 I guess good to go. You have six on the way, Brad. Oh, we can get started. That's right, Scott. Yeah, go for it. OK, so this is the Development Review Board meeting for Burlington for September 7th. And we are doing this via Zoom and in person at the permitting offices. Is that the official name, Scott? Department of Permitting and Inspections. OK, there we go. That's where this is coming from. OK, we take up items that they are in order on the agenda. And when we take up each item, we ask that Scott will look for people to raise their hand and admit them to the meeting to participate in each item as we call it. We swear people in as appropriate at that time. Also, that Scott would like a mailing address to each person that intends to participate in the hearing. And we have one change to the agenda, right, Scott? We have the article 8 discussion with David, then push back to your next agenda on the 21st. OK, other than that, there's no changes to the agenda? Correct. OK, communications, everything's posted, right? Everything's online. OK, minutes. There were no minutes attached to this one, so good. So we get right to the agenda here. The first time consent item is 180 interval road. Is the applicant here for that? Yeah. Patrick Fencey from Manor Rail Center is here. Patrick. Hey, Alex. Hi, everyone. Is anybody else here to speak on 180 interval road? If you are, raise your hand. Nobody here and no one on Zoom is raising their hand. Well, it's too bad this is on consent. A floating bridge and a pond. I mean, we don't get to deal with that very often, but. Yeah. Anyways, Patrick, this is on for consent, which means the staff has recommended approval. Have you seen the staff's recommendations? Yes. Are you OK with that? Yeah. OK, everybody on the board object to treating this as a consent item. And does somebody want to make a motion? Make a motion. OK. On ZP 21573 180 interval road, I recommend that we approve the application and adopt staff findings. Here a second on that? I'll second. Is it Caitlin? OK. Any discussion? All in favor? Opposed? It's unanimous. OK, thank you. Thanks, Patrick. You're all approved here. Thanks very much. OK, I didn't know we had a little pond back there. OK, now we get to the public hearing. The first item is 38 Latham Court. Is the applicant here for that? Mark McGee. Mark, you can speak. Hello. Good afternoon, everybody. Is anybody else here to speak on 38 Latham Court? And we have one person in person. And two people on Zoom. Oh, OK. OK. So we have Sharon on the phone and Warren from G4 Design. And what's your name? My name's Kevin Melendicke. I represent the Genesis, who owns property across the street through the war. OK, so we've got one, two, three, four people. Is that right, Scott? Yeah. OK, can I ask the four of you to raise your right hand and swear that you tell the truth and hold truth under pain and penalty or perjury? I do. I do. I do. OK. So do you want to start with Mark McGee? That is correct. Thank you, everybody. Appreciate the opportunity to speak to you on this matter. My name's Mark McGee. And I, along with my wife, Valerie, own 38 Latham Court and have owned our home since 2008. We recently returned to our home here in Burlington after living in southern Vermont for the last few years. We spent nine years living in Guilford, which is a very rural community. And after deciding that we wanted to return to Burlington to, in many respects, really shrink our carbon footprint in meaningful ways, decrease our reliance on automobiles for transit, et cetera. We made plans to return to our home, which we retained ownership of and had been renting out for the previous nine years. And in the process, since we moved away, we have since started a family. We now have an eight-year-old son who is enrolled at Edmunds Middle School. And in terms of our thinking around how to use our space, we really wanted to be very thoughtful about how to really maximize our ability to reduce our carbon footprint, our reliance on automobile transportation, and really maximize our interest in trying to live as sustainable a family life as we possibly could can. And so part of that involves relying on bicycle transportation almost exclusively, growing as much of our food as possible, and to every extent possible, working remotely from home and thus eliminating the need to commute to and from work. And so we worked with G4 Design to come up with the design that has been presented and reviewed by the Design Advisory Board. And the intended purpose of the renovation is to remove the old garage shed, which in its current state is really only functionally appropriate for storage and is noted in Ms. and Nail's report is not even big enough to store a full-size automobile and to design a structure that is more in keeping with not only our current needs, but also anticipated needs for future generations. And I want to thank and applaud our design team at G4 for coming up with the design that you folks see now. I think having lived for the last nearly decade in rural Vermont from a design standpoint, we really appreciate some of the kind of vernacular features associated that mimic really archetypal barn design throughout the state, while also maintaining some important sympathetic designs to the historic main structure of our home, which we love and adore. In terms of the intended use, the first floor is intended as a shop space to store and maintain our family's bicycles in a former life. I worked as a bicycle mechanic. And so bicycle transportation has been near and dear to my heart. And for me personally, I believe it's an important part of living a more sustainable and low-impact lifestyle. And so storing and maintaining bicycles along with various tools and other trailers and such for a bicycle family living in the city is part of the intended purpose of the first floor, along with space to allow for small woodworking area and tool storage to maintain our interest in gardening. In terms of the second floor, the second floor is designed and intended as a home office space and exclusively for a home office space. I did want to, if I may, just take a moment to respond to the letter that I know the Genesis family has submitted. They are neighbors across, while they are property, they own the property directly across the road from us, as I understand it, at 39 Latham Court. And as I understand it, they rent the property currently, I think, to three or perhaps four young women, as it is. They are concerned about the commercial use of this renovation and in no way is this design and renovation intended for any business purposes. It's typically just for personal and family use, again, as I described. In terms of their concerns about increased traffic and increased parking pressure, as noted, our intention in returning to Burlington in our home and this whole design is really to intend to decrease our carbon footprint decrease, our reliance on automobile. And since we've been here, when we moved back in July, we have since reduced our motor vehicles by 50% and thus removed one vehicle from the streets of Burlington as well as one vehicle from the parking pressures on Latham Court. As for parking pressures, obviously as many of you folks may know, that's an issue that's managed by the Department of Public Works and the Police Department and they keep close ties on the issuance of residential permits and any parking on the street does obviously require a residential permit. But as it stands now, we have exactly one motor vehicle, which we park exclusively in our driveway. So I just want to reiterate to the board that the intention of this renovation and this design is exclusively for families as described and has no purpose, no interest currently or ever in the future of being operated as a business of any kind whatsoever. A couple of things that I do want to just take a moment to point out, understanding that the garage shed is considered a historic resource, understanding that and in the process of this review process, I've undertaken extensive efforts to try to preserve, relocate and to whatever degree possible, preserve the structure in whatever extent possible. I called everybody that I can possibly imagine in the immediate community, including the UVM, Historic Preservation, Historic Preservation down in Montpelier, resource have made numerous efforts to try to preserve it in whatever practical way possible. As is noted in Ms. Anil's report, despite these extensive efforts, I was unable to identify anybody who was willing to take and preserve or remove the building. I went so far as to call a building mover and inquire about what would be involved in physically relocating the building. And I was informed that the cost simply to remove it from the property and relocate it somewhere else, even if it were just a very short distance away, would have been quite considerable and exorbitant. And in terms of some of the other rationale that has been considered in terms of our application with the Design Advisory Board, was around the economic impact of renovating the building or renovating the garage shed. In my view, there's no way that we can redevelop the existing shed in any meaningful way to meet the needs that we spelled out in terms of how we hope to be able to use and benefit from our property. And I think not being able to move forward in this way, I think would also substantially limit our ability to maximize one, the utility, to future historic value and significance of the property and three, the economic value of the property. And so that in a nutshell is the intent, the rationale behind the design and our motivation for requesting permission to move forward with this project. Okay, fairly thorough explanation there. Before we move on, are there questions for the applicant from the board? I'm not seeing all the board at one time, so if somebody has questions, please speak to the board. Here we go, okay. It does seem fairly straightforward. Is there, and it looks like you're right at the maximum lot coverages. Am I reading that right in terms of your site plan? Yeah, as noted in the site plan, the proposed renovation is actually a slight, very smidge smaller than what the current lot coverages. But as ought to be noted, we had the land and property surveyed because we understood that the variances would be quite small and we made considerable, we took great care to ensure that the proposed renovation in no way exceeded the allowable lot coverage. And in fact, we got under that existing lot coverage, by a little bit. I see a 39.22 instead of 39.69. Exactly. Just a smidge, I didn't say. It's okay, you're still under 40. So you're, and you might have one or two things in there that a few things that aren't actually under that, that are sort of a bonus coverage. Yeah, yeah, there's some ancillary coverage. We were aware of that. Yes, okay. And you have your architect here and is there anything that you wanted to add? Is that Warren? Yes. No, I think Mark pretty much covered everything. One thing I mean, I guess you already kind of covered is the design intent that we went through with the DAB. We actually went through two design iterations. This is the second iteration after that, first initial meeting with the board and we took all their thoughts and comments into consideration and we changed our design to be more sympathetic, but not matching the existing house identically to give a false impression that it's original. So it's distinct, but also sympathetic to the original house design and also the original garage design as well, which gives kind of remembrance to the original garage and not that we're just replacing it and being done with it. We want to also remember what we used to be there. I have a question for you that has absolutely nothing to do with an area that we have any approval over, but I am curious, I look at your plan and I see that your stair jogs to maintain that four and a half foot wide entry, it just seems that you could do the stair without that jog and push it into the entry a little bit. It just seems given how narrow everything is. Some reason to have that jog in the stair. We could, and the main reason is we wanted to maintain that four foot six mudroom entryway and we couldn't shrink it down to maybe four feet, but ideally the four foot six has fit everything a lot better. They have Mark as an existing bench that he wanted to fit in that mudroom area. So that's just kind of where that number came from. The other thing is the setback issue. If you go to the site plan, you'll see that we're right up against the stack. So we can't push that building any farther down. But yeah, ideally we would love to get rid of the jog but realistically, I don't see that the way around it. Just curious about that. Yeah. Okay. I'll just ask any other questions from the board. There's two folks. There's the one person representing the neighbors and Sharon Buescher. Mr. Donahue, are you, is that? Yes. It says Allie Davis, but I'm not Allie. I know. So you're representing people across the street concerned about the commercial nature of the property, which seems not to be the case, but... Yeah, that's correct. And I think with the genesis, the word that caught them was the use of the word shop. That kind of, instead of a garage space, I think the word shop all of a sudden came up and they were thinking of welding automobiles back together and things of that nature that could occur and people coming and going. Either it's some kind of a mechanical shop or just commercial. Mark seems to have answered that question. Going forward, should he sell the property? Is there something in the approval that could make sure that someone else doesn't come in and say, this is nicely set up for X, Y, and Z? If you can use their property in a variety of ways for the personal use, if they'd need to do it for commercial use, they'd have to come back before us for any reason at all. So. And I think the genesis, I haven't seen the design, the design looks good. I think anybody who improves the property on the street is met with favorable opinions. Thank you. And Sharon, do you have anything you wanted to add here? Yes. Can you hear me, Brad? Oh, yeah. Okay. Yes, thank you for considering my comments. So I read the staff recommendations and the submission. And so I had one comment, which I'll say for the end, but then a couple of questions, which I think has been addressed, but in the description of the applicant stated, the applicant stated, his initial use of the property for repairing his own bicycles and might even expand that to neighborhood bicycles or others. And I think my property of butts lay some court, my property about Selena Colburn and Chris Burns property, and then another neighbor that rents. But it's a dead end street. It has no sidewalks. It's a very, I used to take Selena home after city council meetings and I dreaded it, not because I didn't want to take her home, but navigating that street. So I'm sympathetic to any increased traffic. And so if that was to become a business, my understanding is that that would then require some additional approval. Right now it's not a business. It's for the owner's use, not for neighbors and others to come to have their bikes repaired. That's my understanding from the conversation that just occurred. The second piece is that if somebody works from home, that reduces their traffic, but I don't know what the individual does now and whether or not there'll be a lot of deliveries of stuff on the street, a lot more UPS, FedEx, whatever, I wasn't quite clear about that. So that can increase traffic even indirectly. And so that was another question that occurred to me because of the nature of that street and that neighborhood. And I didn't hear that addressed. And then the next piece has to do with the historic garage, which I did call staff and spoke with Mary regarding it because in the comments it stated that although it is vintage and historic, there are other examples of this around in the region and the state, I guess. My concern is that if we don't know how many there are, everybody could be eliminating these and then there'll be none. And I'm not trying to target this applicant, but I think there's a vulnerability here. And I did find out that a number of these garages are whatever they're called something else because of when they were built and to house the automobile. But anyways, a number of them have already been torn down and replaced. So I just feel like we as a community and a society, I think we should want to have some, not just a memory or maybe a fainted photograph, but I think we wanna have some representation of historic structures that had significance. And I'm very concerned about this. And I appreciate the fact that the owner tried to find someone that would be the recipient of this structure. I appreciate that, but I'm still very concerned about the loss of it. And I understood the activities that, he said it's not big enough for a car, but it is big enough for bikes and maybe tools to store his garden tools. I'm a gardener, so I really do know what space is required. I mean, I'm a big time gardener. So anyways, I just wanted to bring all of these comments forward. What looks very straightforward, I think does have some underlying questions and concerns. Thank you. Thanks Sharon. May I request to just respond to Sharon's comments? Sure. Hi Sharon, Mark McGee here. I think we met recently as I was walking on my dog Pepper by your house. Mark, thanks for being formal on this, that you're actually addressing the board at this point. Oh, okay, I'm sorry. So to address Sharon's comments, one of the things, I mean, in terms of the intended use, when I had offered that my interest in bicycle repair and maintenance, it really dates back years when in a previous life, I worked as a bicycle mechanic, I taught bicycle mechanics and very much enjoyed the teaching process and really helping empower people, be able to fix their own bicycles and therefore be less reliant on others for doing so. And in no intention is that interest professional in terms of any sort of business. And if there is any sort of use of the space in that way, it would be a neighbor brings their bike over and I perhaps show them how to fix a flat tire or that type of thing. The intent is not to bring more traffic on Latham Court. There's already plenty of traffic on Latham Court and I would hope to see traffic diminished on Latham Court. And so that aspect I think is not of significant concern in terms of increasing the traffic because that would really be antithetical to what our whole intention is. And to address the comment about increased package delivery, I can tell you, I'm a physician, I work from home, I do telemedicine and so I have everything that I need to conduct my business at a desk, I need a computer, I need a high speed internet, I don't need anything else. And so any increased, there is no added work related deliveries, I essentially sit at my desk and sit in front of a webcam. And so that issue would not be of concern in terms of how my work from home model works. And so I appreciate Sharon's comments and I hope the board would consider that response. Okay, thank you. Any further questions from the board for the applicant at this point? I think we have a fairly good question for this. Mary, was there anything you wanted to add at this point? Thank you. That was a no read. Okay, it's hard to hear. Okay, well with that, we will probably deliberate at the end of tonight's meeting and I will close the public hearing at this point. Thanks everybody for participating. Okay, so our next item is 140 ledge road. Is the grad, I'm recused on this one. So am I. Oh, down to I should recuse as well. We still have enough people to hear it. No, no, we have Chase. Yeah, that's right. Chase, we have four. That's right. You're not very few as Chase, right? Okay, boy, a lot of us must be a popular spot, huh? So who's Jeff, AJ, and Caitlin, right? Those are the three who are recused on this. Yeah. Okay, so moving on, is the applicant here? Do you have the applicant? Okay. And. Donna, you were on. Okay, and is there anybody else who is from the public or anybody else who wants to speak on this? Let me see, Peter Smiar. Smiar, and can you guys hear me? Yeah. Okay. Okay, and anybody else? Just so we have two people, Donna and Peter, right? Like Donna and Peter to speak on this one. Okay, so would the two of you 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 it's an unusual situation where you need a variance basically to be within the footprint of what exists, it seems. So maybe you want to just give a quick rundown on what you're actually proposing because it actually was a little hard to read. I had to go back and forth. It was like one of those Sunday comics to figure out what's the difference here. Your footprint didn't change other than in that little corner where you have patio now, right? Yeah, and this is Peter Smiar. I'll give it, I'm the owner and the applicant and Donna's here for help. Thanks, Donna. I can give a quicker overview. We'll try to get you through this one quicker than the last one. Didn't realize we were so popular when there were three people were accusing themselves. So, and I guess for logistics, should I be sharing or what do you want to do as far as the plans? Whatever's simpler. I mean, Scott, did you put this up? I just put this up, Peter. If you want to share, it'll just take me a moment. I'll do that. I'll give a quick overview. I promise to keep it short. Okay. Just hold on a sec. I got to switch your status, Peter. So I join as a panelist. Yeah. So then you, once you do that you can share your screen. Is that how it works, Scott? Yeah. Okay. So you guys should be seeing my screen now. Not yet. Not yet. Oh, sorry. Now we are. Okay. So yeah, Peter Smiery owned the house at 140 Ledge Road with my wife, Nicole Dainey. We moved here in 2018 after 15 years of living on Loomis Street looking for a larger lot and larger house in which to raise our kids which both go to Edmonds. So bought it in 2018. I've been planning a little bit of a remodel project which has been somewhat made a lot more interesting by COVID and things like that. So it's been a funny time to do this project. But I'll give you an overview. The house lies at the corner of Ledge Road which is shown here. So north is up. The house is right here. This is where Prospect sort of swoops down and becomes Ledge Road up by the country club. And then as you come down hill toward the west there's a right hand turn into a dead end street here which is Edgewood Lane which has five other homes on it and our house is the corner lot on that property. So it's an existing craft some bungalow. I'll show you some quick pictures. These are ones that were submitted with the application. So I don't know how well they'll show up on your screen but this is the view from Ledge Road. This is the Southern facade. This is sort of a view from the south. Standing at this looking at the Southern and Western facades. This addition was built in I believe 92 in the early 90s by the previous owner. You can see now we have some sort of mismatched windows that were put in we believe in the 70s. The ground floor of the house in here remains more or less appears to be more or less original. And then here's a view from the west. So this is standing on Edgewood Lane. And so this is our yard off of Edgewood Lane. We have a small garage to the north of the house. You can see that sunroom addition. Just while we have the benefit of the picture up I'll show you that we're proposing a shed addition right here on the back on the upstairs. And then this is that view from the back as we're calling the area of renovation. So again, the sunroom for reference this is sort of a north side and the west side. You can see an existing gable dormer there. And then this is a three season porch for not sure if it's original or not but three season porch off of that side and then our driveway and yard. Going back to I guess I'm gonna step into the site plans now. Well, why don't I just tell you what we're doing? So what we would like to do is the house is very tired upstairs. It looks like it was last remodeled probably 30 years ago. It's electric baseboard heat. The windows are rotting out. I mean, the place we bought it was very tired. Needs a lot of work as does the kitchen which is pretty beat up as well. So we'd like to renovate the upstairs and the kitchen and put a couple bathrooms in and renovate a bathroom. So that's the project. We I'll show you quickly just in terms of drawing views. This is the existing south elevation. We're not making many changes there except the window here, existing west elevation. And we talked about some of the mismatching windows in the addition. This is the kitchen here, three season porch. This is the north side where we'd be doing most of the work. I see the three season porch is shown here and the existing east side of the house which wasn't in the pictures but this the but the property. We don't really see this much from the street but you can see the three season porch again and the existing dormers on either side of the house. And these are bedrooms upstairs that have these small old casement windows. So as far as what we're proposing, again, not much on the south. We'd like to put a new window in there. Part of what we're trying to do is sort of clean up the windows and give a more comprehensive look to the house and have some of the windows match. So we're trying to correct some of the ills of the past that were done to the house over the years. This really shows you a view of what we'd like to do. So removal of the three season porch and replace it with a four season mudroom and kitchen to expand the kitchen. The advantage of that is it lets us leave this downstairs alone. We have some nice coffered ceilings in here and this area really doesn't need much at all. So rather than try to make space downstairs by going into that space and sort of tearing up the old stuff, if we bump the kitchen out a little bit that's a very efficient way to get some more space downstairs. And then what we would like to do here is add a shed dormer off the back. We've chosen this side of the house, of course, just because it's the least visible from the corner streets. And it gives us some room to get a reasonable bathroom upstairs and give us some more room to circulate around in here. There's no increase in the number of bedrooms but it just gives us a ceiling height and some much more functioning space for the family. And then, so this is a view of the north side of the same dormer. We're gonna differentiate the materials a little bit. The house is stucco now. We don't necessarily want more stucco and partly due to a lack of craftspeople who can use it well or are willing to do it for us. But we're looking at some hardy board siding on the side here to try to give a somewhat modern look but while still sort of honoring the craftsman feel. So I think that's probably a good overview of the project. So the challenge we have is when Brad, as you mentioned, we have an unusual situation with the front yard setback. So the house is 100 years old and sort of sits where it does. But when we calculate them per the bylaw, it's the two adjacent properties. And you can see the two adjacent properties on ledge road are basically behind our property line. So it puts our front yard setback behind our house, more or less. And so that's why we're here. We're requesting a variance for the front yard setback off of ledge road to allow us to do the work on the back of the house. There is no increase in footprint here aside from a small little piece of additional pavement or walkway that's gonna go into access the new door location. I can show you that on the next plan here. So this is proposed site plan. So the proposed site plan shows that additional area shows where the new porch would be. And it really sits on top of an existing concrete slab that's back there. So not much change in lot coverage aside from this, but we're well under our level because we have a good size lot. So I'm gonna stop there. That's our overview. And I'll leave it, I'll leave it at that. Unless Mary the board feels there's more information we should be going over. Okay. You know, the setback is an odd thing that you're inheriting. I guess it's one of those things that's not of your making. So are there questions from members of the board at this point, the applicant? I'm gonna, I can't see people. So I'm gonna have to speak up if you have something to say. I'm gonna, I have a question. And maybe this is for Mary as much as for the applicant. This is that realm where one's supposed to differentiate between new and existing. But I see that a lot of the new windows appear to be double hung windows. Is that right, Peter? We're doing a blend. Let me look here. No, they just look so different. You've got the sort of transom look on the top and you do it a double hung window. They just, they look sort of jar. I mean, that side there is all, you know the matching the casement windows, right? That's there. Yeah, I mean, the windows, there aren't many original windows left on the house. Style-wise. Yeah, style-wise. And we, yeah. So we went with what there's, you know, we call it our understanding is it's called like a cottage style with the glass cuts here. So yes, these are all casements to match these. We like these just letting in more light. So was the comment more on the east? East and north. Okay, so north. Yeah, I mean, that looks just the windows on the dorma look very strange. On the east elevation. Sorry, this is Donna Church chiming in. Those three windows downstairs are already double hunks. Those are existing windows. Existing double hunks. We're just changing. They had a different pattern for the window style slightly. So we were changing them to new windows because we're trying to put all new windows and make it, you know, a better, more efficient house. So that's partially why like the house already has a variety of window types in it. So with having those on this side, we've matched it up above and then wrapped the corner because, you know, on the rear, there was also an existing double hung window. I think particularly on the east side, what we were trying to do is I don't, I'd have to confirm, but I'm not sure if we can get an insert casement. I mean, we would like to go with casements, but the inserts here seem to want to be double hunks. And so we tried to match the double hung with the upper. Usually insert, you're throwing a replacement like that was what you did. Yes, yes, sorry. You can get those in different sizes. I don't think that's a determining fact. It may not matter. It may not, I don't know if that's how relevant that is to our review, it may come in. Just to me, it was the way they did it before with the months in pattern and the double hunks was just a little bit less jarring than this month in pattern that you have here, but. One challenge is we are finding that those windows to replace those have a 20 to 25 week lead time right now. And that's been our challenge. We've been wanting to go with quite frankly, maybe some other window choices, but the reality is that it puts us out several months and makes our project unviable. The project's already sat for a year because of finding a contractor during COVID. So I know it's not a very exciting answer, but the realities are we have supply chain issues that are affecting our projects. It is true. And they'll deliver us that way out there. Okay. And the ones on the north side, you just felt those are better suited for the project of double hunks. On the north. Yeah. It's really the same consideration. I mean, we'll, we just found that this, the Marvin signatures were not available and we can't get that sort of prairie style cut glass cuts in the signature, we can only get them in like a wood fiberglass within a reasonable amount of time. These are very important to me too. The windows, I'm driving my wife crazy, but I'm having to compromise as well with, with some of these choices, but we think we're trying to make it as cohesive as possible around the house. And these two sides are the sides of house and our furthest from the street. They're more sort of on the east and north. So this is how we ended up going this direction. Are we looking at two bedrooms in that dorm or facing north? These are actually two bathrooms and a hallway. Okay. Any other questions for the board at this point? Can I go through everybody here? I think we're sort of all quite on it. And it's a nice looking house. It's a, you know, I admired it, ledger out quite often and we love this house. We feel very lucky to be able to have grabbed it when it came up. Yeah. And it's just an unusual thing that staying within the footprint requires you to come before the board to get a variant. So, yeah, that. Okay. So unless there's anything that you want to add or any other questions from members of the board, and again, we will probably deliberate at the end of tonight's meeting. Okay. I will close public hearing at this point. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. So next thing is 166 East Avenue. And that person's coming back. Is that public comment? Is that somebody participating in this? Got? Yeah. We don't hear anyone else. I see. That's public. Is, so is the applicant here for 166 East Avenue? I am looking for the applicant and I don't see her. If, yeah, I don't see the applicant here, Brad. If for a chance you're here representing the applicant, raise your hand. Yeah. Now, do we want to go to the other agenda item and then circle back to this and see if the applicant appears? Sure. Sure. Go to 81 Dunder Road. Yeah. Is the applicant here for that? Yep. Yeah, Jonathan Heller. Jonathan, you can speak. At least one other Tom Walsh and perhaps some others who want to speak. So is this just a point of clarification, Scott? Is this a public hearing or is it some sort of a meeting? Mm-hmm. Stay here, though. It's not a public hearing. It's just an informational thing, so we'll find you out. This is not a public hearing per se, but this is in follow-up to the board's amended permit condition about a timeline for installing the fence. So it's basically a check-in. Folks can weigh in if they want. Okay. So, and somebody's here besides Jonathan, is that right? Yeah, we have Tom Walsh and maybe one or two other folks. Okay. And they'll have the ability to speak when they're ready for them. Okay. So, Jonathan, it looks like you decided to move ahead on this on your own and you're making some progress. Is that right? Yeah. And with the commitment to finish, what's your finished state that you're supposed to hit? Can you refresh me? December 17th is the date that the board put on for a finished date. Okay. And how do you think you're doing on that? I'm doing great. What do you think you're gonna finish by? Probably about two weeks, I'd say, barring strange weather or COVID complications. Okay. And you sent a picture of what you are expecting to finish fence to look like. Correct. Horizontal boarding. Excuse me? And the horizontal boarding. Do you have all the materials on site at this point? Correct. You do. Okay. Well, actually I'm still waiting for some stainless steel nails, but they're supposed to come in tomorrow. Ah, okay. Good. So, I think, yeah, everything else is on site. Okay. Questions from the board for the applicants here? No. Okay. I have to hear the public comment. Yeah. Okay. So we have Jonathan take a moment to hear who, you said Tom Walsh is here and somebody else. Is that true? Yeah. I made the assumptions that Tom and others might want to speak. So if you actually want to speak on this item, raise your hand, please. And so I can enable you to speak. So Tom Walsh does want to speak. So Tom. Oh, Tom. Please speak. Hello, everyone. I just have three questions. As I understand it, there's no zoning permit or building permit required for the fence. From the site plan, it's hard to tell. I assume this fence is offset from the property line. And if it is, how far? My second question is, what will the finished height of the fence be? And thirdly, on what side of the posts will the horizontal wood pieces be fixed? Good question. I will note that the standard on fences, I believe this is true, Scott, or Ryan, I mean, if I'm wrong, but the finished side of the fence has to face the neighbors. That's correct. Yes. So the boards will be facing your side, Tom. Okay. The other questions we'll have to add. Those are three questions? Yes. Okay. Let's pose them right now to Jonathan. So what is the height of this? Well, it's going to range in height from, I'd say between three to nine, possibly nine foot, two, three inches at one point. I'm not sure. What were the other questions? What's determining the height? Yeah. Code and privacy? So when it's three foot nine, that doesn't sound like you're getting much privacy out of it. Well, it has to be three feet. It can be no taller than three feet for the first two sections of the fence. That's the clear sight triangle that's required for driveway. Okay. So it's standard. Yeah. And then after that, Jonathan? From there, it's going to jump up to about eight feet. I actually don't have enough materials to go eight feet. I have enough materials to go six feet, but I have posts installed to go eight feet. So I'm planning to bring it up, hopefully when I'm fully complete, so I can bring it up to six feet within two weeks. I can't get to eight feet within two weeks. Okay. And the other question was, how far off your property line are you with the fence? Approximately two feet. So you're two feet onto your side of the property. Correct. Good. I'm not going through back and forth things, but I think those, was that that was the only things you were going to ask Tom? Is that true? That is true. And as far as I'm concerned, the higher the better, because that'll just be more privacy for all. So I'm fine with that. Right. And was there somebody else, Scott, who wanted to speak? They raised their hand, Brad. Pardon? No one else has raised their hand. Okay. No, is the answer. So I guess this is going to be a question for the board. Just, my tendency is to say, well, gee, let's at least get a progress report in two or three weeks, some photos or something submitted just to the staff, just to make sure progress is happening. I guess that's something we can do in deliberative. So, so I think that's a, unless the board, anybody on the board has questions for the applicant. Well, thank you for attending, Jonathan. Thank you guys for your time. Okay. Good. Then we'll go back to our other agenda item, which is 166 East Avenue. She's still not here, the applicant. Let's hear her. Okay. Can we just continue this to another agenda? Yeah. October 5th, I think it's the next year, what do you mean, next available? Do we need a motion to do that? Yeah. Does somebody want to make a motion on that? I'll make a motion. So this is on DP 21481. I move that we continue the hearing to October, did you say 5th? Yeah. October 5th. So second on that, Keenan, you're a close chase. Okay, any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? That's again a unanimous. Okay. And we have no article eight overview, which I know everybody. That'll be 921, David White. Everybody's disappointed about that, but we'll have to wait. So we have no other work tonight. Is that true? That's it. Okay. So we will close the development review board meeting. Wait, Scott, wasn't there an article eight overview? That's what we were just talking about. That'll go to September 21. Okay, sorry. That's all right, I understand that. Yeah. Is everybody okay deliberating tonight on the items that we had before us? Sure. Good. Okay, so. Recording stopped. So they seem, my view is everything seemed pretty straightforward tonight. We have Latham Court. I have seen a few of those garages around town. There's one that I know of that is not in danger because it's so far in the back of the property, they don't even have driveway to it anymore. Just a nice little storage thing in the back of the yard. So there's one that's gonna remain. I know that was in good shape. I can understand how it's just hard to use. I guess that was the, that's really the only tension thing. The idea of moving it sounds quite nice, but I'm sure they could reconstruct it for a lot less money than moving it. I mean, I don't feel like they have met the standards of the ordinance. I mean, we can agree or disagree on it, but maybe it's easy when we're saying it's a garage, it doesn't matter as much, but if we say that it's to the community benefit to have the homeowner have a house that they can use better, I feel like that allows us to then say you can demolish any historic home as well under the same standard. There's not different standards for historical home versus the accessory buildings. So I don't see, they have to meet the standards of demolition and the only one that comes close is community-wide benefit. And I don't see how this family having a better house for themselves is a community-wide benefit. I guess it gives me pause when somebody has something that is of so little actual use. Is it really fair to keep it as an artifact of historic nature without any real current purpose? Given the height with dimensions of the building and everything else, you couldn't add on top of it. So you're, I can just leave it as for historic completeness. For me, that's an issue to be addressed in the ordinance, not us deciding to let the ordinance not hold in this case. Where do other people come down on the historic nature of that garage? I don't disagree with you, Caitlin. I also think that I sometimes feel we have to stay in somewhat in the real world. I mean, it's like the person was here for the variance. I mean, variances are really hard to give. They're really not, they're supposed to be rare, but what an oddity that this house has been there a hundred years because of how the ordinance subsequently created. They really have no legal right within the ordinance to do anything to their house. Yeah, I don't have any problems with the 38th Lincoln Court. I mean, I think they did their due diligence to try and find a way to save the garage. They're incorporating many of the design elements of the garage into the new building. It seems like the applicant is putting together potentially useful community resource in the sense that he's testified and said in his materials that they're gonna be doing some bicycle education courses and things like that through the workshop. So to me, I don't see any problem with it. It seems the easiest way to reuse this thing would be if they got a variance on the lot coverage, just move it to another corner of the property and leave it there as a whole garden shed. That would be great, but they can't do that either. Okay, I guess we'll see how people feel about the historic nature of this. If anybody wanna make a motion on 38th Lincoln Court, let's see here. We heard about just waiting. Pardon? But I have my finger on the record button just waiting. Well, I'm trying to get to the... I can make a motion. Okay, great. Recording in progress. So on 38th Latham Court, ZP 21-0918CACU and ZP 21-213. I move that we approve the application and adopt staff's findings and decisions. So a second on that, broke seconds. Okay, I was just looking through it. The conditions approval are pretty straightforward. Any discussion? All in favor, it's gonna be an opposed. One, okay. So we've got three, two, four, six, six to one. Okay, it's approved. Recording stopped. So 140 Ledge Road. Can we skip to Dunder Road since three of us. Oh yeah, okay. Dunder Road, is there anything we need to do on that? There's anything you need to do. I had the condition said come in for a status check when he had a contract and he did. The second half of that is be done by December. So you can request that, I'll say request informally that he give us a status update. I don't think we can do anything formally. I mean, it wasn't public hearing. There wasn't an open permit for us to issue another condition to. So I'm sort of with Scott, we could informally ask can we come back, but I don't think we can actually order him to do anything. So I don't think it's really an action item for us. I agree. So what do we do come December 17th? Do we, what kind of verification do we get then? We want to see that it's done. Yeah. We do, is that a request that's been made to the applicant? That's in the condition that he needs to be done by then. So can we ask that he provide documentation that it's complete by December 17th? We will as staff because that's in the permit condition. Okay. Good. So then we don't need to do anything else on this. Okay. So the people were recused on 1.4 ledger over. Before I step off, I'm recused on that one, but I just, I came in during the intervail application at the very beginning. And I just want the notes to be clear that I did not vote on that. I should have been recused from that. So it may have been unclear since it was a consent item. Thanks, Jeff. Okay. Thank you all. You're welcome. Now we have those of us left. We have 140 ledger over. I really have zero issue with the setback changes. And I don't, I mean, I find the fenestration of the house to be very disappointing given the nature of that house. As bad as the windows were before these to me are worse. And I don't know that we have that. This was not a design advisory board item. Was it, this did not go before the design advisory board. Why not? It's not a design advisory district. The building permit record showed that the upstairs windows, the upstairs had been renovated in 1975, including all new windows. And the conversion of the screen porch to a mudroom was new development. So we were really working within an existing footprint and changes were in locations where there had already been alterations. So there were, although it was, it is listed within the Historic Sites and Structure Survey where changes were proposed, there had been changes previous to now. Otherwise, if those hadn't been made, it would have been a design advisory board. So if they start down the wrong path, they get to continue this basic message. Well, once windows are changed, then it becomes the property owner's discretion. Okay. Well, let me go back to the staff report here because this is really just mainly about the setbacks in the staff report here. I get to it, yes. Yeah. It's basically the variance approval. That's really what we're approving here. Yeah, I know. Okay. So, as disappointed as I am, I'm gonna make an emotion on this. Recording in progress. Okay, on ZP 21, 611, 140, Ledger Road, I move that we approve the variance request and the conditions of approval. Is there a second? We'll second. Brooks. Any discussion on this one? I guess, yeah, other than the windows, it's a nice house. Anyways, okay. All in favor? Opposed? One, two, three, four. Four is approved. Recording stopped. Okay. All right. Good meeting. So, next time. Yeah. Take care, everyone here. Very good. Yeah, much, much.