 Okay, this is the Development Review Board for Burlington for September 3rd. So, on housekeeping, we take up items in the order they are on the agenda, and when we call each item, we ask you to come up to the table and please use the microphones as the acoustics in here are terrible, and that's also the record of our hearing is actually recorded through the microphones. If anybody else who is interested party, they may want to come up and sign the clipboard too sometime during the meeting. We have no communications on our desk, nothing new, okay. On the agenda, is anybody here for 83 North Willard Street? Because that's on our agenda, but that's been asked for deferment, so we'll probably defer that one. In terms of, well, deliberative, they may not be a relevant question right now. So, we'll start with the Consent Agenda. The first item is 1093 North Avenue, City of Burlington. Is the applicant here? Brad, I'm recused from this item. Good. So, this is on the Consent Agenda, which means that it's been recommended for approval. Have you seen the staff's recommendations? I have. And are they acceptable as they're written? Yes, they are. Okay. Is anybody on the board have any objections to treating this as consent? Is anybody in the public here who wants to speak on 1093 North Avenue? I've seen nothing. We can get this approved. Can I have a motion on this project? On 2001 7-2-CA 1093 North Avenue, I move to approve staff findings and recommendations. You have a second? I'll second. All in favor? Simple. Thank you very much. Thanks. Thank you. I'm sorry you didn't have a chance to present all those boards. But it's good exercise. Okay. The next item is also a Consent Agenda item that's 62 Ward Street as the applicant here. This also is consent. So, have you seen the staff's recommendations on this one? Yes. And is that okay? Yes. Okay. Anybody on the board? No. Does anybody here object? No. And I guess they won't ask about the public because they're not here. So now I'll take a recommendation or a motion. I would move that 19-0948 CA 62 Ward Street that we adopt, approve the staff findings and recommendations. Second? Second. Jeff? All in favor? Opposed? Thank you very much. That's it. Thank you. I guess we could drag some of these out, but it seems unnecessary at the moment. Okay. Next item is 83 Willard Street. The applicant has asked for deferral until September 17th. Correct. So I need a motion, as people object to, deferring 83 Willard Street to... So on 20-0113CU 83 North Willard Street, I move that we defer consideration of this application until our next meeting on September 17th. Second? Jeff? Okay. All in favor? Opposed? If Scott wants to read all these zoning amendments, that would... I'm going to read them into the record, all right? So that is the next item. We have quite a few zoning amendments that are... We have sort of a synopsis. Yeah, there's a synopsis in that. Recommended to the city council at this point. This is just a copy of the memo and language that went to the council. They have acted to adopt both of these at this point. So we'll have inserts for your CDOs shortly. So, yeah, so just to follow up with the idea from our latest joint meeting last winter. Rather than just hand you the amendments and say, here you go. So we'll actually tell you what they are. So the first one, zoning amendment 1904, pertains to trees and junkyards in a cross-reference correction. There's nothing new as to the trees provisions. It simply joins a number of currently disparate provisions and makes them work together the way they were intended to work together. So nothing new, no standards, no new process. Junkyards is similar in that it cleans up some existing duplicity in the ordinance, but also calls out junkyards expressly. You can't have them anyway, but not least a cross-reference correction. Here, Mary pointed out, incorrect. I can answer them or I can jump into the next one. The next one pertains to uses in the city's enterprise zone. And this one's a little more extensive. It makes a few changes. Currently, office uses are allowed in enterprise, but banks for some reason are not. So a change has been made to allow banks in that district. A more significant change was that the use table has been opened up to allow supportive uses to the more traditional industrial enterprise uses and allowed subject to conditional use, basically to subsidize those older more traditional industrial uses. And we've looked to a couple of models in other cities elsewhere that are doing this. And that's really what it comes down to. We have these older industrial spaces, and these newer uses are being allowed to sort of prop that up to enhance the viability of the enterprise and industrial uses. The last item. Well, before you leave. Was that in the enterprise that you're going to? You're going to go through the performance spaces. The last piece was performing art centers were allowed subject to a limitation of 5,000 square feet. I think it was just along Pine Street. This amendment also extends the area where they're allowed, but also allows them up to a greater size. Which would affect the? Yeah, when and if we ever see an application from Martin. I thought somewhere in here read something that the intent of some of this was to see to it that the commercial uses did not overtake the viability of the arts district uses. See some language about that. And I think that pertains to the continuing restriction. But is not also was not also somehow with some of the supporting spaces rather than primary uses. I was big thing about the arts district was that, you know, it's a little bit of a challenge to try to turn into straight commercial uses of big office blocks and stuff. Right. Well, to back up a little bit further. It's a little funny that the south end has been the de facto arts district. It wasn't until five or six years ago that the zoning code was changed to actually enable that. So performing art centers are not necessarily a supportive use. But when I thought it was sort of like restaurants and bakeries, there's a limit to how big they could be. Yes. Yep. And that's still the case. That's limited to a percentage relative to the uses on the property. Performing arts centers have a square footed institution. There's a 5001 kind street that's been in place for a number of years now. Any other questions for Scott? Any question? This says second read in public hearing. Is that really the status of where it's at? No, that's really the status of where it was at when this memo was put together. If you would like, next time I can update the city council's memo. That's okay. The memo is dated May 22nd. Oh, I see. And then the start of August 26th was when they actually approved it. Not least, and it wasn't in your packet, but I forwarded it to you. We heard last Friday the Vermont Supreme Court overturned the city's action and your action concurring as to the 15-year statute of limitations not applying to use violations. This case was probably as good as any because nobody disputed the facts. We all knew that it was an unpermitted triplex and has been there for more than 15 years. And the city's argued for a while now based on environmental court precedent that use violations were separate from physical violations. So no, the statute of limitations applies whether it's use or physical. Do you have the case site for that? What's that? Do you have the case site for that case? I forwarded the decision to the board. It should be in your email. Okay. So that'll be significant. We've got a number of these come by. They're going to come back? They could. Some of these, well, I can think of one where it was cut and dry. Some others where this was a factor. It wasn't the only factor going on, but who knows. Folks could come back. It makes the notice of violation date a little more critical on some of these. Well, it should make our job easier. I mean, a lot of these cases are the ones where we've had people testifying, you know, years ago about what was happening. So it'll be nice to have some clarity there. Well, to be clear, it still doesn't. The 15 year statute does not equate to grandfathering, but it is a bright line as to what can fit into the limitations box. It becomes a, for future renovations on a project that was approved through this statute of limitations on the use. They come before us again when that's recognized. Is that a permitted use at that point? What it was one referred to it as. So this draws a much brighter line and forcible. It has all the restrictions. So future additions, amendments, revisions would be based on the permitted status of the property, on what is it? Right. I mean, there's tighter restrictions around it. So I guess in the event, right? It's the same idea in the event that you go to change them out in 20 years. Yeah. Same thing with parking. If you have an unpermitted triplex, that's only a parking for a duplex. Right. So if you had an unpermitted triplex and you prove your statute of limitations, but then you want to come back. I think so. I think with that. We are adjourned.