 raise a hand or somehow identify them so they could be asked to join the meeting. And we also ask that people provide Scott with the uh right Scott not us email you want a mailing address. We have the applicant's mailing address but if any members of the public will square people in and that includes the applicant uh so then uh the agenda is the agenda we have no changes right communications there's nothing additional that wasn't posted online posted some revised sketch plans minutes posted right now the minutes are posted with the prior meetings but we're making progress Brad I'm trying to catch up okay so then the first item is the consent agenda and the first item I consent agenda is 45 lakeside avenue that request for a time extension is the applicant here I see John Collow is here is that yeah so John you're live if you care to talk yep so I will just ask John are you okay with the conditions of approval that were recommended yeah I don't think there's any change to the original basically we've uh been granted a one-year extension that's fine and uh we've just if any for those who may be interested you know it looks we've got a temporary certificate of occupancy for building 50 and building 44 is completely occupied and you know we'll be we'll be out of there in the spring so we appreciate you know the extension just given the impact of the COVID well let me ask is any any member of the board object to treating this as a consent agenda item I'm sorry I'm asking the board if anybody objects to treating as a consent agenda I'm losing you and is there any member of the public to want to speak on this item if you wish to speak raise your hand Brad I don't see any hands up okay since the board's okay with this can I have a motion from somebody on the board for this item I'll move on item zp 190202ca ma 4450 lakeside avenue that we grant the one-year time extension and adopt staff findings second any discussion all in favor raise your hand say aye proposed none okay John you're approved for the one-year extension thank you next item is uh 266 college street that also is a time extension request for the renovation of the existing Y building is that applicant here yep and I think here this one is uh as well right John correct okay so the fact that you just stayed around that just attention okay this also is um uh and I guess the extension is working because it was a three months three month extension from COVID in addition which makes this timely um and are you okay on this one with the uh conditions of approval John yes and just so I understand the with a one-year extension it brings us out to I believe it's august 2023 is that right Mary that is correct this time extension differs from the lakeside avenue um because lakeside is nearly complete and you needed the time extension just to complete the project this is a time extension to allow you the one year to commence construction so it will bring you out to 2023 if it's approved thank you okay any member of the board object to treating this as consent item anybody in the public here for this Scott I don't see any hands up Brad okay then can I have a motion on this item uh for 266 college street sure I'll do it again um I move on to zero dash 0037 CAMA 266 college street um that we grant the approval for time extension adapts adopt staff findings uh and conditions second on this one Caitlin thank you any discussion this one carries two we have thank you for consent items we've got two down two to go um next time is 31 north prospect street that's change of use for duplex removing boarding house is I see the applicant is here um Keisha this is on consent agenda recommended for approval are you okay with the staff's recommendations on this one yes I am okay anybody on the board object to treating this as consent and I'll ask if there's any anybody in the public Scott uh no hands are raised Brad okay another motion I can do this one okay so on 21-0520ca slash cu I move that we approve the application and adopt staff findings second on this any discussion okay all in favor of this post so this carries you're all set Keisha thank you have a good evening okay thank you okay one more consent agenda item that's 194 south Champlain street requesting a short-term rental uh been in breakfast is the applicant here for that one yes sherry campbell okay oh sherry um this is recommended for consent and so the staff has recommended some conditions of approval have you seen those sherry I have are you okay with those I am okay uh is the board okay with treating this one as consent no objections okay again anybody in the public for this uh no hands are raised okay um then how about a motion on 194 south Champlain I'll make a motion uh on 21-0491 cu I move that we uh adopt staff recommendations and approve the application for the short-term rental second Keenan thank you okay any discussion all in favor post okay we're all set sherry thank you very much okay well I guess the next two would probably take a little longer than that um um next thing is uh 14 strong street this is um addition over a single story portion of a home replace windows and store the door um I see missa is here um and I see one of the neighbors are here um we're swearing and Brad I'm enabling both of them okay is and is there anybody else who wants to speak on this besides missa and allen no okay so miss and allen um I swear you in uh do you swear to tell the truth and hold truth under pain and penalty of perjury I do yes I do okay um so missa can you maybe explain the project um and help us understand this what is relevant about the property line um and I think the two issues that were raised had to have property line and tree removal right okay so yeah as you can see I'm planning an addition over the um first level of my home uh to create another bedroom um in the uncovering of land issues um with the project um I discovered that the deed has two dimensions in in its in its uh written form where it states that the property line my western property line is 22 feet from the eastern face of eight strong street and 75 feet more or less from uh along strong street from to drew street so if you put those two dimensions on a site plan they're actually in conflict um one is one foot outside of my home um it gives me a one foot from the western face of my home and the other dimension puts it within my home um so there is a dispute between myself and my neighbor about where that property line actually exists um so I designed the project so that way that the we're we're um not encroaching on that disputed property line uh it is actually um to the east of that property line um to resolve the the issues of the dispute of the property line for this particular project um the tree removal we have no intention of removing any trees uh on the property so that that's my answer to that any questions from the board for missus so far on this um and maybe uh it may be helpful at this point to have the neighbor um let us know what uh because it does sound from what missus presentation that they are staying away from the two issues that were raised but maybe we're misunderstanding it alan do you want to clarify this yes thank you very much so um missa did modify her plans by moving back uh the western edge of the addition um from the uh from her wall which puts it on completely on her property uh which is agreed to by us however she's put a door and a flat membrane roof over that section uh and uh on the current existing plans uh she intends to use it as a deck and uh the staff report uh the the condition uh the first one I believe in addition to standard condition says you have to remove that um door and make it into a window and uh I don't know if it says it specifically but we would prefer that there not be a flat membrane for somebody to put a deck onto or go out onto and treat it as a deck so um it that is the issue basically we we're fine with them doing uh an addition uh we think some of those trees are going to be cut back even if they do it as she has modified it if she didn't do a deck if you look at the photos both her photo from her photograph exhibit as well as the uh the exhibit to my uh second comments you can see a photograph where the trees are overhanging that um lower first floor section and uh they're going to be cut back even if she sets back you know uh three or four feet uh if she were to put a deck there then she would cut them back so severely she didn't she would need to remove them they would die so we uh we have no problem with her doing everything that she wants to do so long as she doesn't build over our property uh which is the deck that is currently proposed um on her revised drawing okay i have one question for you on those tree sound uh looks like the tree uh is pretty close to their house and obviously the branches hang over their house correct so some trimming of those branches would do you see that as acceptable so if if the trimming were to allow for a house that is three or four feet i believe she has five feet in from that wall i don't think that that would kill the tree right we're talking about a tree there's in fact about four or five tall skinny not very very many branches trees that form up the most of it so i don't have a tree problem as long as she's not encroaching into that area between where she set it back and where she uh the wall is so uh question anybody on the board have any questions for alan on this then i guess i'll go back missa um the and the staff report did uh request to uh not have that deck be a deck at this point correct yep and that's that's fine the drawings will be revised to show that uh as a window and uh membrane roof in that location um as far as the trees are concerned you know my insurance company homeowner's insurance company has actually brought up those trees as as an issue uh for my homeowners insurance because of their proximity to my house um i do not intend to i actually quite enjoy the privacy of those trees um however they will the the branches that are overhanging our property are our um we'll we'll need to have to be trimmed back it would save the house from that yes the house would also benefit from that in terms of dry rot and and so on the uh as regards the deck is your attention still to do it as a membrane roofing in that area correct okay uh questions for missa at this point no um i'm just going to go back to alan for a second i mean uh alan uh you mentioned about the membrane roof it membrane roofs are a legitimate roof in this condition so i think that that may be consistent with the request for the changes that the staff put together that that is true and really it's simply a matter of um for example at the design advisory board and these haven't been revised from the design advisory board but she said she was going to keep a membrane roof and keep the door there and just do a juliet balcony and our thought was or my thought was that that's just inviting a zoning violation you know it's only a matter of time before somebody starts you know spending time on that area a membrane roof would make that more difficult but uh are more easy to do and so that's why we would rather that it not be there but uh i don't think that there's anything in the zoning ordinance that would prohibit a membrane roof from being there right um anything you want to add at this point missa nope okay um this isn't a lot longer than the consent agenda and i feel like we should be getting more detail here but maybe this is it um i unless there's anything else from the board uh we will close this item okay and uh we will probably deliberate at the end of uh the meeting tonight we have a sketch plan to go over next so yeah okay well thank you missa and alan hey hello jeff so the next item we have on our agenda is sketch plan from lake shampaign transportation which is two dash fourteen king street and is the applicant here and we have a few folks here okay um i'm just this is a question for staff on this as we're getting started here um it's an unusual situation um and we obviously don't have a staff report yet on this um oh my god what that's funny there's a staff report i don't see it on the packet yeah interesting okay good thing it's just sketch plan yeah well um i know we've got right to get it done it's an unusual location and so the the um uh requirements according to cdo are not typical so i was going to ask if the staff would please give it a little bit of an overview or the relevant point of view for the cdo at this location that is very interesting that the staff report is in there um the that said uh the only item uh in need of additional attention i'll say is the 50 foot setback from the water's edge so this is on public trust land so the city zoning code requires 50 foot wide from the water's edge clear public passage and as you can see in the sketch plans there's patio uh area and planters and i think even some building within that 50 foot setback so there is allowed provision for encroachment like seating areas and planters and landscaping um but there's a balance in there as to how much is permissible while continuing to allow open and consistent public access you know beyond that the restaurant is fine it's in the flood zone they are proposing to elevate it to i believe it's 104 feet above sea level which is two feet above base flood elevation there's no parking requirement um they do have a fair amount of parking and i raised a question as to whether or not it exceeded the parking maximum limitation but if there's no parking requirement how do you exceed the maximum the now that's a good question brad say even though the minimums are gone see maria likes that even though the minimums gone the maximum was retained and the maximum is 125 of what would be required in the shared use district so there is a maximum that's based on seats uh it's based on you know it would be handy if i have the staff report here to look at you know i think restaurants are based on seating capacity but i'd have to confirm that it's a little bit different than the straightforward per square foot okay well thank you i did want a little background on that so um i see the applicant is four people here um and i don't know who's presenting and if whoever does get you introduce yourselves as you go and um it's yours and maybe uh we can get uh something up uh share a screen here to scott i'm sure so steve and jay or whomever else you guys are unable to talk do you want to share your screens or shall i drive that uh i'm this is steve roya we man land for your architects i'm able to share my screen if that's okay all right let me um let me make that possible for you steve okay you should be able to do it now steve hold on just a second here okay does that show up for everybody does okay excellent um so um i'm sorry i don't know the staff notes um i think scott touched on a few of the items uh i think what we've and i assume that everybody has in hand a set of revised drawings that were delivered uh on the 29th of december um those were in response to some technical review comments and some previous meetings yeah those are posted steve in the packet okay uh tonight's you know the presentation is really an effort to respond to uh the items that have been discussed uh and as scott mentioned the biggest challenge for us has been the pedestrian access requirements uh along the uh along the lake itself uh what we're trying to present this evening is uh what we feel is the best balance that can be achieved by a lake champlain transportation within a cover letter that was distributed with the drawings there were four key items that we wanted to convey one is that this is a maritime transportation security act location because it is a transportation and ferry system i don't know the specific details as lake champlain is is required to keep those confidential but i do know that they have requirements that are federally mandated that require you know certain conditions to be achieved so they're they're working to maintain that security along some defined level the next item was on the south side of the proposed project is the only deep water access area if there's a problem with any of the ferries that area really needs to be made available to the transportation company so they can service the ferries third item was that the marina and support uh needs support and access uh along the west side so actually this revised version has the southern access extending all the way to the west that allows them to uh pull any of the docks the marina docks that are there during the summertime um that allows a staging place for that to happen uh the fourth item which uh is probably the least of my personal concerns uh but there is with the use of a restaurant there is some requirements for liquor control and within that the ability to you know define certain areas and have those blocked off from all public access so trying to balance kind of a combination of those four elements in total the plan that you see shows the entire property which has several buildings on it the ones that are shown in red are buildings that would be removed the the one uh outline that is green and hatched is what the new building would be um Steve just a question this ferry does not show on this plan is that there's some reason for that um no only that it's in the lake and and not access would be there wouldn't it um for the cars that that's still going to be there right yes so there's there's a few different access ramps on the property um the existing location uh remains as well as the lake access uh which is just south of the smallest building that gets removed uh so there's there's a few different connection points that will remain uh there's also an access ramp that is fairly new along the northwest corner of the property um that one will remain in place but I think will be uh not used to a great extent thank you uh also within part of the operation there's a barge kind of a barge slip that happens on the north portion that does still remain used for they use that area as an access point for loading the barges so that also remains part of the required access I can skip on to the next page which is a little bit closer up view of the proposed plan everything you can see that to a lighter extent there are the the existing buildings that will be removed those outlines are are still shown we've extended existing parking areas to cover where those buildings will be removed um and we're showing uh you know essentially handicapped parking spaces that would be used for the restaurant um and then additional spaces that have been added as a result of those buildings being lost a couple of the key points are that the the building's main entrance will be this south side where we have a sidewalk leading from the parking uh they'll go by a bicycle rack area uh and then underneath the covered space into the building from that that'd be considered kind of the main uh main entrance it's where the largest building sign will be located uh and provides the greatest visibility from the vehicular driving access point which would be coming from the south uh once inside there's 80 seats that are planned for the inside of the restaurant um being a great location on the lake for public access there is a significant amount of seating that will be placed on patios to the south and primarily the west of the building so the the overall capacity is is probably a few hundred people even though just 80 more in the winter time the uh what we've shown here is uh six a kind of a clump of six trees on the south side that'll help to provide some shaded areas um with the thought that us you know people could casually gather underneath those trees as well it also helps to separate some of the lake shambles transportation company buildings and parking a little bit away from the from the visitors experience one of the things that has changed a bit since previous meetings with the trc and scott this southern access we've removed parking from the southeast corner of the restaurant but we have retained access for lake shambles transportation uh along that south edge so that would be a gravel gravel access point i pretty much identical to what is there today it would allow vehicles to travel down that path if they need a crane they can they can maneuver a crane down that path as well um all of the what's defined as a a hatch here would be outside pavers or or maybe stamped concrete we haven't gotten down to the final details of that yet but that would be where all the uh seating would be for outside use we do have a few steps down to a lower lawn area the thought is that the all the patio space would be at the same level of the restaurant with minimal grading to make it all accessible with stairs and an access ramp to to a lower closer to existing grade lawn space on the west another change since our last meetings on the north side of the project we have an access road that can connect to the parking lot the thought is that this space can serve two functions pretty well one being that lake shambles transportation can can bring vehicles down to that area so that they can load the barge for instance they load fireworks onto the barge so knowing that they'd have that access remaining that would be adequate but at the same time we've proposed that the northern area be allowed to have public in a fairly unrestrained way the the reason for the north being the preferred location for that is the deep ferry access requirements on the south um and security access points on the south and west but also the north provides a good access point for a future connection to the echo center and we see the pedestrian side of the pedestrian side being more from the north especially with that future connection so that would allow that the pedestrian both from the echo center to travel onto property down a paved paved or concrete path to have unobstructed views to make on the north and west so we we think the north side is a reasonable um amount of space to allow more unfettered public access while still providing the necessary access for lake shambles transportation a little bit more security concerns exist on the west and south so that's that's what we're hoping can create a comfortable balance for the city uh we do think that you know that pedestrian access alignment with echo could could line up fairly well with the the sidewalk paths that we're creating so perhaps there's future potential down the south but um we feel that what we're presenting is really what needs to happen I can flip through any of the three-dimensional renderings if that's appropriate otherwise we can take questions on the site plan I have a question can you zoom in a little bit so it does look like on the north side you do have it labeled for the the 50 foot um but it it doesn't appear to be labeled on the rest of it so just wanted to understand that and then I understand this somewhat some of the security concerns but to me that doesn't seem like an argument for why you can put the restaurant in the pedestrian uh easement so um I would like to hear a little bit more from you where it looks like on this so we've got a pretty significant portion of this building going into that 50 foot setback yeah and the reason for that on the north side and I can point you to this area here we have the existing building footprint that already encroaches on that 50 foot setback so what we're doing is placing the restaurant within that footprint but still um so that by the by the zoning code allows us to do that so we're not making that condition worse and we're only improving it by a by a small margin sorry can you clarify that it looks like your building goes substantially beyond the existing footprint um let me try to mark I don't know if I can mark that up actually are you able to see my mouse yeah I can see the gray underline of the existing building and yeah so that that gray underline follows this line here um and then down and through the center of of the new restaurant and then back up okay so the area that is hatched and new restaurant essentially comes within a foot or two of the existing uh footprint that is there today you're talking about just to the north just to the north correct so you're you're ignoring the portion of the building that goes into the 50 foot easement to the west well we the building actually is set back the 50 feet from this uh from this west edge okay I do see that uh Jay has modified where that 50 foot area is but the building itself is out of it the only thing that would be within the 50 foot is the the planters the small the low walls and the patio space which I believe are all allowed but you're racing great within that 50 foot area that is correct yes and that's I guess that's allowed well that's that's what I was getting at earlier Brad there there's provision for encroachment um and it includes things like planters and landscaping hardscaping um but it can't it can't prohibit free and open public access and you know what we had pointed out we being staff at TRC was you know gee you can walk across the patio but the way the walls are construed it seems it it seems pretty cut off from public access I mean it's basically seating area for the restaurant and the walls really separated out so the public can walk along left proposed long but that's it um and I don't even I don't even see that they can do that based on the landscaping you would have to go through the you know the not through the restaurant the building itself but I would imagine through some type of outside queuing you know matriades situation and entering through the property and you know sort of having the public walk through tables and you know you feel like you're in a restaurant you don't feel like you have access to that correct the the the intent here is that the the lawn area and observation area that are on the north side would be basically unfettered public access the south side would not have uh we would want to discourage access on the south side due to the ferry operation issues and then the the proposed lawn and patio space is you know is essentially public access but by way of a restaurant but by way of the restaurant and so there would be there would be no administration at all of trying to separate customers from non-customers in that area um I guess to to get that back to that to get onto the patio you would essentially enter the restaurant area to do that does that mean that it wouldn't be accessible outside of business hours as well yes and I think outside of the business hours it becomes more of a uh marina security concern like plane transportation and so Steve can you explain how far off the lakefront is the west face of the building is that 50 feet or is where where's the 50 foot come in um it is yeah it's within a few feet of 50 feet the the building or the overhang uh the overhang Steve this is jeff hand I know this is not your area of expertise but I think you can gather from the questions you've heard we're going to need a little more information on the justification for why it's okay to put a uh a restaurant that makes makes money within the 50 foot easement right of way with no restrictions related to security for that particular use but exclude members of the public based on security concerns um so I'm not sure how your team wants to address that but I'll certainly be looking for some more detailed information legally on what the basis is for excluding members of the public from that that area I can understand it perhaps to the south where you're showing sort of active ferry operations um you know the argument for excluding to the west feels pretty weak to me based on what you're proposing I would add to that jeff too because they're kind of at the bottom of my showing here you have existing law night changing into a members only area that seems directly in front of that deep water access but again it's members are allowed but not the public and how that fits in with the security concerns as well yeah I'm gonna just jump in and share those concerns as well um it's not a public patio right I mean I think we can all agree on that and um we we want to see you know utilization of these underused spaces um in good times we know how popular this can be and how we know how much it adds to the overall waterfront experience but I think you can't take this public trust doctrine um lightly that's that's my sketch that's my sort of comment on this and I've got just a couple of other comments on on public access or questions um the can you tell me the proposed future path why that's proposed future wise and that not included is part of the proposed plan to that Larry where are you looking by the way I don't do the north yep this is yeah this proposed oh yeah okay there have been conversations with uh the echo okay uh but that is not Lake Champlain Transportation's property to deal with so okay and I think my understanding is the bike path is being rerouted down here on the east side of this property it doesn't look like there's any provision for access from the bike path um to this facility can you just address that um I may defer to Jay Beerman for that one civil engineer Jeff the railroad might be in the way the stuff along the east property line along the railroad and the bike path those are still in ongoing discussions between Lake Champlain Transportation in the city and the other powers that be uh we're trying to plan to some extent to be flexible for whatever develops over there but we're not in a position to be able to offer anything or promise anything over on that side while those negotiations are ongoing our primary connection that we're aiming to offer is this opening up to the north via echo to the main waterfront part the best means for that with what we know is what we're showing here okay I'm just a little concerned that if you don't plan for it you may have have activity on on bike or by foot coming from the bike path across your property to get to the large facility you're building it looks like a great building and I suspect it will be a strong draw but I'd want to see a little more thought put into how you manage that and I guess I've got the same question to the to the south um there's another large restaurant just south of you I could imagine there being some traffic between that and this facility I can't really see in the site plans what you're proposing for pedestrian access you're back down towards the ferry docks and and or across to the existing restaurants on this air in this area yeah I'd still like to discourage that connection though because we have again these ferry operations in between we'd like to discourage pedestrian pedestrian or public direct connections between the two buildings of course we can't do that I think I want to say it's hard for us to review this in a piecemeal fashion this site goes to the bike path it goes to the other building and we don't really have a plan that puts all this in context and so when you come back I think we're going to want to see that and that's stuff that Jeff is talking about is how what happens to the vehicle traffic coming in that goes to the ferry pedestrians that are crossing the ferry how do you control cars coming in that are going through the gate house whatever it is for the for the ferry area all that stuff really should be part of this presentation and and Jay I'm very sympathetic to that concern about access across the ferry loading zone and I think you're wise to try to address it I would expect addressing that would likely include providing better access from another point like the bike path so you know something to consider when you come back okay understood thank you one other concern I guess question I have especially if we're talking about the parking being potentially over the maximum is it feels like putting this building and patio into the setback is kind of purposely designed so that you can add additional parking for the entire property and so it's not like you don't have other space to put a building and patio of this size you do have the space so that's where I think it's it's hard to look at this with a positive light on that I definitely would love to see this development but I really don't see that strong of a reasoning for going that far into the setback so briefly Caitlin just on the parking thing so and Brad too so cafes are proceeding this is big enough to be a restaurant so it is based on square footage so the upper limit on surface parking for this is 20 and so as you can see there's a lot more than 20 spaces here but I don't know what spaces are for the restaurant versus the ferry operation and requested some detail on that that would be helpful Steve or Jay to see how the parking gets allocated and I think Caitlin's comment is is seems on point too that you're pushing it way west into the access area and it may not be necessary to go that far west understood we're trying to balance the reality that there is a need for parking down there even though the restaurant won't necessarily take up that much it's easy enough to block off 20 put in the landscaping that Scott had in his staff notes to supplement the parking but the other ongoing operations down on this property require a lot of parking so we're trying to maximize that also and I guess that was Scott's comment is that it would be helpful to see what's generating the parking so we can better understand that right I have two comments one would be wanting to understand how private events would be handled I see that there's an outdoor event room a proposed patio in front of that outdoor event room I can extrapolate and think of a variety of different types of private events that may want to purchase that area for a time for their event how does that factor in with public access wanting to just understand you know the operations behind that and then also my comment is with the 3D renderings themselves they paint a rather rosy and unrealistic picture of what the site around the building actually looks like you know I know Brad asked about what is a ferry look like what you said that's the water but it also makes it look like this exists on an island to some extent which it doesn't and you know fairly unrealistic looking south and looking north so I think it would be helpful to kind of see this in the context of how it would actually exist and I do find that the vessels that would be around it would be important to see that to scale okay that can be adjusted I am curious Steve about one other thing that was in the the floor plan of the building there were stairways and I'm just is there an upper level on this or something it is just a I think it's 800 square feet is it a small mezzanine for storage okay I think that those and all the comments have to do with the public right away and understanding this project in context of the area part of which is outside of your control but part of it is within your control so more information okay comments from the board I mean we have I mean do have these very nice renderings and I I think I agree with Springer that I was trying to follow the renderings and relate it to what's there today and realize that part of the area that's been fixed up in the renderings is in city property so I'm assuming that that's not happening um since I don't imagine that part of your project is to render is to renovate cityland north of this project yeah correct north the northeast view doesn't show spot on the dock really the way it exists um and and I think it's just you know to have one sailboat where you know two large ferries come and go it just doesn't I'd like to see the context okay and then one thing that we usually hit on that I don't see here at least in the renderings are trash receptacles and I see deliveries yeah that that was part of the staff notes as well we have had conversations with trying to locate a combined trash location for both the restaurant and for lcts remaining buildings so as not to have several within the same property that can be defined better in the next in the next round Steve on the schematic floor plan with the site there's this heavy-dash blue line that goes around is that the 50 foot setback yes I suspect it is I'll flip to that plan okay yes that is the 50 foot from the edge water's edge yeah right so it does put it in perspective as to where the public access area is even if there is some you know um flexibility on that south side for very related activities the rest of it really seems to be maybe better access for the public yeah and can I also just ask on that rendering it's showing marina docks both to the west and to the south yes are those existing those are there today uh yeah yes they're there this summer okay so that yeah that sort of raises my more concern about the security justification particularly you're showing marina docks in the area you've suggested you need to maintain access for deep water work to the south yeah so there's confusing yeah and if if rustle wants to speak to this that might be a good time but they've had they have concerns and ongoing issues with with public getting too close to the marina jumping the wall getting onto people's boats um so by having the restaurant on the western side that allows for off hours to be uh no people there um for mischief to happen at night so by by allowing the public access on the north side that that kind of takes away that issue there's there's no close access to the marina docks from the north side the south side if they do have if it is in conflict with the marina docks and they have a vessel that needs maintenance then they will have to remove the docks which is another reason to have that southern access point so that they can remove those docks and then work on the ferry so i did i miss i think i can give a little bit of an i just wanted to understand that you're saying that the having the restricted public access provides more security for the docks so can did i misunderstand that hi this is rustle can i give a little explanation okay okay they're there uh we utilize your your audio is not working very well um okay i don't know try it again can you hear okay um i believe i'm unmuted can you hear anything at all yeah we're gonna hear you and then when you start speaking you just sort of disappear try it again okay i'll move a little closer how's that good okay so the facility is used the entire year we're only hearing about i don't know 10 of what you're ever you're saying rustle you're just uh breaking up or something i wonder if you're feeding back rustle i don't know not sure let me see if i can switch something here whatever you're doing right now works fine yeah okay i moved back a little bit does that help it helps right now okay facility is only used a poor in the ferry boats so we have what's called the uh it's a it's a facility security plan we're reviewed and we're regulated by the department of homeland security and there is a marsec facility which marine security act um it's not something that we can turn on and turn off it's a it's a an evaluation and it's a review that is approved through the government um just turn it off for the summer months and turn it back on for the winter month so the the facility security plan is in place entirely throughout the year so there are restricted areas in restricted in certain places that um we have to know who's there we have to regulate those apparently access i can't give you a lot of information it's just not something i'm authorized to do um but anyways so the ferry boats are utilized on like on the south side it's our deep water access um if we need to access a boat if i have to pull engines out transmissions out any of the service work that we might access that's the location that we would do that the western side is the same case we utilize that in the winter time i'm doing service work i'm loading materials on it that's part of the access we also have security that's needed for the marine their boats we have a lot of acts that we're concerned with um i don't think it's working yep we've had public people boarding people's boat while they're sleeping at night it's a security is an issue that we're concerned with so russia we're hearing about half of what you're saying here um it would be helpful when this in the next round of presentations to understand if there's anything you're doing that's restricting public access because of those kinds of issues to let us know because right now we just look at and say gee this should be better public access in that 50 foot buffer um on the west side we understand the um uh south side issues um but if if there's some reason that we shouldn't be having that 50 foot buffer on the west side a better explanation uh would be would be helpful i i can tell you that restrictions on we we can't hear half of what you're saying russell i'm sorry adding brad to your to your point i think there's it's also important for us to understand the difference between the security concerns for where it falls under you know the for the ferry boats and the deep water access and how that's different from security for a marina and you know the money making operation of of of that and there might be some limitations on public asset access that makes sense for one and not the other and i will point out for the applicant that really the purpose of sketch plan is for you to understand what the issues are and the concerns from the board and i think that those are becoming fairly clear at this point um in terms of the next round of presentations some of the issues that we'd like to see more information on or changes to the plan and when it comes to securing private vessels um you know i'd like to understand how that differs from the security needs of boats on the city docks and the king street dock and in front of echo i mean every they're all they're all open to the public all the time minus some signage this would be the only secure facility right here in this area uh problems exist on the marina docks at all docks the publicly accessed and the private loans all right i'm a voter i understand and i i didn't understand what you meant i just you're you're saying that you're putting in specific security which is going to limit right of access because of private vessels when that the right of access is not taken away from a private vessel you know where private vessels are parked on the remainder of the waterfront in this area so i'm just saying that our marina and access to our docks that is a private dock that people pay for um is a security concern that we have okay we understand that um and i guess what you're hearing from us is we don't hear that that trumps the 50-foot public access issue so that just needs a better explanation uh and the next presentation all right we spent a lot of time talking about our questions and concerns and i guess i just want to end by saying and i think aj said this it would be great to see this area of the waterfront you know more activated and i appreciate that you're looking at ways to provide some public access we'd obviously like to see a little more but it looks like an exciting project and hopefully there are ways to address this you know a number of those concerns and move forward but thank you for your time and thought thus far on this well said jeff thank you um i think it i think it would be a fantastic project in addition to burlington's waterfront um you know i was a little concerned with uh being able to balance you know a private property owner's rights and concerns with uh with this access on all sides of essentially what is a man-made peninsula um but we can we can review it further it's a nature of burlington's waterfront but is it i mean i agree with what jeff said that it would be great to see some uh activity down here and uh it could be a very nice project any other comments from the board at this point or Steve and crew do you have any questions for us at this point in examining the 50-foot setback does does the board see any limit to the width of that setback allowed in other words if the public were allowed access for the final 10 feet up against the water or say 10 feet 10 feet away from the water do you see any difference in that sense i guess we'd have to try to understand what the requirements are as uh some specific doctrine as to what's governing this and i guess we'd have to try to understand that in context it's a 50-foot setback rad 50-foot water's edge pretty simple Scott Scott you were saying though there are some provisions for encroachments to that 50 feet correct right says encroachments allowed such as walkways planters and benches so long as pedestrian circulation isn't impaired okay but if i guess my question and maybe you're trying to answer and i'm not quite getting it but if if pedestrians are able to flow through somewhere within that 50 feet does it have to be the entire 50 feet if there's a way to provide adequate security on that west side that separates the the water's edge from the from the public does that suffice some of that may be a legal question steve you know i i i don't know that we can answer that definitively for you right now i think what brad was saying is it would be nice to see some more thought put into how to better balance the concerns you're trying to address some of those may be answered by you know the maritime safety act that you guys have cited it would be better it'd be good to understand what that is a little more to the extent you can share details and i could imagine there's a rational point of agreement where you're providing access within uh reason and the encroachments that come into that 50 feet are of the type that are you know that's got listed or there's another legal justification for you know accepting that but i'm not convinced yet that the latter is is a good argument and i guess i'll throw out to that if if you say well maybe they don't get the full maybe part of the planters and other things are encroaching in that 50 feet um but you still want to have access some access that goes through there and if you look on the south side with those trees in there and assuming that the ferry operations area is really restricted area that there really isn't any public access on the south side of that building at all really you'd have to and even getting around from the north side to the west side um it's pretty difficult to get around there because you've got the um that existing access ramp that i think is almost like a a moat yeah it's a it's a concrete wall yep so it's just just to think about circulation around the site that if we're if we're being asked to that part of that uh 50 foot buffer is is not necessarily 100 public access because it's part of the restaurant um just think about the circulation around the site that that really i i think my view would be it has to be maintained somebody should be able to walk around there yep and right now it looks difficult i think what would be helpful for me i don't know if this is for the applicant or for the city um is a bit of a history lesson and understanding around the approvals for spot on the dock and just you know i'm looking at the satellite view of the two to two locations um you know both sort you know what we're calling man-made peninsulas look very similar um you know see the restaurant seating going up to the edge um no ability to really walk around the building um there seems to be a lot of similarities um with the spot on the dock already existing and being there and and you know so i think an understanding of how spot on the dock got to the way that it was how it was approved might be helpful in the review of um this proposed dock ponds i'm not sure that they're comparable spot on the dock dates back at least into the 90s and i don't know what the city had for an approval process back then i'm sure the 50 feet didn't exist at that point spot on the dock was built back in the 60s i was going to say it's it's further back than that i'm as breakwaters i was going to say since a lot of time yeah it was built it was built around 1960 this 50 foot buffer this right of way is something that was adopted my understanding in 2016 that it was voted on and you know lct was unaware at that point in time now it wasn't 2016 it was it at least showed up in 2008 in the current zoning code but i'd be willing to bet it was in the 94 code as well and just to be clear it's based on a more fundamental legal principle you know public trust principle so it's not just a zoning issue so brad i see uh i see at least one hand up uh if you want to transition to a public comment oh there are public okay uh who is here on the public well i see a martin so i'll allow a martin to speak and uh i see a phone as well okay um hey martin can you introduce yourselves and uh give your address and you're muted right now trying to unmute i've asked him or heard on mute it's probably i'm almost certain it's andrew martin he's part of the project well for negatively negatively in chase construction oh can we uh transition to the phone then brad who is on the phone who's on the phone it's Sharon busher there we go um so thank you for letting me weigh in although i must admit i've found zoom very helpful but with this type of sketch plan review i missed being able to be there and a big screen and be able to really look at all these details i want to just focus on the 50 foot um buffer um that was put in place and i agree with scott i think it was either late 80s or early 90s when uh the community when we got uh went and got the um uh settled the waterfront issues and zoning issues and part of the the the agreement was that people would always the people people everybody would have access to see the water's edge and to see the lake and so i find that that really important and the reason i wanted to speak to this was that i understand our zoning which allows someone who is put carrying down a structure to rebuild in that original footprint um but i think that these structures were put in place before we had the ruling with uh the public trust doctrine and now there's an opportunity to really guarantee that buffer and i think we need to look at that very carefully um as you review this proposal and since it's sketch plan review i think these are the times where you raise some concerns and and some desire to have really that buffer really protected and to have that incorporated into um something that works and makes your spot your restaurant um your activities more desirable because of that very buffer so i just wanted to speak to the importance of this um the community which a lot of those people no longer live here but i think the same dedication to who we are in burlington and who we are in vermont and the value of the lake and the value of the vista and the right for everyone to have access to it so thank you thanks well i think that was it on the public side scott i don't see anywhere hand spread um i think you know i i made sort of fairly consistent comments um that's any but any of the boards have members have anything else to add um steve and crew i it is a nice looking project and i you know it just sounds like with some clarification and a little bit of looking at certain things uh it looks good um thank you all for your comments okay that is the last item on our agenda yes uh so we will adjourn the hearing the meeting um and we have one item to