 Here's that 7 p.m. call this August 15th or 16th 15th meeting of the DRB to order and like to introduce the board members starting at my right Sharon Allen, Kevin O'Connell, Meredith Crandall staff. Rob Goodwin the chair. Captain Burgess. Abby white. We have our zoom platform we have. Joe cannon. Here's the. Five of us six of us this evening. Perfect. Okay. So moving on to the next item. We'll have Meredith give us a brief overview of our remote meeting procedures and process. Okay, so this little David, this will be mostly for you but it's also for people who are watching the meeting over Orca media. I'm going to be sharing my screen here. The stuff on the screen is definitely for people over Orca media. So, for those viewing this meeting over Orca media you can participate in tonight's DRB meeting using the zoom platform you can either type this link into your web browser, or you can call into the meeting using this phone number and meeting ID. This will let you both listen to the meeting, as well as ask questions or otherwise comment on the items before the board. If you're having problems accessing the meeting please email me this email address and Crandall at Montpelier hyphen vt.org I'll be monitoring my email throughout the meeting. For those attending via zoom turning your video on as optional for everyone attending please keep your microphone on mute when you're not speaking this will reduce background noise and otherwise keep things from getting too crazy. So please reserve the zoom chat function just for troubleshooting or logistics questions. If you have a question or comment or David if you have something you want to add in to what's going on here. You can raise your hand physically will be watching the screen. And we'll, we'll call on you at that point will also make sure that you have an opportunity to add anything that you might need to for to the application your attorney Chris smart is here in the room. So in the event the public is unable to access this meeting, it will need to be continued to a time and place certain because the online access was provided as a way to be involved in the meeting in the public notice. I'll now hand the meeting back over to the chair. Okay, thank you Meredith. I have a few comments this evening want to thank ever all the board members for coming in here I think we have a have a quorum in the room. That's going to, you know, make things move pretty smoothly this evening. So I think update on really any changes to our policy related to cove it or how we operate but you know I think that I'll just stress that you know I think that things do move smoother when we have a quorum in the room but totally fine that you've got other commitments to operate on the zoom prop platform or like that. So if we could just like maybe communicate ahead of time it's just like a goal of having us here and if not that's fine but I think that just organically working that way might just move a little bit smoother. So that's all I had that and then we have two applications this evening. One is a boundary line adjustment to 172 Chet's not Hill and the other is a appeal of the zoning administrator decision for for not happening. So that one so when after your comments when we get to approval of the agenda. The, the appeal was withdrawn on Thursday after we'd circulated the agendas posted everything distributed materials. So that is not happening. Because it had already been publicly noticed we weren't going to go and tweak the agenda and redo all the packets in case someone showed up. Perfect. So it's it's withdrawn. It's not to be continued. Right. It's completely withdrawn the appellant withdrew their appeal. Okay. Right. So with that I will accept approval or an amendment to the agenda for tonight's meeting. So move. We have a motion by Kevin and a second by Sharon to approve an amended agenda for tonight's meeting. Removing the forthcoming street application from the agenda as it was withdrawn. Sharon, how do you vote. Yes, Kevin. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Rob votes. Yes. We have a agenda with only one item in the agenda tonight for one application. So, you would like to step up. We're going to proceed to the minutes. We're going to bump the minutes. Oh my gosh. Get the good business out of the way. We'll do, we'll do the minutes now. I'm looking at the August 1st minutes. Just the one I have up. It appears that we have enough members here to approve these. Easily. So anyone have a motion and make a motion to approve. Sharon clarification, which, which minutes are we. August 1st. August 1st. August 1st. August 1st. August 1st. August 1st. August 1st. August 1st. August 1st. August 1st. August 1st. August 1st. August 1st. August 1st. August 1st. Yes. Seven seconds. All right, Sharon, how do you vote. Yes. Kevin. Yes. I was not in attendance. No. I was not here. Joe was here. No, Rob. I don't think I was here last time. No. No. I mean it's technically you guys can actually vote on these minutes, but I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know what you're saying. So it's. It's kind of up to you how you want to do that. Yeah, with it. But if we don't vote, then. Can they be approved? Not really. Because it's, then it's, it's only three people voting. I think. I mean, you need four. DRB members to vote. Yes. To get an approval on anything. We have a majority of the people who were at that meeting here in attendance. So as long as one of you feels comfortable voting for it, because you don't see any typos. Right. You can get four yeses and it goes. You don't have to have been here to vote. For the minutes. I would have kicked to the next meeting, but I miscounted on the list. Okay. Okay. I'm good with that. And are the rules of procedure don't actually specify anything about the number you need to approve minutes. Okay. Okay. Nope. So. We have a vote from Joe. Abby or Catherine. I'll vote. Yes. I'm willing to vote. Yeah. Yeah. Stick my neck out there and vote. Yes. Yes. We have minutes for. August 1st. Yeah. I mean, I think in the future, we will try to hold these at least for one meeting to get the majority of the votes. I apologize for that. I thought we had four on that list. Normally I would. At least postpone at one meeting, but. So that was my bad. So we have four for the July 18th. Yeah. So. Folks have had a chance to review the July 18 minutes. I will accept a motion for that. I'll make a motion. Yeah. I think in the future we will try to hold these at least for one meeting to get a majority of the votes. I'll make a motion. Yeah. I'll second. By Abby. Second by Catherine. Abby, how do you vote? Yeah. Catherine. Yes. Joe. Yes. Kevin. Abstain. Yes. Sharon votes. Yes. Rob votes. Yes. So that is a five. Yeses and one. Abstention. And that passes. We have minutes for July 18. Okay. Now. We will move to the first order of business on our. Main agenda for the evening, which is 172. Chestnut Hill. You would like to introduce yourself and I will. So. Good evening. My name is Christopher smart. I'm the attorney for David and Adrian Brownley, the applicants. I want to start by just saying, thank you for having us. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for having us and entertainings. This application. And to the board. Also just for your public service because I know this is a volunteer position. And that takes a lot of time. Once a long time ago, I sat behind this. And one of these seats over here. I can't remember which one. Anyway, thank you. So I have submitted a bunch of materials. Have you had a chance to see the materials? I don't know. I don't have to anyone providing testimony tonight. We're going to have to swear in witnesses. Okay. Sure. But we wanted to make sure we got names on the record. Okay. So. But. The attorneys aren't sworn in. We're after now because we're not really witnesses. Yeah. But. Your client. I don't. If he has any, if he says anything. Okay, we'll swear in the record. So David. We're going to swear you in. I'm not. They are. I swear. We'll get this over quickly. Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury. Yes, I do. Thank you very much. Excellent. And so. With that out of the way, the floor is yours to present the chestnut hill. Since you were already doing a introduction, we're going to move on to the next slide. And I'm going to let you go and then Meredith can get a little. Summary and we'll move from there. Right. So. I provided a bunch of materials and I'm sure that Meredith has enhanced the whole presentation because she's very good at her job. Also, we've been working and I'm very grateful for the city staff who we came to many months ago to talk about how we might go through this procedure. And they came up with some really good ideas and we've been working with them. And in general, we're just talking about. We'll call this a boundary line adjustment with a zinger. All right. Or a twist, if you like. So the boundary adjustments, pretty simple. The Brownlee's own two parcels that a butt. One is quite large. And they like to take. It's like 13.6 acres and I can take a half acre from that. And at augment an existing residential lot. And I can take a half acre from that. And I can take a half acre from that. At 172 Chestnut Hill. And it, as far as zoning goes, it doesn't have any adverse effect on setbacks. If anything, it enhances it a bit. A street frontage lot size coverage. All there's no adverse effects as far as I can tell on many of those. So it'd normally be a very easy thing to approve. But there happens to be this. The city would have to weigh in. And that's why we would propose that we have you. Condition it because that would be appropriate on the city, approving it. Because if the city refused to approve it, then I don't think we could do the boundary line adjustment. Now I've, I've, I've, I've, I've, I've, I've, I've, I've, I've, I've, I've, I've, I've, I've. Now I've provided these materials for you all. And I know that being diligent servants, you guys have probably seen enough here. I don't want to rehash everything because. I imagine that you probably know what you're doing already. I would be happy though to take any questions or. Dealing with this. I think it can be helpful, I think for the record. through and point to the- I can pull things up, that's no problem. I can pull it up and then you can just sort of show me where to point. Okay, go. Can I do one little preview thing? Just for everybody can guess. So this is a reminder procedurally. Normally boundary line adjustments are approved by the zoning administrator. You guys never see them. But because this boundary line adjustment, if it were just straight up approved, would technically be in violation of a prior permit requirement, which was the open space agreement for an earlier subdivision, I couldn't approve it. That is the only reason that is before you because it has to be a conditional approval. That's the only reason you're seeing this at all. All right, let me, I think, Chris, if you're okay with it, what I'm gonna actually share first is one of the maps you have with let me just pull it up. Give it a second. It'll show on your little screen as well as the big ones. I think this is the most illustrative. I agree. We can go to the surveys later if we need to. Right, yeah, that's the one I particularly printed off. Yeah, this one is really, really helpful. So there we go. So what we have here is we have the Brownlee home lot which is right there. It's a trying a wedge-shaped lot, 172 Chestnut Hill Road. And then there's the big brown, what it's labeled here is the Brownlee field, which is an undeveloped lot except for the city's pump station down there that is 13.6 acres. If you imagine for a second, you can see here in this picture where we have the black box which is a rectangular shape with the hatches right there. Meredith is showing you. And if you just imagine that off this screen for a minute, the combination of the yellow and green highlighted areas on that Brownlee field are what is presently subject to this open space restriction. Of interest, you can see on this map, this was produced from ANR's website. It has rough approximations of the elevations. Those are those yellow lines that kind of cross across the parcel at regular intervals. And you're going downhill, going right to left. So you can see that from the perspective of anybody who would enjoy the open space restriction, obviously the Brownleys themselves would on their existing lot. And then this lot right below them, which in another, which I've referred to in the materials and on another graphic as lot M would also be affected by the taking out of the open space restriction of that little yellow area. So the hatched area is what they'd like to do to augment the home parcel. And the part of that hatched area that would affect the open space restriction is the yellow highlighted area. And so my point is that the people that would be impacted other than the Brownleys by that being removed from the open space restriction would be primarily that lot there, which is designated in the materials as lot M. A little less obvious would be the one below them, I suppose a lot L in the materials and even less so the one below that lot K. So we went at the city's recommendation and we sent out letters to all of the abutting lot owners of the Brownleys field, lots A through O. And we explained what we were doing. We provided this graphic among others and invited them if they had any concerns to contact us. We had one response to those letters that were not lots M through K. And it came from the one that is just below at the bottom of the Brownleys field next to the pump station, that lot sent an email of consent. They thought it was fine. Nobody else provided any feedback to us. As for lots M, L and K, the ones immediately down street from the Brownleys home parcel, the Brownleys got from them and they're in the materials, letters supporting the application. And then I sent them afterwards just to make sure they really understood everything. Another letter set including this graphic so that they, if they had any questions about what they had consented to, they knew that. As far as we know, they're still on board with the idea of both you approving this conditionally and us getting the city to take that restriction off there. So I think, yeah, that's great overview. Thank you. What's going on? Just to get us oriented. I mean, I guess I defer to board members how you want to proceed here, but my understanding is that our scope is pretty narrow. It really comes to the fact that there is this language is Kevin. Yeah, I just, why was it conditioned in the first place? Yeah. Yeah. No, I'm serious. Do you know the answer to that? I think Meredith kind of gave it, alluded to it earlier. I think it'd be like this. It's that there's a, and it's a little funky because the city has an agreement that prohibits, does it prohibit subdivision? It's surely prohibits building, but we were a little fearful that we had to like deal with it at once. And also, frankly, we wanted to be upfront with you all about what we were trying to accomplish. And I was a little worried that you might get blowback from if we didn't do this in the right order, we might, you might've gotten blowback from the city council. So it just seemed better to like try to get you guys to do it on a conditional basis. That way, the only way you approve this is if that goes to, I think there is an argument that the subdivision, because technically there's already, actually I'm gonna strike that, there's already a shed in that area that supports the home. They didn't mean anything by it, but it would technically be a structure. Go ahead, Meredith, I'm sorry. Thanks. So I'm gonna redirect just a minute because I can answer, I think, Kevin, your question. So this Brownlee field was originally part of a subdivision that involved this parcel down here. It was the done subdivision back in 2000. And so there were a subdivision of four parcels. And there was gonna be a, like an Airbnb and three other single-family homes. And back then under the zoning regulations, when you had this many parcels, the board could at the time require that a certain amount of land be kept as open space. And so the city entered into an open space agreement for what was then considered to be parcel three, which this green part on the diagram was part of parcel three. Almost none of that subdivision was actually built. The Airbnb didn't get built. I think only one single-family home got built out of it. And eventually the Brownleys bought what was originally parcel four and parcel three from the Dunns, which is now the Brownlee field and owned all of it. And in the whole process of then owning all of that, I think the open space agreement got kind of lost in the shuffle. It never actually was voided though. It is still a condition on that prior permit. It appears to be to be like in the historic anomaly. Exactly. Yep, that's a perfect example of what it is. And it's also something that, you know, currently the board wouldn't be adding that as a condition. They wouldn't be doing that kind of agreement at all anymore, but it's still there and on the books. So that's why it's here. We should just deal with it. If I understand this correctly. So you're saying the Brownlee field is shown on here as a single parcel of land was once an approved subdivision into multiple other lots. And there was an open space agreement that conditioned on that subdivision with the open space agreement still exists, but the lots do not exist because... Lots do not exist as originally subdivided anymore, correct. They have since been a boundary line adjustment and sales to different people and the old development of those parcels that was originally planned did not happen. But these outer boundary lines for the Brownlee field, those still match up with most of what were parcel four and parcel three. So nothing never happened that got rid of the open space agreement. And there was nothing in the open space agreement or the subdivision approval that would have just nixed it because other conditions weren't met. Trust me, Chris and they both left town. We both tried to find something, but it wasn't there. So we're here before the board. They're here before the board. Yeah. Okay. So Meredith, you hadn't had a chance to kind of get into detail here. Are there any key questions? I mean, it seems like we've discussed the key question here. Yeah. And I guess maybe my key question still doubling down was that did any development or any action happen based on the approval of that four lot subdivision where this open space agreement happened? So what do you mean? So you have what is what they call it, the done subdivision that this, the done subdivision existed. Yep. My understanding is that there maybe was one other or two other boundary line adjustments that shipped into Brownlee field. I think one other, one other boundary line adjustment that adjusted that green section, right? Eventually at one point went down. All the way to the lot below it. Yep. All the way to that. Including the lot below it. Yes, the upside down L-shaped lot below it. So potentially that line that maybe used to go straight across and now it kind of ups up to a 90 and 90 degrees into the field green section. This went down to here. Oh, okay. Okay. And then it actually, it connected to this. Okay. So when the Dunns sold this, what was parcel three to the Brownleys, they moved this, they did a boundary line adjustment. It's actually, it's in your packet. That boundary line adjustment survey is in your packet. Yeah. So basically the field, Brownlee field got larger in some ways. Brownlee field was created by merging parcel four from the done subdivision with almost all of parcel three, which also parcel three now with the Brownlee field also includes a city water pump station. So the city has a continuous easement for their station and to get access to it. That satisfies my concern. Given my line of work, they probably make these things more complicated than needed but I forgot the answer that I need there in my head. So, does anyone else have any other questions? I just wanted to clarify that what you said, you know, if this was contingent on something else prior, did any of that happen? And should we mess with it a bit? Clearly sounds like it's fine in this instance. Thank you, nation. Where is we can tell whether the council will agree? I have no idea, but hopefully, hopefully we've packaged it all up nice and neat. And so I guess one last thing. So the nature of the open space, it's open space, but not for public use, right? Correct. It's more like a view easement of a sorts, but it's a public one. It's not like usually view easements are thought between private landowners. It's a condition, a zoning condition to the use of the land. So it's a public imposed view easement. So the people, even though the Brownleys happened to allow people to use the lot recreationally for years, there's not a right for them to use that area. It's just a right to not have things built there that the right actually does invest in private owners invest in the city. The city of Montpelier is literally a party to that agreement. And it was signed, I believe, by the PC chair at the time, right? On behalf of the city, which is a little funky itself. Yeah, it is. Yeah. Well, I have a question just about the water pump station. I mean, does that factor into any of this or is this just there? Yeah, it's just there. It's not subject to the open space agreement part. Department of Public Works has looked at this. They have no issues with what's going on, but none of this is going to impact the Department of Public Works needs or... Do you see on the diagram where the pump station is? Can that be pointed out? Yeah. It's way down at the bottom of the lot. So that's the pump station. Way down there. And the water pipes actually go down. So there's no infrastructure that crosses the field. It's all down low. Okay. We'll just give that share so we can see David and Joe. David has anything to add? David, do you have anything to add here? Yeah, I would if I'm allowed. Absolutely. I know I'm still sweared to be in there, but I want to thank Meredith first of all for all her hard work. But it's a simple thing for me is that we straddled that open space agreement and we're just trying to add a half an acre to the house lot because technically right now, if I'm 63, and my wife is getting older too, and if we just want to be able to have our kids be able to sell each piece of property individually because it gets a little complicated because technically I'm the sole owner of the field. And technically Adrian is the sole owner of the house. So all I'm trying to do is seed a half an acre, which has been this way for 12 years. I paid taxes on it and have had it brush hogged every year and the neighbors enjoy it. Kids slide in it and stuff because it's a nice hill. But anyway, that's it. That's as simple as it is because I'm just want my kids to be able, when my wife and I pass on, as we're in our 60s, just to be able to sell each piece independently because I don't know if one of them wants the house and that's all their problem. But I didn't wanna have to have them deal with this stuff. And the field's been the way I bought it 12 years ago. I think I bought it in 2010 and it's 22 now. And nothing's changed. I just mow it and pay taxes on it. And there's some wetlands in there and we don't even mow it until the deer have finished nesting in there because they like to nest in there. So it's as simple as that. I just want my kids not to have a burden upon my wife and I's demise. Simple as that. Thanks. Couple. Joe, you have anything to add here? No, I'm good. This time I would accept a motion unless folks would like some time to discuss this deliberative session. However, the board would like to proceed. How would we force the- Look at the last page of your staff report. Right there. Got some kind of lengthy conditions, but the second one's fairly standard for approval of boundary line adjustment or subdivision. The first one's the one that's a little funkier, but try to work in a time limit in case just trying to get something on council agenda. Let me read this into the record. The motion to approve the requested boundary line adjustment to shift approximately 0.5 acres from Zero Easy Street to 172 Chestnut Hill Road as presented in application number Z-2022-0088 and supporting materials subject to the following condition of approval. One, within one year of this decision and prior to permit issuance, applicants shall request and obtain approval from the Montpelier City Council to reduce the area of land governed by the OSA as proposed herein. Two, within 180 days of permit issuance, applicants shall record the final survey plat in the Montpelier Land Records Office per the procedures detailed in 4405 of the zoning regulations as modified by Chapter 3510 for boundary line adjustments, including the locations of all applicable survey rods and markers for the record. I second that. We have a motion by Kevin and a second by Sharon. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, proceed to a vote. Sharon, how do you vote? Ah, yes. Kevin? Yes. Joe? Yes. Catherine? Yes. Yes. And Rob, myself votes yes. That is unanimously approved. Thank you very much. I'd like to thank the Board myself and my kids would too. Julie noted. You're welcome, David. Just as a, so David and Chris know, so this was your vote. The official decision has to wait till the written decision comes out. We'll get that too as soon as we can. And then feel free to coordinate with both me and I guess I'll be the city manager's office to get this all before city council once we have the written decision. Thank you, Meredith. And you've done a great job and we're really grateful for your shepherding, you know, giving us advice about how to negotiate this process and for the explanation tonight, which I was not doing a good job. You did a fine job. Very good. That's it. Good. You guys are free to go. Have a great evening, everybody. Thank you. You too. Thanks. Thank you very much. I just want to make note of Meredith's fine work in this outlining and providing a solution. You're welcome. Perfect. So I guess there's a note here. Take attendance on the other business. This is related to a new pilot program. I think you guys saw an email about related to the city council. I don't know all the details or maybe I know the details, but can't explain them super well, but there's a new stipend program that you can fill out paperwork at city hall and enroll yourself in, which I have not done yet, but Meredith, if you have anything to add on that and you know any more info. No, just that, you know, if you're interested in the stipend program, you can reach out to either myself or Cameron Niedermeyer, the assistant city manager to get the paperwork who applies for the stipend and doesn't is completely confidential. It just means that once that starts happening for a committee commission or board for the city, we have to start officially taking attendance and filing attendance forms for the entire entity with the city manager's office. And then they process those stipends. But so that's gonna start appearing on agendas as committees do that just as a reminder, because it's a new form, something new for staff or board chairs to make sure that happens. So. Do they specify when you're supposed to take attendance? Does it? No, it just some, it has to be some point during it. And so for all the committees that I staff, I've just started sticking it in under other business as something to just remind myself to have filled out the form. And I would say is that attendance impacted just by those accepting the stipend or is it a board-wide exercise? I will be taking, I will be taking, like writing down everybody who attended. Which we already do. Right, because I don't get notified who actually applied for the stipend. But my point is that we already do take attendance. Yeah, it's a specific form that I specifically have to then send this alone to, so it's honestly, it's a reminder for me. Sure. This is government Kevin, there's another form. Yeah. There's another form. I have to send it. It's gotta be good. I have to send it in a separate email by itself. So it won't affect any of you and what you're doing. You take attendance yet? Yes, I did. So anyway, that's done. You don't need to worry about that being on here anymore. If you're interested in the stipend, I can point you to where the forms are. You can just email Cameron Niedermeyer. Perfect. So yeah, our next meeting is not Monday, September 5th, but Tuesday, September 6th because of, yes. So go ahead. Do we have applications? We do have applications. And just a reminder, not only is it Tuesday, it's not two weeks away, it's three weeks away because August ends on Monday or Tuesday. Oh, we haven't flipped over the big calendars up there. So it's a little funky. You get three weeks in a day before our next meeting. So we do have a sketch plan subdivision application, but that's it. So it should be a fairly light meeting. Just a heads up. When we get into October, I have some out of state obligations. Okay. And I'll keep you up to date on that. Yeah. And I'll email you Meredith, but I'm not able to come up with six. Okay. So yeah, if you could email me, but also email Rob and Sharon that way to help. So we don't need to hang on before coming straight. You do not yet. That is completely withdrawn at this point because they've officially withdrawn it. They cannot like we up the appeal and the appeal period for that termination is done. And so my determination on that matter stands. So that particular matter cannot come up again. All right. I'll accept a motion to adjourn. I'll make a motion to adjourn. All right. Motion by Abby, second by Catherine. Everyone who in favor of adjourning say aye. Aye. Aye. Wonderful. Thank you. I just broke the rules. No, it's okay. It's okay.