 This is Development Review Board for Burlington, November 2nd, and we are remote and in person. We have some board members who are on Zoom, some members of the public here, and I assume some members of the public remote too, Scott, is that true? Yes. Okay. So we take up items as they are on the agenda, and when we call each item, we will either have Scott admit people who are Zoom or people who are here will come up to the table here. There's a sign-in sheet for people who are actually here in person. And people who are on Zoom, we ask that they provide Scott with a mailing address so they can follow up with them as needed. Communications, everything is online at this point. Yep. There's no extra communications. And minutes, are there? Minutes are with the prior packets, Brad. I need to follow up with you for some signatures. I think on the minutes from the last meeting are posted. Right. So if any members of the board have any comments on it, let me know. Otherwise, I will probably be signing them in the next few days. Okay. So, go right to the public hearing. The first item is 7787 Pearl Street. This is a requested demolish an existing historic barn and convert it to green space. And I see the applicants here. Is anybody else here who wants to speak on this item? Okay. Ron does, are there any people remote who are speaking on this one, Scott? We have one hand raised. Can they identify themselves? Or bring them? Hi, Sharon. Is that on the phone? Sharon, if you're on the phone with your hand raised. It's Sharon. Yeah, hi, Sharon. Are you looking to speak on this item, Sharon? Yes. Okay. And the applicant, you are? Jacob Hins. Okay. Okay, we have one more. Oh, okay. 70618, I don't know who or what that is, but 70618, you can speak too. Okay. So do they, they don't show up on the screen as people on the phone? No. No, okay. So we have two people on the phone, Sharon. And can the other person identify themselves? Yes, I'm not sure if you can hear me. My name is Matt B. N's. Okay. So Matt and Sharon and Jacob and Ron, if you would all raise your right hand and swear to tell the truth and hold truth on the pain and penalty of perjury. I do. I do. Okay. So I'd have the applicant present what you want. So we're talking about the barn in that picture. I hope you've all gotten to slide through the attached documents I've uploaded to the portal, which is a super-slip portal, huge fan of it now. I did recently add some pictures from 1978, I believe, from when we purchased the property, just to show the state of all the buildings on the property back then. There's a couple. Yes, so October 21st, 1978. So that's one of these sets of Polaroids were taken. And I did that partially to show how different the property is now than it was 40 years ago. The buildings were all burned by a fire in earlier in 1978. And then my dad bought the property later in the year and took these pictures right after acquiring them. So. The fire that burned the cathedral. No, different fire. It was a fire that burned 77 to 87 Pearl. It burned six Pine Street and affected the barn at six Pine Street as well. And this again was before we bought it. My dad spent at least two years renovating 77 to 87 Pearl Street and six Pine Street. The barn was stabilized at the time and locked up and hadn't been touched since. The point of bringing that up is that it was economically rational to save the historical mixed use buildings and the historical duplex on the property. So 77, 87 Pearl mixed use building built in 1800s. Likewise, the duplex at six Pine Street, which is the browner roof there on the left in the satellite picture also was severely burned and had to be gutted and redone in the late seventies was also saved. The barn has never been economically rational to work on not 40 years ago and definitely not in 2021. There are a finite amount of dollars that we have to work with and it only makes sense to invest the dollars in places that will return and show a good benefit to anyone that is interested in renting the space. And those things have to converge. So 40 years ago when the barn had fire damage and at that point more than a century of deterioration, the place wasn't worth investing in by my estimation since I've been doing this for more than five years now and interacting with that barn and stopping people from breaking into it for the past five years. It's definitely worse than it was. So the rationale for tearing it down has just increased in the intervening 40 years since we purchased the property. The rationale, if I might say as an aside, that's very similar to what you all are dealing with that Memorial Auditorium. Memorial Auditorium, if it were rational to invest in that building, the city would have done it. So they haven't and it's being neglected and should be torn down just like this building. So the rationale, whether it's an enormous auditorium or a little barn, it doesn't matter how historical they are. If it doesn't make sense to invest in them, you shouldn't do it. And that's essentially what we're proposing is to tear it down and give the city something useful which is more permeable soil, green space. I'm not even asking to park there. I'm just asking to fenced a little grass area. So the dog training facility, which is in the building on the northeast side of the lot. So that's 85, 87 Pearl. It's a dog training facility and they're looking for some yard space so they can have dedicated outside area. If it were a different tenant, if it were a restaurant tenant, I would probably be asking for a patio area for dining which would likewise could be permeable and the barn still wouldn't be useful. It would still be an albatross on the property. So I know the DRB has broad discretion to overrule the DAB. I'm asking you to exercise that because I don't think it's rational to keep the barn up and maybe a cute little barn but it doesn't make it worth saving. So if you have any questions for me, you can fire away. And if you wanna look at these pictures, you're welcome to. I've got the photo album here. Can you move that somewhere else? Yeah, sure. Those online, Jacob. They are, they didn't upload that well but I'll send you the. Are they online? I didn't. I just found them online and screened. You can look at the real thing here. They can't screen share me because I'm screen sharing. If you can give me the link, I can do it. So I would just disagree with your characterization of what makes sense to tear buildings down or not but that's, I won't attach it to this. That rational about tearing down a memorial probably would apply the half of Europe that they've saved so I won't quite. I'll talk about your. You're allowed to say that and I don't have to agree with it but I just wanted to mention that. So if I understand correctly, if the decision is it's gotta stay up you're not gonna invest in it. No, it just doesn't make any sense to invest in it. It's it's it would cost at least 100 K to lift it, redo the sill plate, fix the spine, do the siding, do the slate. And that's before it has power or water or sewer. It's like it could be cold storage if we did that 100 K and cold storage is not worth that much. So not even in downtown Burlington does not work that much. It's worth barely a dollar or a square foot and that's like the upper limit of cold storage. That's what you get for office space in some parts of the city. Or I should say 12 dollars a square foot if you're doing it annually. I'd like to apologize for coming late and I'm sorry to miss the beginning of your presentation. When I was just coming in you said that it was stabilized at some point. Yeah, so stabilized. So there was a lot of glass that that was broken window frames that were caving in after the fire and they were framed out and boarded up. So stabilized and secured so people couldn't break into it easily. I see, yeah. And when was that? 1978 and I've since then I painted it. I painted it red just cause it was a, it was kind of an eyesore of the way it was. And I have made sure that the doors and windows have stayed secured. I painted it five years ago. So that paint is not doing so well at this point but I just trying to make it look halfway decent even if it's not useful. So if I understand correctly, you guys bought it in 78 and basically didn't no maintenance on it since 1978. Is that pretty much what you're saying? More or less, yeah. Though the surrounding buildings have gotten a lot of work. Right. So one can assume that in 1978 it was probably in slightly better condition than it is today. It was still smoking, but yeah, otherwise it was still like literally just on fire at that point. So it's since then there's no access to it so people can't light fires in it. It's not easy as easy to break into as it used to be. There is a jargon of through neglect, you know. Just like Memorial or the Moran fan. I don't think it's like Memorial. I'd like to stay on this one. I don't know. It seems pretty similar to me because it's out of use and vulnerable to all kinds of mischief. The safer thing is to level them, but putting it off just leads to an overhang of liability I think at this point. The questions, go ahead. Oh yes, no, sorry, I have several questions. So in four years ago you applied for a permit to demolish it, but you withdrew. I didn't go through the whole rigmarole of hiring an engineer and an architect to do an analysis. This time I did and the engineer said it was at a state of progressive failure, which means that it's not condemnable at this point from his perspective as far as like it's one snowstorm could knock it down, but I was hoping not to wait until that was happening. And then the architect basically outlined the different options and said, by his estimation, what you'd have to do to make it useful. So four years ago you were thinking about it, but then realized you had to do the extra parts and... I just put it on ice until I had time. And to be honest with you, what compelled me to go through this round of application and legwork was the commercial tenant at 8587 Pearl to fetch the leash dog trainers. They have constantly been putting on gloves to pick up not dog poop, but human poop, and that's around that bar. And so it kind of attracts that kind of mischief and there's also been a lot of needles around there. We have since put up lights and cameras, which hasn't even really abated the issue, but it's like the sort of nature of that being kind of a, it's a giants, I don't know, marquee for poor behavior. It's the same reason that the church put up a fence around their property. We don't have the space to do that in the same way, but when the Catholic church was desanctified, they put up a huge chain link fence around there to keep people away from it. We don't have the space to do that. So to put a fence up there, I need to tear the building down to do that actively. So, I guess they show up, right? Were you aware of this Thursday after October 7th letter from Ms. Ruth Henning? No, I haven't, what I thought about? There's a woman apparently, this was made available to us by the city that there's a woman in Wethersfield, Vermont, who is interested in bringing a carriage bar to her property, and she's interested in learning more. I know this is very recent, but I don't know. My discussion was historical preservationists. My discussions with historical preservationists, they basically outlined to me that the value of the barn is because it is where it is. It's not as historically valuable if it's moved somewhere else. I'm happy to give it away. I mean, like if someone wants to come take it, they can come take it. I was going to make the slates and any of the old timbers available to resource because obviously a lot of the bits of historical, especially old growth timbers are really useful in other projects. If someone wants to take it all and if they have the cash to burn to do that, I'm happy to let them do that. I just don't want it there anymore. So, however that needs to happen. But from my perspective, moving it to a different property, from much, so I should say from my understanding, it just wouldn't hold the same historical value. And I don't have unlimited funds to plow into things that don't return. So, that's basically why I'm asking to have the approval to do this. Have you done any outreach or? It sounds like no, but just. Well, no I have. I've done quite, over the last four or five years, I've asked a lot. I've asked people on the Historical Preservation Board for their opinions about it. I've gone through and tried to see what it would take to make it into a little tiny house or like anything else and it's a lot. In terms of moving it wholesale though, I just want to make sure because this just came to my attention. So, moving it, I got kind of shot down when I was talking about that really quickly, like I say, by the people that are expert on these matters. And so, I stopped pursuing that line after these kind of shot me down. So, it didn't seem like an option for people that valued the barn as such. So, I didn't want to pursue that if it wasn't a valuable option. You know. Do you want to restore or promote any questions? A.J. or Katelyn? Go ahead, A.J., Sam. No, you can go. I'm going for a site reference. I guess, I don't know if this is a question, but a point that I want to make. It sounds like with the ownership of the property being pretty long standing, like how are you arguing that this is not just demolition by neglect, which is pretty explicit in the ordinance that you have a responsibility to not allow historic buildings to fall into disrepair and deterioration? My assertion is that it was in disrepair when we bought it. It was burned out, and you can still see the blackened timbers. It's quite fire damaged from 1978. So, that was before we bought it. We didn't do that to the property. There wasn't a fire in our tenure. And so, the big thing is, with me bringing these pictures from the year we bought it, the building essentially looks exactly the same. We haven't let the face fall off the building. I painted it myself when I thought it needed painting. And I haven't redone the slate, but the slate's also a remarkably durable material. The real damage happened the century before we bought it and in the fire during the year of 1978. So, we have not neglected this to the point of deterioration. That was there before. That's the point of me bringing these pictures along. We haven't not done anything specifically to plow money into it, but that's not to say we've neglected it. We haven't run plows into it. We haven't let cars destroy it. I've boarded, the windows were boarded up to make sure no one could break into it. There's not a colony of raccoons living in there tearing it apart. And I make sure of that. So, I'm not actively trying to see it collapse. That would be incredibly dangerous if it collapsed on its own. I'm not interested in seeing that happen. I would like to tear it down safely. And that's why I'm asking, in the interest of everyone that could walk by the building, it should be torn down safely and in a controlled manner rather than, you know, if it does go too long, it could collapse, but that's not my doing. That's because it was built in the 1880s and it was around for a century before we bought it. It appears you haven't really repaired the roof in the time that you've had it, right? It hasn't either. I mean, the spine is sagging. The report says there's some damage on the roof. There are slip slates for sure, but there are slip slates on a lot of buildings. That doesn't mean the roof is in need of active, you know. It just, to make it cold storage and watertight, there's a lot of money to make it that way. That doesn't mean that we know it. I think we've got your position quite clear on that kind of stuff. So I'm not pushing that. I just wanted to get clarity on what you've done. AJ, did you have questions? Actually, Caitlin asked mine. Okay, good. Then we have two people from the public. Here, Sharon and the other person. All right, so Sharon's on top. So Sharon, if you'll unmute, you can speak to us. Hi, thank you. Good evening. My name is Sharon Busher and I'm a long-term resident in Burlington. And I listened carefully to Mr. Hindsdale. I knew his dad, but I listened carefully to him and his presentation where he himself said that he compared his barn to Memorial and saying the city neglect and he neglected. In the end, he summed up that he hadn't neglected the building, but I think anybody who owns a structure who doesn't do anything but paint it is not really maintaining it. And so my concern is that neglect and the demolition of historic structures eliminates our linkage to the past. And it just continues. It just continues. And I find it unacceptable. I don't believe that we have historic preservation. We have all these standards and all these zoning regulations, but if indeed anybody can come in and say, you know, it's fallen in such disrepair that there's no remedy but to demolish neglect wins again. I find it unacceptable to suggest removal as the outcome. I believe that he himself said that it's not going to fall down. It is, it leaves that, I know ADUs need to be owner-occupied, but with the housing crisis and I understand the need from the applicant for revenue to be generated, by anything that he owns, I just think that there might be some other solution for housing that would allow this structure to be preserved. Those are my comments. Thank you. Any other person there if you would introduce yourself? I do. So Matt, you can unmute and speak to us. Hey, thank you. Yes, I'm unmuted now. Good evening, everyone. Thank you for letting me speak. My name is Matthew Vienza. I'm a resident of Burlington, reside on St. Paul Street. And I want to concur with what Sharon said. I think she made some very salient points that I agree with. First off, I'm a bit astonished by the tone and general lack of respect that the applicant has shown for the concept of a historic property. As if, I certainly, I understand that somebody who owns property needs to be concerned about finances related to it, but it seems to have, he seems to have no sense of the value of a historic property in and of itself, which I think, unfortunately, maybe in today's isn't considered enough. But that aside, I think, again, that Sharon brought up a really important point about, I mean, his testimony in and of itself said that the property was being neglected. I note that this issue was addressed a number of years ago and back in 2016, there was actually an article in Seventy in seven days where Mr. Hinton Stale himself said that the company was going to have $15,000 into shoring up the structure and that it was actually would have cost less, maybe around $6,000 to simply raise it back then. It's not clear to me that any of that money was actually put into the structure. It looks like it was only painted and other than that, no attempt has been made at all to preserve it. I think, again, it's clear that this applicant is simply letting the property fall apart with the hopes that that will resolve the situation for him. I think that that concept is contrary to Burlington's own laws. I think it's contrary to good community building where we seek to preserve our link to the past. I think this property is significant because it's unique but also because of where it is and it's one of the few remaining agricultural buildings from this part of town. I think the owner should see it as a treasure that he wants to preserve rather than, as he said, an albatross. So I would really encourage this group not to allow it to be raised. Can I respond here? Let me just see it. Did you want to speak, Ron? Sure. I can, you can speak from there, Kenny. The microphone for 17. Okay, so you need a microphone. I just briefly. You may want to move the microphone in front of you. Do you want to introduce yourself, Ron? I'm Ron Wanamaker. I'm on the Design Advisory Board and we saw this project. I'm also a member of Preservation Burlington. I'm also a citizen of Burlington and I also saved an outbuilding, got it in Vermont Magazine as a house. But anyway, just briefly, I think the applicant has said they've owned it since 1978 and it hasn't been touched since. I agree, the comparison to Memorial Auditorium, although the city does drop the ball and is exercising some demolition by neglect, that doesn't make it okay for everybody and we do have ordinances against it. The applicant admits to no intention to invest in the building, no matter what happens. Five years ago, the paint job is, you know, Colonial Williamsburg says paint jobs last five to seven years before they have to be done again. So not surprising, it doesn't look good. And then the definition of neglect is not hitting it with snow plows and not physically abusing it or being destructive. It's just ignoring it until it falls, eventually falls into disrepair so far that it can't be saved. Section 535, non-conforming structures. B, demolition, I just redlined provided both the requirement to demolish a building that is not the result of demolition by neglect. And you fast forward to section 548, Historic Buildings and Sites, we know where that's gonna go. And in such cases, the building inspector will notify the property of violation, which I think has happened in the past. Has not, has, okay, I thought that had. I apologize. Such person shall have 60 days to remedy a violation event, not correlated with 60 days of notification so that doesn't pertain. But also section D, Demolition of Historic Buildings is to discourage a demolition of a historic building and allow full consideration of alternatives to demolition including rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, resale or relocation, obviously those aren't good. And then also to ensure the community is compensated for the permanent loss of a historic resource by development of clear and substantial benefit to the community, region or state. And I just like to focus on that. You know, compensated for the permanent loss of a historic resource by redevelopment of a clear and substantial benefit to the community, region or state. Tearing the barn down to make a green space for a dog walking business to have the dogs go outside and go to the bathroom is not in my mind a clear and substantial benefit to the community, region or state. So it doesn't really rise to the level of replacement of the barn. That's really all I had to say. I've heard a few. Okay, all right. All of our buildings are historic. Every single one of them in Burlington is historic. We know how to take care of historic buildings. We do it all the time, every year I inspect them, all the ones that are occupied and that's all of them except this one. We have dozens of them, buildings and outbuildings that we actively plow money back into to keep them standing, keep them pretty, keep them safe. This is not occupied or occupiable and it hasn't been since we owned it. And I just, I'm incensed by the idea that we don't know how to take care of historic buildings. That's all I do for a living. That's all I do is take care of historic buildings and keep them up to code because that's the mission of any good property owner and the city inspects and we have good records of compliance. Was there any discussion of carrying it down then? I was born in 92 and I have never heard about this building. I was, I didn't hear about this building until I got into this job. I didn't know it existed until 2014. I wasn't aware of it, so I don't know. I am trying to make the best of a bad situation. Yes, in the best of all possible worlds, it would have been in continuous use as some kind of garage. I just didn't, I don't have that option. I never did. I brought you those pictures to show that, yes, the buildings that are next to it, all of which are older, except for the mid-century diner, which is now the dog training facility, we have taken impeccable care of those buildings and in fact, the 7787 building, we put, I don't know, $50,000 of steel into the building to shore it up and make sure it stays standing because we'd have no intention of tearing down the occupied mixed use buildings. The property is historical and it is one of the last corners in that neighborhood that wasn't torn down in urban renewal. I get that this is trying to compensate for all the demolition that happened in the 60s, but this part needs to be allowed to go because we have done everything we can with the buildings next to it and this one just, it doesn't make any sense and I don't know, I don't know like how else to say it. There's just no way to put money into it to, and there wasn't in 2016 either. If it wasn't in Burlington maybe and there was a lot more leeway about what you could do with the building and there was more elbow room around it, maybe, but not in the sort of straight-jacketed lot that it's in. It's right up against our property lines on two sides. So it's right in the corner, so I've got no room on the east and the south side of the building to really do anything with it. So it's not like, hey, I can cut more doors into it and make it with more access for a resident. It's like, it's all kinds of reasons. I've thought about this for five years and trying to figure out what to do with it and demolition is the, after five years of thinking about this a lot is the only thing left. You said that your father bought it in 78 and then you officially started owning it in? No, I don't own the building. I'm the property manager at the company-owned building. So I'm just, my job is to take care of them. And I- Did the company buy it in 78 or did an individual buy it? I guess I'm wondering when the current owner came to own it, which sounds like the company, all right. So that was 78? I don't know the details of the LLCs and whatnot, so I don't have those memorized. But it effectively has been in continuous ownership since 78. But, yeah, it just, you know, I like, so back to Memorial Auditorium, the roof of that building is not because anyone was neglecting the buildings because it's an old roof and at a certain point they become- I'm just gonna add, being old- I just have to tell you, don't go down that path. I've got it more offensive than helpful to you. Okay. I'll just suggest- So old buildings after a while, no matter what you do to them, they can be vulnerable. So that's why I'm saying is that this one is in that situation. It was when we bought it. So- Does anybody ever request to use the barn, access it? And this is one of the concerns I have just anecdotally. I know the proximity of that barn to the courthouse and the probation office. And I, during the day when I'm at the courthouse, I see kind of who's congregating near that barn. And you talked about needles and other things being found there. Is there any other group that's ever said, hey, we'd love to use the barn for the day or we want pictures taken with the barn or this would be a really good idea to feature this barn and any kind of advertising or- The only- So the thing that I came across before 2016 was a commercial enterprise that wanted to wanted to make a recording studio in there. I was like, awesome, you gotta fit it up though. And they went in there and they were like, this doesn't make any sense to this. This is like, it's basically a rebuild. You have to completely rebuild it stick by stick to make it safe for our commercial space. And that was, at that point, I started thinking, I was like, oh, no one's ever going to think this is a good idea. So that's when I put in the application the first time. Actually, that was the impetus for that, was after a potential commercial tenant. And that was the only time that's ever happened. No one else has ever come to me and asked to do anything with it. And that was before I painted it, you know what I mean? So it looks better than it did back then. But anyways. Yeah, I just wish that the logic of repair or the illogical nature of repairing this barn would show up here. Cause you can see in the picture from 1978, we did a ton of work and it was worth repairing those buildings. This one is just not worth it. The other ones definitely were, those are historical and we have taken good care of them, the three other buildings on the property. So I don't want to retread too much ground here, but I think perhaps there was a question about when you came to owning, you said, you don't, you're the property manager that the person who bought in 78 is still the current owner. I think if they were here now, I think we would ask them, why didn't, you know, why didn't you put this application in 78 or what was your, what was your thought? Yeah, my dad died in 2008. So I don't know, I can't ask him. I'm trying to keep it focused here on what's before us. I can't ask him. I mean, it's just why they did or didn't do something 25, 40 years ago is kind of irrelevant. I think maybe we've heard everything on this. Yeah, I understand the dilemma that you feel your face and we will proudly deliberate at the end of tonight's meeting. So we'll close public hearing at this point. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Everybody else who participating, okay. So we have, I don't know if this is like the mirror image here, this project, 230 Main Street. Is the applicant here for that? We have the appellate or appellant plural on Zoom. We have Ted Miles from city staff and me. Okay, so is that Matt Daly and somebody else? We have Jeff Nick and Ryan Nick. Okay. Jeff and Ryan, you can both speak. Is there anyone else tonight? No, just the two of us. Anybody else who wants to speak on this application? No. So Jeff, Ryan and Ted, if you would raise your right hand and swear to tell the truth and whole truth on the pain and penalty of perjury. You do. Okay. It's not like we're speaking on it, Ted. We do. Okay. So typically the city would go first and present their case and then you folks would get to present yours, okay? Okay, so Ted. All right, those of you in the classes know how difficult it is with the mask. Okay, thank you very much for this evening. My name is Ted Miles, Code Compliance Officer, City of Burlington. The proper in question is 230 Main Street, which was the former Midtown Motel. In November, 2020, they applied for a permit for demolition of the motel and it was approved. As such, the conditions of the plan of the permit called for the demo of the building, the removal of the asphalt at the property and it was gonna be returned to green space with the exception of approximately 110 feet towards the front by the road was going to be some stone and some landscaping. So that permit was approved in November, 2020. The demolition started shortly thereafter in December, 2020 and the building was completely gone by the end of February of 2021. I believe you have some photos in your packet from the inspection that was done on March 2nd. It shows the building is being gone. The violation here that's alleged is that the property is not compliance with the permit and that has not been returned to green space as it should be but is being used for parking, which is not permitted in this downtown area as pavement parking. Any questions for the city on this? Okay, were you adding anything to their, Scott? Oh, yeah. Okay, okay. I'd like to hear what Jeff or Ryan have to say at this point. Whoever wants to go first to present why or how. Okay, I'm gonna keep it simple for the time being and we've looked at our permit or approvals and under number two, the standard permit conditions, number two, time limits. It clearly states that we have till November 24th, 2023 to complete the project. And then after that, it says or be subject to enforcement actions. So, you know where the advice of our attorney is we have till November 24th, 2023 to complete the project. So we're kind of miffed that we're being threatened by fines at this stage of the game. Okay, sorry, go ahead, Jeff, I have a question. That's okay, go ahead, AJ. So, help me understand something. In your, but this part of the property is not approved for parking in the interim, right? That's correct, but we have till 2023 to, we don't even know, some of those people we don't even know who's parking there. So you don't know who that is. Are you letting other people park there? Some of those people might be in the building we own next to it, but other people come and go and we're not sure who's there. We've had leases in place, but people aren't using it because of the pandemic. So, you know, the other thing that, you know, this, we could look at, I mean, I just want to focus on the fact that we have till November 24th, 2023 to complete the project. And what will this be when completed? I don't recall, I don't see it. Sure, no, that does concern us. Where you see that new gravel, that is going to become a landscaped area. So there'll be shrubbery in there. From that Subaru back, that's where the original 14 spaces were that were always surface parking. This is another little issue we have is the definition of the parking, what type of parking it is, but that surface parking was always there. And our plans are to grasp that in, leaving the driveway and a portion of that pavement intact because that serves as an access to the Jason building, the Duplex building that we also own. And that's how people access that building. So, but our fear, our fear is that if we were, especially with the closure of Sears Lane, and we already see evidence of homeless sleeping around a memorial auditorium and in an abandoned car in the library parking lot, that was as of 10 days ago, that this in our mind will easily become a homeless encampment if we grasp that in. And we're very concerned about that potential. We've also talked to the police about this, and they're also concerned that if this goes, becomes a landscaped area, it will become a homeless encampment. And that will not be a good outcome for anybody. It's better to leave it as parking according to the police rather than to risk having it become an encampment. If that's your position. I'm not sure. So, Jeff, just two follow up questions on this one. As I look at this, there's two aspects of the violation issue. So the first is not in, area has not been converted to green space. And then second is currently used for parking. If I'm correct, you're saying as to the conversion you've got until 2024 to do that. And since it's not done, it can be used for parking. Am I understanding the two pieces correctly? That we don't have to complete the project and we wouldn't be subject to enforcement until after November 24th, 2023. It clearly states that in the permit. Right, but not completing the project. I mean, like if you decided to host a music festival, that logic wouldn't apply, right? Or something. Right, if we wanted to put a food truck there or anything else, that's right. But the current use has remained. Does the site plan as part of that approval include these surface parking spots as surface parking? Because I think that's where we're trying to understand these were approved parking spots before the previous permit and this use is continuing. Or is this used as parking? Yeah, Scott just put up the plan that shows where it would be grassed, the part where the access is for the adjacent building and for the darker green would be the landscape area where shrubs, the lighter green would be grass. We'd have a snow storage area and then the driveway, we've got to get the trash trucks back there to take the trash away. So that's basically what we're prepared to do by the November of 2023. Well, what you're saying though is that you actually think there may be a better use for you to put it to and not do this. I mean, that's what the position you're presenting to us right now. What's, I'm sorry, I missed that question. Well, the position you're presenting to us is that is not what you want to do because you think it's a magnet for homelessness or something like that. And so- Well, I think while we have the date of 2023 available to us, we can have that discussion and we're very nervous that that will become, that will be the outcome of grassing this in is a homeless account. But I think we can all agree that this town has a- You decide, typically when people do construction they start and finish. You took the building down, then you left it. Which is sort of a decision in itself. So I'm wondering why you didn't just move ahead and complete the project at one time. Well, we've had discussions. There was thought of the high school taking this entire site and we said, okay, we came up with plans. We worked with our architect and we showed how the high school could work there. And so that doesn't look like that's gonna happen now. We've talked to the police and they're concerned about a homeless encampment. So, we thought that that's something that we as a community should talk about rather than just grass it in and invite that type of behavior to this site. The current- I think that would be the unintended consequences that we're thinking will be the outcome here. But the current planning you have- Since we have till 2023, we thought we would wait that out. And then maybe see if there's another opportunity on this site to do something else. So it's almost beside the point, though, because the current permit you have is for this grassy space. And the theoretical's aside. Do you have any current approvals or permits in place for you to have parking on this site? I'm sorry, say that again? Is there any current permitting in place that allows you to have parking on this site? That was under the motel, right, Jeff? Yes, well, you know, I raised this with the DRB before, is that in 1986, the previous owner was granted approval for the gelato stand. Many of you remember the gelato stand in the very front of the motel. And in that approval, the zoning board of adjustments acknowledged that the parking spaces were leased during the day to a law firm and they were used at night by the motel tenants. And that use, the leasing of those parking spaces, remained right through our ownership. And the city never came to us and say, well, you have to cease using that as parking. So our attorney again has advised us that the state of Vermont, the Supreme Court has ruled in the state of Vermont that if that happens, the city doesn't say stop the use, that that use is allowed to continue. Staff didn't see it that way and demanded that this be grasped in, which we reluctantly agreed to, but we've, and then now seeing what has happened at Sears Lane, that is, that's a changing, that's a game changer for us. Is that, that happened while this was all going on and now we're saying, okay, if that could happen at Sears Lane, it could easily happen here. And why would we want to do that? Now, I'm also the chair of the Churchy Marketplace Commission and everybody is hugely concerned about all this behavior. So I certainly don't want to be the one contributing to this. Brad. Can you explain how you view it like it's empty now, empty pavement versus empty grass, how one is more attractive than the other and how that's really relevant here? Well, if it's used for parking, there's no room for a cadence. Yeah. Okay, I want to take a break. I think Scott wanted to add something here. Scott, did you have something to add here? Yeah. Okay. So let's see if I can keep this short. That's one of my talents keeping it short. So no part of the zoning permit includes surface parking. And the reason for that is, as I talked to Jeff and Ryan many, many, many times about the current zoning code, not the one in 1980, 1990, the current zoning code prohibits surface parking in this district. So the zoning permit was granted to convert the site basically to a green field because Jeff was clear that he didn't want to build anything because building anything had to comply with the form code. So the only route to demolish this building without building anything in its place was to make the site a green field. So to say that it's simply not done yet, it's a little like you get a permit to build a single family home, you frame the building and run the convenience store for a year and a half before you finish it as a single family home before it expires in two years. So I think Jeff's argument doesn't pass the straight face test. Surface parking is prohibited. We can't allow it. We issued a notice of violation. And so here we are. So if your interpretation then that the parking that was there because it was under the cover of the parking structure, it was not surface parking. That is correct. The structure was there. Am I understanding that? Yes, surface parking and structured parking are separately defined. And I would also point out that the parking related to the hotel originally was permitted as accessory to that use. Right now it's the only use. It is a primary use of the property now. Jeff, are those spaces that people will park there? Are you leasing those spaces out at this time? No, we're not. But people are using them from our building and we have people that want to lease them again. But I will say that, you know, when this property was built in 1958, there was no definition of surface versus structured parking. In 1986, when the city acknowledged that we had parking that was leased and the city did not, and it acknowledged it in writing in this permit I'm looking at for the gelato stand, there was no difference between surface parking and parking under a motel. So the fact that Scott's chosen to use an interpretation of surface versus structured parking to us, the surface parking has always been there. It's the same surface. Yes, but the zoning code has changed. What's that? The zoning code has changed. You know, so... Right, but we should be subject to the old rules because something's changed on this property and it says it right in the 1986 approval. Once you turn down the building, you... My attorney has told us that we went on two accounts. One, it says right here, 2023, we'll be subject to enforcement actions. So we have till 1920, excuse me, November of 2023. We also have approvals in that 1986 decision and the city has never told us to cease. So that for 15 years and the Supreme Court has ruled that we're allowed to keep the parking. Now we did agree to grass it in, but looking at what could happen here gives us great pause. And you know, it's surrounded by other surface parking that the city owns. So there's no, you know, it kind of fits what's there. So we're not changing the character of that neighborhood. That's for sure. So it seems a little, quite frankly, it seems ridiculous, especially when the city is short on parking to demand that this becomes grass. Unfortunately, that's your permit. But we have till 2023 to make it grass. So we can do that. So I think that's basically the summary is basically your view is that you're in the middle of construction and you have until 2023 to finish construction. And that's parking because this is what was there when the motel was there and you're parking as if the motel is still there. That's more or less what you're saying. Correct. Any other questions for the applicant on this? I think we have a picture of how you feel about it. And I think we know what the city is looking at. So we will probably deliberate at the end of the meeting. I'll close the public hearing. Thank you. Thank you. All right, thank you. Well, next we have 43 Adams Court, one parking space waiver. That's me. Okay. And you are Jake Pill. I am, oh, I lost a pen. Is anybody else here to speak on 43 Adams Court? If you're on Zoom and want to speak to this, raise your hand. I don't think anyone does, but just in case. I'm a small fish. Nobody on Zoom is looking to testify, Brad. Okay. Good. So this is something the city has looked at it and they're recommending to one of you. Yes. How would you like to present this? Yeah, I purchased this house about almost two years ago now. The previous owner had received zoning approval to turn it into a duplex and had started that renovation and not finished it. And I'm looking to finish basically the renovation that she had started. Part of that includes rebuilding the back deck and stairway because the current one is not at all up to code. And really the best way to do that eats up one of the existing parking spaces. So the upstairs apartment will be, it's just an open studio style apartment. We'll have probably be leased only for one occupant. And I feel that it is reasonable to have only one parking space. It's also within pretty easy distance of all the buses and other things. But I'm sort of going for a parking space per bed. And if you're parking in the garage, plus two spaces. Yes, so that is correct, yep. So how does the change in the parking ordinance affect this kind of property? The requirement is still two spaces per unit. It is. I believe it was changed for ADUs. So it doesn't affect this for the duplex. If it were a single family home with an ADU, then it would just be a two space requirement, but it's a duplex. So it requires four. Just curious, thank you. Any questions for the applicant here? Do you foresee any other additional space anywhere there in the future or? Any other additional spaces like parking or parking there? I do not. The driveway is very long. And if there were ever other vehicles, in the case of a snow ban or anything, they could easily be parked in the driveway. It's mostly just the accessible spaces. I can only fit three of them. But there's also plenty of street parking and all that stuff. It's mostly a technicality, I think. We can drag this out more, but I think we're probably okay. Amazing. Any other questions? Thank you. I'll go ahead, Caitlin. I'll just, are you living on the property or both of these units are rentals? I'm currently living there and will probably continue living there for a while, but eventually I would like the option to have both of them be rentals. I did think about going the ADU route, but I figured since it was already zoned as a duplex, may as well keep down that path. Yeah. Okay. We'll close the public hearing. Okay. Thanks. We have 180 Flynn Avenue. This is a sketch plan review. I take it that's why you folks are here. I have a question about this one, Brad. Yeah. When I looked at the staff report, it said not applicable for sketch plan. Did I get that wrong? Am I reading that wrong? Or was that just a reference to the last thing on the agenda? That is the recommendation, I think. Not applicable. A recommendation is not applicable for sketch plan. Okay. That's, okay. Thanks. It's the recommendation, not the sketch plan, that's. Hey, I wanted to make sure I've reason, I just, for some reason that struck me on this one and I was a little confused. Okay. Well, if this is a good image to have up there to start. It is actually, I wanted to give you a little bit of a presentation so I could share my screen and then we could maybe end on this. Good. So you want to do a screen show? Yeah. Okay. So make sure you're muted and your microphone is off. As if it's not running your echoes. A lot of echoes. All right, so let me do a promotion to Jovial. And maybe you could introduce whoever's presenting. Sure. I'm Jovial King. I am born and raised for Moner and I'm a Burlington resident. Kelly DeRosh, I'm with Wee Menland for Architects. We've been working with Jovial on a couple conceptual. You can do a screen share now if you want. Great. So I guess I could go a little bit of background or update. Is that a good idea? Okay. So we, when we put our application in for 180 Flynn, that was our plan but we found out actually last week that that location is no longer a viable option for us. And Mary encouraged us to come in anyway because we're looking at a number of other sites and they're all in the same zone. And so we're really wanting to get clarity on our use because we, you know, there's not a use that fits exactly the name of this project. So we wanted to kind of get your feedback and ideas so that we can kind of fast track the project when we find the correct location. So we have a number in play right now. So I just wanted to, if I, if we lost you at Bath House, I wanted to give you a little bit of clarity. You lost me at Silt. Yeah. Exactly. So we wanted to, I just wanted to give you a quick little presentation on what a Bath House is. So according to Wikipedia, you know, Bath House really is a place that people gather to relax. They're a place of health and wellness. So in Russia, they're called banyas and people, you know, often sauna together. It's a very traditional thing. Or maybe you heard of a hamam in a lot of Muslim countries or an osan in Japan. So these are really, you know, all over the world, different cultures have different forms of coming together at a Bath House. So really it's about community. It's about health and it's about wellness. So these facilities really address, you know, bringing people together, bringing community together as a place for health and wellness. So this is a big trend over the border in Canada. There's actually 14 Nordic Bath Houses just north of us and there's many already open in the country and a lot. It's a growing trend. So there's one in Hudson Valley that's opening next year. A big one is just announced in San Francisco a few months ago. So you might be familiar with Boda Boda. A lot of people go up there in Montreal. That's a good example. Or Strum, they have four locations. Or Sposk and a Nave. They also have four locations in Canada. So these are really community wellness spaces. So they often have different aspects to them. Meeting spaces, cafes or restaurants, saunas, steam rooms. You know, there's a great example of one that was built right on the waterfront here in Helsinki, Finland. And a beautiful, one of the biggest saunas in the world in Oslo and Norway. So Silt Bath House here in Burlington, what we're proposing is gonna have sauna, steam rooms, cold plunges, hot pools, herbal baths, relaxation areas, and a cafe. And so I just loved this definition of health being a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being, not merely the absence of disease. So there's a lot of great research on saunas and hydrotherapy. If you go to PubMed, you can find an immense amount of research and surveys that have been done. So this facility, we're still in the visioning phase, but we wanted to come to you early to get your feedback on the use so that we could properly move forward. So currently we've been kind of putting ourselves in that category of the health club. I know Mary had a definition within her notes. And beyond what we all kind of would think of the health club as the why, kind of a common low come to mind, first and foremost, but also listed are items like laser tag, paintball, miniature golf, handball, where these would be kind of more maybe outdoor recreational. And where, you know, this project, not only are we gonna see a lot of indoor activities, it seems like there's a lot of outdoor activities to support it. So that's kind of why we thought we kind of put ourselves in that health club category. And just looking at the right now, a lot of locations we're looking at are in this enterprise light manufacturing zone. So in that right now is a conditional use. So we just want some clarity as we look at properties going forward. I hear how big this is. How many square feet? It's 15,000 square feet is the proposed facility right now. And that it's on an acre of land. So it's these facilities are real indoor outdoor. That's sort of the Nordic part of it. You know, you can run outside to the sauna or you can relax in the outdoor garden. You know, they're really kind of peaceful spaces that need a little bit of room. So we, you know, from our research, we feel like this is a good size facility, but it could get a little bit bigger, it could be a little bit smaller. Do you have any sense of number of that? Yeah, so this is, we're looking at 100 person occupancy. So, you know, our max occupancy would be, you know, 300 people a day. But, you know, that would be, you know, peak season. So are you 100 people at any given time? Yes. I see. Yeah. So people come in, you know, come and go. So if you came for the morning, you, you know, check in, you go into locker rooms, you go into the saunas, steam rooms, you relax, you have a cup of tea, you know, you leave. And then again and again and again. And what sort of age ranges are you thinking about? Yeah, so we're looking at probably about 15 and up, but we would like to have a family day, like, you know, say Sunday from seven to noon so that people can come with their kids. So it really is a family place but that most of the time it's really this kind of more serene or social environment, but not with a lot of little kids. Okay, can I, I've got a question as well. What sort of model are you going for here? Is this day use only or would you have monthly membership or is it a combination of the two? Yeah, so it's a combination. We'll absolutely have membership. There's a lot of interest in membership from the Burlington community and then we'll also have day use. So we're doing some good market research on that but they'll absolutely be both offered. Do you have any estimates of what you would expect the split to be between day use then and membership? I'm just looking at the note in the staff report that, you know, membership clubs are not permitted conditional use, but health clubs are so just trying to get information in there. I don't feel like I can give a really educated guess at this point, so I think it's TBD, but we do have a community survey on our website that we're really trying to get feedback from people. You know, how often would you come so that we can get a better sense and really meet people's needs? But I think to add in our conversations, Joville has said that she doesn't want to make, she wants to make sure that the memberships aren't kind of crowding out this place, not allowing it to have that continuous day use. So I think the day use seems to be more of your priority. And then can you share more about the kitchen use in here? You know, what's the square footage and what sort of food or service would be in use there? So I think it would be, it's, I don't know what the square footage is. It would be classified as a cafe because in this zone, a restaurant wouldn't be allowed. So that'd be under 2,000 square feet. So I think it would be light food sort of, to meet people's needs like soup salads, cheese plates, you know, something that would complement the space, but it's not, we're not, it's not gonna be a big dining destination. It's not our goal at this point. Okay, thank you. So I sketch plan. It's sort of a question, Scott, to some degree for you also, but before I get to that, I wouldn't wanna stress that I think the difference between what's planned for the nighttime and what's planned for the daytime really needs to be set forth pretty clearly. And I think about some of the projects that have come up in this general area. And, you know, outdoor events, music on that patio, you know, how that migrates around. I'll really wanna know if we get to the point of this being a full application. I know right there that there's some very close residential properties and that the sound very much carries from existing events at the brewery nearby. And so I think that will have to be very, very clear, you know, are there gonna be night events or there gonna be nighttime pool parties, those sorts of things will have to be very much higher now. No pool parties, but yeah. It's a good amount of the facilities actually at kind of a shush level, like a quiet level if not silent. So we're definitely going for that more than we are going for a pool party because a lot of people are going there to really just relax and unwind and it would not serve our clients very well if there was a really noisy situation. I appreciate that now and I appreciate that that's what you're saying now, but we also have to look at this permit running with the land. So that may be something we have to talk about. So, and I know the facilities well, I know I've been in many types of these facilities. That's great. I like the idea. I think it's something that would do generally well in the city. I do have some concerns about how the use fits in with the ELM district. And this is a question for Scott. Scott, or Mary, sorry, I just see your face or mass face, I guess Mary's there too if I scroll my zoom around. Why is this not a recreational facility, an indoor recreational facility? Am I missing something? We looked carefully at the definitions in article 13 for the types of use and there really is not a close fit for the type of use that Jovial has presented. And I've also cautioned Jovial and her design team that the ELM is under imminent change. I know that the city planning office is going to the planning commission to begin discussions about further refining uses in the ELM and the ELM in general, perhaps even segregating it into three separate areas. Those are preliminary conversations. So the office of city planning recognizes the ELM needs more attention. Right now it is silent relative to uses like this that are proposed. So your sketch plan review is now under the regulations in effect, but we anticipate those to be further refined perhaps in the near future. Yeah, okay. Yeah, it's an interesting use in line with how we've defined things. So I would encourage the applicant if they wanted to pursue that to really refine the project to more clearly fit into a use so that we don't have to get into that very difficult discussion. So refine it in terms of offering paintball with your Spock's very good. I don't want to give that direction, but I think I would really closely look at what's included either in a recreational indoor facility or look at more closely what's included in a health club and try to incorporate some of those elements so that we're not faced with assuming the regulations don't change dramatically, not faced with really having to weigh exactly how to determine this application in the context of unclear regulations. That's not something that... Yeah, I mean, we did. That was all for anybody. Yeah, totally. I mean, we definitely did do that. I mean, we looked at where we could fit and what makes sense. And we know the why is a health club. And we know, I mean, the primary source of revenue for this facility is the use of the facility, right? So it's not other like services or other things. You come in, you check in, you go to the lobby, you go to the changing room and then you go use the facilities just like you would say the why. And there's a yoga and fitness room. So I don't know... It's not that there was another category where it was like saunas and steam rooms and those kind of facilities. And we just didn't want to be in one. We really feel like this is a great use and we just need to sort of expand. I mean, when you say health club and then it's very focused on the physical. It's like, you need to work out your muscles, you this, you that, you're running or you're playing tennis. But it's like, what about mental health? What about emotional health? What about social health, right? So I just feel like the health club, people are coming there to, they're all interested in wellness. So that is like very similar to the why but we happen to have other facilities. And traditionally the why did have a sauna and there's oftentimes steam rooms in those kinds of facilities. So I hear you and I really appreciate that feedback. But I, and I also want to say we kind of did that and we feel like this is where we're at and I don't know how much more we would expand and really just fit the vision of what we want this facility to be. So the other difference with the recreational facility indoor it's 20,000 square feet and over versus the health club, which is the 15,000 to 20,000 square feet. So that's why we kind of put ourselves into that category. And I would know that really the whole sketch plan thing is for us, for you to get a sense of what the issues might be. And though I respect AJ a lot, I'm not sure that I would agree with suggesting that you change what you're trying to do to fit some zoning definition, but understand what, and I think maybe this is maybe what AJ is getting at is that what the goals and limitations and sort of attitude of that zone is and try to, you know, not push up against the limit too much. When that's exactly right, Brad, you're more articulate at that than I am. Well, one thing I was going to say though is that if the zoning, if I'm right about this very, if the zoning is being rewritten, there's a warning period and a permit. And at that time, they have a choice. I think, isn't it true? As to when they apply, if the new one is not adopted, but it's being considered, they comply under either. Yeah, once is warrant, it's in effect. Once it's warranted in effect. So once it's worn, they can't apply under the existing zoning regulations. And when do you think it'll be warned? As it evolved to that point, another option I might suggest is participate in those conversations as it's being further refined and there is more fine-grain definition for not just uses, but locations. I know your timeline is quicker. So that's why you were before the DRB tonight to do the temperature test here to see how they feel your application might fare under the current regulations. If you feel like now you haven't clearly defined exactly the spot you wanna be, and this is an imminent conversation, it may be well worth your while to participate in those hearings before they get to the refinement and a warning for zoning changes so that you will be not only fully informed but fully vested in how those policy changes occur. One of the things I see here is these are, I think when we call them low-key activities, they're not gonna be the conscious not having that, I was just saying, those kind of things. And I think those are the things that seem consistent with the attitude of not having restaurants, not having certain things in the zone and trying to keep the zone. Despite what happens on when they have the, the big arts festival every year, I mean that changes the art hop when that happens, it does change a character or everything but that's a momentary kind of thing. So it looks like what you're presenting is consistent with how that's seen but it is entirely possible that they could come up with something that would, because of the scale of it, could, you could be pushing up against it. And so I think what Mary's basically saying is as soon as you can get it in, I would expect that having a piece of land is really challenging. It is, but we actually have a few really great options. So we're working really hard once we realized that the 180 Flynn wasn't a viable option. We've been working hard to find some spaces and so that's why we felt like it was worthwhile to come here. So we do, we are ready to move forward and that's why we really wanted to get your temperature so that we can put our application in and feel confident that we're gonna go through all the, you know, working with engineers and the expense that we will be on the right path. So that's really my goal leaving tonight is feeling like, okay, we're gonna really shoot for this use and feel confident in that and not get six months in and then get, and then have a problem. So we've got a pot of serenity inside of all the chaos that's happening right now. Yeah, totally. And that sounds good. I think, you know, how parking works in different, how lighting, I think it was mentioned as to what happens in neighbors. And, you know, I mean, just night lighting is sort of an issue that, you know, so how is it seen from other places? Those are... Yeah, so that's great and I'm making notes. I mean, it's definitely gonna be low lighting. Like if we had music, it'd be like a cello, you know, playing not like a rock band kind of thing. So I think that we should have that serenity, you know, feeling, and in the summer, sure there could be, you know, in the social area, there's people chatting in the tea gardens or if we have, you know, we'll have wine that could get noisy, but really no noisier than any of the breweries or bars or other facilities in this cell. And when we've really started to look at the site, we are trying to, and this was prior to us knowing that the site would possibly be changing, but kind of placing the more quiet areas towards the residential side and then more activity kind of towards, where the active side of the site is. Towards the parking, yeah. A hundred people is a lot of people. Yeah, I mean, that's our max occupancy, so. You've got staff, right? Yeah. How many? So there'll be 20 full-time, over 20 full-time employees, so it'll be all well, you know, good paying jobs. So I really do feel like it's a tremendous community asset for Burlington. I mean, it will be really excellent for the community and then for any visitors that are coming. So we really do want to have it be in Burlington and not have to kind of move outside of town to meet our needs, because we feel like the demand and the interest is really here for this kind of facility. Well, and I think too, that's all about the experience, and you're not gonna have a hundred people all outside at one time. There's a lot of the indoor experience. You know, you'll have people kind of moving through the space, and part of enjoying a facility like this is less people kind of in your space and kind of keeping people spread out. Yeah, I mean, if you do the math on, you know, an acre of land, 15,000 square feet, and then a hundred people, it would still feel really like hello over there, not like excuse me, excuse me, is really the goal. You said that there was alcohol, or? Yeah, we would like to be. I mean, a lot of these, this is traditionally, you know, it's not really bar forward, but it's like, oh, have a glass of wine afterwards with like my, you know, my cheese plate or whatnot. So I guess in some of our goal here too, just trying to figure out where we fall in the category and use is, you know, a lot of what the examples Joe Wills showed will say spa in there or something. So there's also the spa salon category, but when you look at that in the zoning, it's really mixed use residential areas where, you know, we feel like this would impinge more on a neighborhood, and it's not necessarily just about beauty, and, you know, this is more about like kind of that mental wellness and health. Yeah, we don't, in the spa category, it's tanning salons, nails and hair, and we don't do any of that. So it's really, the business model is not personal services. We will offer a massage, you know, but that's not a primary use of the, that's not our main focus in terms of the business model. It's really use of the facility. Obviously, one of my concerns that I would be looking at, I know we have discussed parking, but if it's in a light manufacturing area, trucks and turnaround areas and appropriate parking and pavement for everybody else in there, and then if, yeah. So I think that would be something that I would be asking about. Say it again for how it impacts the other parking and trucks for other neighbors. This particular site, it looks like there's one. Well, that site, this site's not in play anymore. Sure, but for any other site, I would imagine many light manufacturing sites have some sort of shared or pavement situation, so that's something that I would be. You're saying sort of being mindful from imposing, like on their use to move around and have paint jobs. And, right, right. Okay, great. And I think going through exploring this site was a good kind of test of that because there is, so the Sincider has loading docks right next door, and we were looking at it campus wide and we know we need 30 for the ordinance. We need 30 parking spaces, but we think the facility could probably use more than that just based on our research. So those are definitely items we've been looking at. So basically, you've got it with a single entrance. Is that structurally sort of how the program works that have everybody come through that? I've got it as a lobby there, but. Yeah. One entry point. Yeah, so to kind of, I don't want to take too much of your time, but to walk you through, I mean, you would really, you know, you'd walk into the facility, you would check in at the lobby. There'd be a small little retail area there. You'd get, you know, your robe and your slippers. You'd go into the locker rooms. You'd check in to, you know, your locker, put your stuff away. Then you'd walk into the big shower room. There'll also be private showers available, but a lot of these facilities have, you know, just a wall, a bank of showers to do a quick rinse. And then you can, you know, walk in and use the pool, the sauna, the steam room, or you can go, oh, great. You can go, so yeah, you walk into the retail. You come, or the lobby, check in. These are all locker rooms in here. And then this is the big bank of showers. And then there's also individual showers. And then you'd come into here. You'd, you know, spend time in the pool or in this hot pool. There'll be heated benches. There's a large community sauna here. There's actually a napping room. You can mostly facilities have napping rooms where you could, if you're after, you know, soaking or sonning, you can just relax. Or you can go down here. So this is all quiet, right? So this is like, you know, you were at a whisper level. And then you can come out here and this is the outdoor space. There's hammocks back here. Down here there's two saunas, a hotter sauna and a regular temperature sauna. There's cold, a cold plunge over here. There's cold showers. So you can kind of go back into this space. So that's another kind of entry and exit point. And this is again, all gonna be quiet relaxation area. And then in here, we're gonna have a large greenhouse. Is the main feature of this facility. So a lot of tropical plants. And medicinal plants. There's a little bit of, you know, there's the kitchen and the bar. So you could walk and get a cup of tea or a glass of wine. And there's a lounging space. So this is, we'll be at a talking level. So you, you know, it basically, you know, indoor voices kind of space. And then you can go out here again and this is more gonna be a social area. So this is if you wanted to get tea, wine, and you can kind of sit and have food. And then there'll be gardens all out here. So it's a bit split in terms of this is quiet zone on this half and this is more of a social space. And then you would exit back through kind of the same way. But most likely there'll be an exit door. So you're not, you know, if there was a line, you wouldn't have to go through the same space but you could go out and around. This is nothing to do with our preview. I already say that it just, it seems like a lot of small spaces banking into each other. And some larger presence seems would be helpful in there somewhere. You mean we're open space in room? Yeah, I know everybody's wandering through these small spaces and things like that. And it just seems, but that's not our purview at all. Well, no, it's great to be back as a citizen, but I think that the hallways would certainly be big enough that it wouldn't be tight. That would be architectural bad design. And the greenhouse space is a really large, big open space. So I think it's hard to tell in this picture, but it's quite a big building. So our job at this point is trying to give you feedback. I don't know if we're giving you some sense of it. I think, you know, as AJ says, you know, I think what I'm thinking is that we probably are really willing, it seemed like a very good idea, you know, it seemed like a good use in where you're trying to put it. And we would try to work with you to try to see how it fits within that zone. But I think that's something to not ignore, but to pay attention to and give us some support in how we can look at it that way. So can you just clarify on support, make it as easy as possible to... For us, sure. To say yes. Sure, not that easy. I feel like I did, but I'm not sure what else to add. But it helps because it's not a specific location. Once you get a specific location, then we can look at those kind of things. You know, what happens with the neighborhood, what happens with house parking, how do people enter and exit, how's the lighting work, all those kinds of things in context of... And definitely, you know, we've had some things recently, the, you know, I'm trying to push the limit sometimes. So it's, you know, you're not alone in that, but this seems like a great use for that area. Yeah. Changes. If I may, Jo, the question here is quite to point, could the DRV review this as a health club in the yellow? It seems... Thank you, Mary. Under the current regulations. It seems that we can at this point. To AJ's concern, I just double-check the definitions and the definition for health club versus recreation facility indoor or nearly identical other than the size of the facility. So I feel like that addresses your concern, AJ. It does provide a debt you apply the right way to some degree. As in... And one is approved and one is not. Right. One's allowed via conditional use review and one is not. Right. That's my point. We want the one that's allowed. That's what we're going for. Sorry, Mary. Conditional means it's allowed? By the DRV. It's discretionary review. And seeing that it fits within the conditional use definition, that's right. But like I said, there's... And I think maybe this is why that zone is being looked at. It's going through so many things. It's got so many different aspects to it. It's sort of something different to everybody who's on that street at this point. And yet it's a valuable resource for the city. It's a unique zone. And I think maintaining that unique character is really critical, I think, for the city. But I think what you're proposing is, to me, seems to come into that area. For the zone, I guess, you know, we're just trying to wrap our... Well, the zone's going to impact. I mean, that's... I guess we need to see it. Yeah. Yeah, that's... We also want to try to... Well, the health club seems to work. And in the ELM zone seems to work. But if you're in some other zone, are you going to have to... Right. The caution I would offer about choosing a site in ELM is this is enterprise light manufacturing. If you're looking for serenity, you might have trouble next to a manufacturing facility, particularly for outdoor activities. Yes, absolutely. And we looked at some and it was like, you know, trucks backing up and it was really loud, you know, constant noise. And we were like, that's not going to work. But at the same time, you're in an urban area, so it's just you're going to have some of that. And we think we can manage it, especially with we'll have, you know, moving water outside. So that will kind of be a background noise that should be really peaceful and be able to kind of separate some of the... At the train track there, we're hoping for more trains. Yes, totally, yay for more trains. We'd love a train stop right at the facility. But yeah, but I think that that's okay. We are choosing really to do this in Burlington and that's what it is versus, you know, going outside of town. We really made that conscious choice because we feel like it's a really great fit for the community. Great. And some of the examples like Bota Bota are right in Montreal and outdoors and so. Yes, I've been to several of these facilities before and I think I know how you would do it. But I would also encourage you just to think about how you make sure it doesn't become a hookup spot. Which has happened, I'm sure. And again, I know different ways of making sure that that doesn't happen, but. Great, well, we'd love your feedback and that's certainly not our intention. And I think it will be a very clean facility, which means that there'll be, you know, a staff walking around, you know, in a very continual way. So it's not gonna be kind of a, hey, have fun, we'll see you on the other side. Kind of thing. There'll definitely be a lot of staff, you know, constantly, you know, keeping the place safe and quiet and all those things. But that's, thank you for mentioning that. We look forward to more details. Yeah. Great, so in terms of my notes, you know, that you do feel good about the health club categorization of use, but it seems like, you know, lights really pay attention to be mindful of prioritizing other manufacturing, you know, businesses around, because that's the priority for this zone. And noise, being aware of noise and the kind of bar atmosphere or pool party atmosphere, if we end up in a neighborhood that that could be an issue. So I think those are all my main takeaways. And as AJ says, I think the permit goes with the land. So we've, you know, you've got a very poetic way of saying this, but somebody else may say, gee, this is a great opportunity to turn this into, and our permit needs to provide enough definition so that it can stay what you're presenting it as. And I do just want to note that, you know, this was, we did have an acre of land, you know, for this space, and that's why we designed it in this manner, but the lat pool, for example, might not fit in the other facilities. So I don't want something like that to be, we come back and we say we couldn't fit the lat pool and then it's a make or break with the health club category. Great, okay, good. So just, you know, just throwing that out there that we're going to have to work with it, whatever space we get. So that was exciting. We look forward to seeing more. Okay, thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it. We weren't going to, that's, we'll close this item, but we weren't going to go through those new zoning regulations tonight, the calendar's on the next meeting. Yeah, that's what I thought it was on that one. Two things briefly though. We have Celeste Crowley sitting there in the corner helping out with minutes. Thank you Celeste. Hi Celeste. Well, we work on filling the tech position and something totally unrelated to that. City just recently prevailed that the Vermont Supreme Court has to the 60 day discontinuance we have for unenforceable violations a la the 15 year statute. So we have the provision for unenforceable violations. If you get it, that's fine, but if you discontinue for more than 60 days, you're S-O-L. And so that's been upheld by the Vermont Supreme Court. Okay. So that's it. Okay. That's all we got. Well then we're closing the hearing, the public meeting here. And we'll deliberate if everybody's okay with that. Recording stopped. So we have 77, 80.