. It just seems like on-site infiltration plan, you know, could be designed and be suitable. I think if this were a much more complicated site, I'd be concerned about requiring it to be sent to the street, but I'm not really seeing a huge amount of disturbance or, you know, there's plenty of space to put it on-site. Yeah, and there's not a lot of impervious surface either. I mean, this is pretty much a grass... grassy lawn that's likely to absorb a lot of this. I agree. I mean, I think that's... it's a low... it's a low stakes issue as opposed to a more complicated site. But at the same time, I mean, it is not if it goes wrong, it would be as serious. Sure. As anything, because it's right there on the public street. Well, one way to frame this, and let me move you suggest a way to do this, would simply to make this a condition that prior to expiration of the permit, the applicant shall seek sign off from DPW of this drainage. And if the applicant fails to do so, then it becomes a violation of the permit, and the city can seek through any, you know, notice of violation process to enforce this condition. Such that it wouldn't tie it to certificate of occupancy, but at some point before you're done, you've got to, so two years or three years if you get the extension to get DPW to sign off on this. This would mean them coming out during a rate of that being like, seems to be working. We're satisfied with it. Or, you know, however they choose to view it, whether... yeah, I mean, I think most likely is in-person. And then, you know, while I think there's a good, there's a benefit of making it a little bit, well, let me take a step back. There are pluses and minuses. I'm inclined to make this because of the representations of both the city and the applicant through merit at the staff or the city, but also through the applicant is that this is really a problem people seem to be on the same page about. And there may be more than one solution. There may be a very simple, elegant solution such as DPW was suggesting, but there may be another simple solution such as a rain garden that wouldn't even require tying into the city system. And if that was the case, then, you know, I think the applicant should be free to pursue either of those to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works because we are making the Department of Public Works the final arbiter of this so that, you know, if they are not satisfied, then the condition is not satisfied. And you are taking that risk, whereas if it was something you were to do to tie it into the street, you know, to make it very, you know, more, much more limited would give you a greater degree of certainty, but it might cut off more creative solutions or lesser solutions if, in fact, those were more reasonable. Yeah. Let's ask a question. Kevin raised a good point earlier about data points. Is it going to be a wet spring? Is it going to be a dry spring? Who's to say that the given rain event that DPW comes out for is the best rain event to examine the responder? Exactly. Gosh, I mean, it's so hard to say. Yeah. And I'm thinking of situations where, you know, one or two houses have gone in and then three years later a neighbor is pretty certain that this new runoff, talking about my part of the neighborhood, is because of thus and such, A, is that valid data or is it anecdote that we can't really act on? And B, would there be redress in a situation like that, like if it's a particularly bad year? I'm thinking out loud a little bit. I don't know that these questions have answers, but I'm just trying to make sure that when DPW comes out and looks at it, can they get the best possible look? So should they come out twice? Yeah. To see how it behaves? Like, it might behave differently on a dry day than on a wet day. Yeah, for sure. Yeah, I think that's what they were saying. It was like coming out in the springtime, like April, May, when the ground is saturated. Assuming previous saturation. Yeah, exactly. So it's not coming out during a thunderstorm in August. Sure. So. Yeah. Okay. Did you? All right. Well, I was just going to say that, I mean, that's, my understanding is that the goal of DPW is to go out and do visits in April or May, and they would be perfectly happy having a condition to say that, you know, their judgment based upon, you know, site visits in April or May, and you can limit that to their visits and visits. I think one visit might not be enough. Right. Yeah, I think also. It might be sensible, but I don't know what that number is. Well, it's also to their satisfaction, too. Yeah. You could put a floor on it. I'm thinking, as Meredith is stating, that that's a discretion, I think, of DPW. They're looking at properties all over town. Right. And what are more visits as they deem appropriate? As they deem appropriate. Right. Okay. Okay. With that, I mean, it sounds like we've largely coalesced around a potential condition that is not going to be tied to a certificate of compliance, but would instead be tied to the life of the permit, would put DPW in the position of making the discretionary call, whether or not the existing condition satisfied their concern of runoff. And, you know, one sort of further assurance I think that lies under this is we're really talking about the impact to the public street as opposed to neighboring properties where, you know, the law of water is that if there's alterations such that the property below is accepting more water than it previously did, they have a private right of action against any landowner that's different than this concern so that, you know, we can really be focused on this concern without looking at the larger picture. Yeah. So the condition that DPW makes and that the language be loose enough to give the applicant the flexibility to either apply the proposed DPW solution if required or another solution that was met the satisfaction of DPW. Okay. I think that's all we can tear away at with this application. I'll entertain a motion. I'll look up at one. Well, what I'm looking for and perhaps Meredith, you could bring all of these parts together and then we can wordsmith that into a motion. Okay. Not to put you on the spot. On the last page of the staff report, I have most of it. Yes, you do. So it's the second bullet motion. I'll take the crack at it. Yep. And just make sure you get Subremember number two, three, and then the additional fencing say as requested by DPW. Okay. In addition to what we just talked about. Okay. I will make an attempt at a motion to approve, motion to approve construction on steep slopes at nine Ewing Street as proposed with the following conditions. One condition is that fill area shall be compacted from the bottom and work toward the top. Slopes of 30% or greater in fill area shall be inspected and approved by a professional engineer prior to the administrative office issuing a final note. Nope. Yes. Shall be inspected and approved by a professional engineer. Yep. Period. A silt fence shall be installed on the western property, western side of the property and anywhere else deemed appropriate as recommended by the Department of Public Works. And last but not least, the condition that DPW inspect the storm water runoff after completion to assure that it is being handled properly. Handled to DPW's satisfaction, whether that is through on-site infiltration or other methods elected by the applicant, the DPW will need to sign off on the handling of storm water and show that it's to its satisfaction in order for the applicants to be... Prior to expiration. Prior to expiration of the zoning permit in order for the applicant to be in compliance. Make that more concise if you like. Okay. You understand the conditions, Will? Yes. Okay. Because I can't repeat it. We have a motion by Meredith. No. I'm sorry. I'm looking at Meredith. We have a motion by Kate. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Kevin. It was a group effort. It was, and I appreciate that. Yes. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please raise your right hand. All right. You have approval. We'll be issuing a written decision that will encapsulate these conditions so thoughtfully. We're just here for you tonight. Good. Good project. Yeah. Thank you, Will. Okay. Mr. Howard, come on up. If you'll just state your name for the record. It's Michael Howard. I'm at 781 North Street. Okay. Raise your right hand. You solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give for the matter under consideration. It should be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under a painting of families of perjury. I do. Okay. Why don't we do this the same way? Meredith, if you want to give us a little background as well as sort of an overview of the project. Okay. So, again, we have a single family home looking to put in a two-story addition. That two-story addition has some impact on 30% are greater slopes, whether it's actually where the addition is or just the area that's going to need to be worked on to put that in. So that is the 30% slope issue is the only reason this is here before you. You know, there is, you know, be aware that the site plan has some notes that pertain to changes to the driveway parking area. That is actually not part of this proposal right now. Okay. Those were in here on that engineering document for other discussion with the engineer, but that's not part of what we're looking at. Because it's not part of this regular permit? Well, it's just not part of the current project. I had Don do that design so that I had it in case I wanted to do that work a few years from now. Okay. And I maybe was looking to, and I probably ought to have done it, but that was the impact. No. People do that all the time, and then we get here like, oh, no, ignore that. Yeah. So, you know, what you've got highlighted in here, there's very little here that to me seemed like it was a question mark or determination that you necessarily needed to make because steep slopes is before you, like I do with all of these. I note and read all of the different steep slopes criteria. I didn't see anything that was a problem. You know, the Department of Public Works had no concerns with the steep slopes issues with any of the engineered designs, but you still need to make that final determination. Right. The only concerns that Department of Public Works had, which were really the only reasons I flagged them, is potentially some drainage issues. And so really, instead of looking at this section 309 in the staff report, you should go to the email from Zach Blodgett that I handed out to you at the beginning of this meeting because as with Nine Ewing Street, Don Marsh and Zach Blodgett went and visited 781 North Street this morning. I believe I met with you, correct, Michael? And had some discussion and looked at the culvert that was at one point of concern of DPWs. And at this point, given that there are no changes to the driveway, so there's not going to be any widening. They really didn't feel that upgrading that culvert was a major issue at this point anymore. What they would like to see is some redirection of surface flows so that they enter the ditch further away from the driveway on the culvert. And I'm not sure, Michael, I know at one point they were talking about putting in a grip wrap and was that something that you're still thinking about doing? Or no, that's not something to do as long as you get those flows entering the ditch further away from the drive. Correct. Yeah, so that's my understanding. And so that would be the condition now instead of the items that I had drafted at the end of the staff report. Yeah, those were all about upgrading the culvert and the grip wrap. So instead of those, after the site visit, Department of Public Works would be happy with something different. For information, the upgrading the culvert is a code issue. There's nothing wrong with the culvert. He took a look. It's not failing. It's in fine shape. There's nothing wrong with it. It's just not the current standard, but it's in good condition. Correct. Thank you. Right. But it's the surface flow. So what happens is if I made it, currently the water sort of comes down my driveway down on the street. What they're saying is if you look on the civil plan, that driveway sort of runs roughly north-south. And they're saying if you could just open a little bit more to the west so that it gets down on the ditch and doesn't run down that whole driveway one to the street. And that's no problem. I'll be regrading that driveway as a part of this project anyway. Okay. And by regrading, I mean slightly regrading. Yeah. Right. So I mean I'll have someone out there that can do that work. The idea of redirecting the surface flow to enter the ditch approximately 20 feet north of the driveway culpered in. Is there a problem? I'm going to do that anyway. Okay. It makes more sense for me. My driveway washes out as it stands. So this will alleviate that problem and address his concerns. No problem. Okay. What about the removal of trees? Well, so we had planned on doing that in some fashion anyway. The only thing I would sort of push back a little bit on that is that it has to do, that he wanted that, that's part of that B71 standard, the driveway, and that has to do with sight lines in that I'm not doing that driveway work anyway. I'm not changing it. I'm not sure the B71 applies. Having said that, I plan on doing that work anyway. So I don't see that being a problem. We had planned on, I don't know if you've been up there, the place is kind of overgrown. So we really had planned on cutting back some trees there. And opening up that, and that would help with sight lines incidentally. Okay. Well, I mean, I take your point as a fair one, which is, you know, there's a difference between, yes, I'm going to do this work versus yes, I'm going to do this work and its condition, I have to do this work. Correct. Correct. And that's a, you know, the B71 standard is pretty much the universal standard for all driveways. Obviously, if you're not changing a driveway and it's an existing one, but... So another part of that, if you read further in that email, and I knew this as soon as I got to the B71, is that there's no chance in the world I could ever make that B71 standard. The topography and the nature of the road, it will never work. So no matter what happens, I can't... Right. Well, the B71's kind of an idealized standard, which is there's, you know, I don't know a percentage of driveways in Vermont, but far short of 100. Right. But having said that, that sort of sounds negative, but having met with Zach, everything he said was reasonable and I plan on doing it, so... I mean, that's what I understand to be the two conditions that he's looking for is that regrading of the driveway to for surface water and then... removing these trees. I mean, we're talking about, like, big trees or just a bunch of... Okay. Giant pond and 60-foot pond. Okay. So it's not going to be nothing for me to do, so I'm a little leery to agree of a hand to... because he doesn't really define the extent of it. Again, I'm happy to work with him and I plan on doing that work anyway, even some of those big ponds. Yeah. I just... if it needs to be divided... Well, and... as a condition of permit issue inside, I'd rather, boy, I sure would like to move on with this project and to be hung up on that would be tough. I'm not sure it's important for that to be a condition. Yeah, I think just state in here, you know, state as a finding that the applicant has agreed to work with DBW and clear, you know, clear some foliage and the other thing is that, you know, you're a... you know, this is a single-family home. You can do what you do with, you know, within the length of the permit, but you can cut down a tree on your property whenever you want. And we need to be able to see better. We've had the part where we stick our nose out and the car comes wasn't by, so it helps us too, so I'm a thousand percent on board. Yeah. So just, I think I want to clarify and make sure I understand too what Meredith just said, which is we note it as a finding. That means we understand it. We discussed it. We don't note it as a condition which would make it a requirement. I think you understand that. I want to make sure. Absolutely. I appreciate that. Perfect. If others agree. Yeah. I mean, I'm certainly amenable to that. Well, we'll note to it, but let's cut to the chase. Let's talk about this garage addition. So you have the existing house. You're proposing a garage addition towards the front of the house. Yep. This side of the house actually, but yes, the page bottom. Right. Yeah, yeah. Gotcha. I mean, I'm looking at, it's like drawing A3. Yep. And this is to be built into the side of the, and I'm looking at A4. It looks like it has some. So basically the line you see on 2A4, that's the existing slope. I'm just, I'm basically, they're going to hold plunk and something in and replace in the grades as they are. There's been very, I mean, maybe within six inches, but essentially, and you can see that on this contour plan, the dotted lines versus like, there's really not that much to change. We're going to, we're going to redo the driveway. The drive is all fun. It kind of goes up and it flattens up and it goes up. We're going to try to smooth that out a bit. But essentially, we're just plunking a building into the side of the hill. It's not, it's not, we don't intend to change any, any grading or topography. It's also a very sunny picture here. 21.2 acres in your pocket. I know. I was surprised. Don't put that one on. I don't want to get the earnest fee, I guess. Okay. So, essentially, you're putting in a, a stepped concrete foundation garage into the hillside. It's attached to the existing house. You're not looking to re, regrade the, regrade the slope where it sits other than, you know, some minor adjustments. Correct. Correct. So, there's a drive that comes up behind the house that's already there. We want to keep that as a sort of a rear entrance to the house. So that, again, we will, we just, and it just so it, it works out too with, where the floors want to be, just to not change anything. It just doesn't make sense. So everything should, essentially be the same. Okay. And I'll note that Don issued a letter basically saying that there would be no significant alterations to the site that would be developed without causing efforts impacts on public health safety of the environment. Really, the way the roof looks like it's going to shed, it will continue to let water flow down the same manner that it has before. It's just... Correct. I mean, we're not redirect, you're not redirecting water to a different area. No. You can see the downspouts on a three, well, actually it's better as well. A three and a four. Right. The back, there's no, there's no gutter in the back. So that just goes to the ground and it should, you know, it's a pretty long run before you get to the ditch. So that shouldn't cost too much of a problem. The, call it the east gutter, you can sort of see it on A3. That takes, you know, a little bit more than half of the roof on the south side. And what's not shown in Don's drawing is in front of the house. It's about 10 feet off of the house. There's a planter that's the 10 feet wide and 20 feet long and it's burned up high. So any of that water just is going to get sucked out by that planter. And then on the new addition, you know, depending on costs, we might actually tie the gutter and have that go all the way across. But I'm showing it currently going from sort of the existing down to the other side. And I'm going to see it on a two on a four. It sort of comes down. I'm going to have it look into a rocky catchment. I'm going to put some geotech style and put a, if you can see there, down to the drain to a rocky area and planter. Can you slide the microphone through? Oh, I'm sorry. It's okay. You should point your face that way. You can move the whole base to the other side if you want. Yeah. So that'll catch that water and allow it sometimes percolate down before it flows onto the driveway. Okay. Well, and I'll note you're not having concerns just to run off. Correct. And I mean, you have a, it looks like you have a footing drain here to the road ditch, right? Correct. Yeah. Off the corner. But I don't intend to tie, it's not at this point. It's not my intention to tie the roof drain to the footing drain and have that go into the ditch. Yeah. Yeah, that's just for your perimeter drain. Yeah. Perfect. Thank you. Okay. So going through the, any questions so marching through the conditions or the issues that we have to address when we talk about steep slopes, the first one being limiting the amount of disturbance, clearing of existing natural vegetation and impervious surface in order to minimize potential for erosion storm water runoff, flooding and water quality impairment, which is a relatively modest garage addition to the house that's in an existing area. It does not look like they're adding a great deal of impervious surface and a relatively small compared to their larger acreage. Not creating the slopes deeper than 30%. They're not creating any slopes in this. Preserve distinctive natural features and general topography of the site and existing natural vegetation per the applicant's testimony that's to be contained, to be continued the slope and angle and vegetation around this area will be preserved. Maintain or reduce the pre-existing rate and retain the pattern of storm water runoff leaving the property. DPW has signed off and has indicated that they're comfortable with the storm water flows. The testimony of the applicant is also that the storm water I mean that the roof is going to basically shed into the existing property in a similar manner to how the rainfall falls. Now using water planters and other natural features to retain storm water. Produce a final grade that is compatible surrounding natural terrain that's already been covered. Create a harmonious transition between graded slopes and natural terrain again built into the hillside here. Avoid creating continuous unbroken slopes or linear slopes. It's not appear to be any issue here. Contour graded slopes by varying the slope vertically and horizontally. The drawings indicate this very cut-and-fill banks and terraces to produce a final grade that is visual interest and allows for naturalistic landscaping. Again, the application is consistent with these goals. Consider use of retaining walls and terracing rather than cut-and-fill banks. This is not really an issue here that the banks are going to be preserved that they're natural slope. Vary the pad elevations on the site with multiple structures that train. This is, again, a step concrete foundation. It's going to have multiple levels consistent with the house. Provide roads and drives that follow existing contours. There's no new proposed road and drive. The road is actually going to be recontoured to be more consistent with the hillside. Correct. Use compact building forms and or multi-story buildings to minimize building footprint that's already discussed. Use split or multi-level forms that step up or down slope again. This is the consistent with that. So, given those findings, it would appear that the applicant has generally and less thankful for the questions from the board has met the steep slope requirements. These are engineered plans. These are consistent with the goals and elements of consideration for steep slope. Not unlike other applications that we've had in which it maximizes the compatibility with the existing slope. Any further questions? Any motions from the board? So, I'll make the motion. Okay. On the driveway, you're not going to use the rip-wrap option. That was outlined and we've discussed that and everything is good. The driveway culvert, is it a condition? No. I think public works backed off of that and it's just to read. I think the idea is that if and when I do revise my driveway to be slanted or to do something at that point, I would engage with DPW to resolve that and figure out what we're going to do. That was definitely discussed and I know that's coming when I go to apply for the permit to do that work. Yeah, that would be separate. That would be a separate so that I think is the only condition we have left. Okay. Then the motion will be to approve the request for construction of two-story addition impacting slopes of greater than or equal to 30% at the project location 781 North Street as presented by the applicant and materials dated August 9th, 2019 and the one condition to be is to be regrade to redirect surface flow to enter the ditch approximately 20 feet north of the driveway culvert per DPW per DPW that's what that was. Okay. That was my short hand for myself. You did. Okay. Motion by Kevin. Do I have a second? Second's up. Second by Rob. Any further discussion? And you're comfortable with this condition? Absolutely, yeah. I was going to do an hammer. It helps me. All those in favor of the motion, please raise your right hand. All right. There is a preliminary approval. We'll issue a written decision that will encompass these findings shortly. Excellent. Thank you very much. Thank you. You're welcome. Thanks, Michael. I'm glad to get you here. The addition. I know it's been a bit of a road way. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. Any other business? Any concerns, issues? Meredith, is there any other updates to additional member applicants? Nothing. Nothing. Okay. Sorry. That's okay. It remains beat the bushes. Anybody out there who wants to apply, who lives in Montpelier, please go on the website or just contact city manager's office to get an application in. I'll make a plug. I'll say that I started out as an alternate because I thought that would be a good way to learn and see if I liked it. And there are alternate positions open. So people want to have kind of a Just test the water. Test the water. Get the toe in it. Good idea. That's really true. That's really true. Yeah. But no, it's a really good way to learn. I did that for two years before I was a to get to know your your hometown. Absolutely. Okay. So with no other business, I will make a note that our next meeting is September 16th at 7 p.m. That is a Monday. And I will take a motion to adjourn. So move. Watch my cabin. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Rob. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. We are adjourned. See everyone on the 16th.