 I'm going to call the meeting to order. My name is Kate McCarthy. I'm the chair of the board. And the date is January 19th, 2021. So what I'll do next is introduce the other members of the board. You can unmute and say hello, starting with Joe. I'm Joe. And Rob. Hello. Rob Goodman. Thanks, Roger Kranz. Hi. And then we have Kevin. Greetings. In our vice chair, Jean. Hello. Jean. And I expect we may be joined by another. Board member or two. We'll do introductions and welcome for the. Okay. This is Michael. I'm on the call. Oh, okay, Michael. Thank you. Can you relabel that Meredith? Yeah, that's what I'm doing right now. I was going to wait till I can see if it was him or not. Okay. And Michael, a board member is here as well. Thanks for clarifying that today. You are so electric department, but soon you will be Michael. I'm officially. Yeah. No problem. Okay. Great. So what we were, what we will do next, I'm going to turn it over to Meredith who's going to review our meeting procedures for this, particularly for the benefit of anyone who may be watching on Orca. Who is also here recording the meeting. Okay. I know that there are several members of the public on tonight and in addition to our. Applicants. So I'm going to go through the full field tonight. So first for anyone watching this meeting, or if you're watching there and they said you do want to participate, you can use this zoom meeting link here to get in. You can also call into the meeting using this phone number. And then here's your meeting ID and the password is over here. You might. I don't know if Orca needs to move its. Little window or not. I'm hoping that can show. And if you're having problems accessing the E meeting, please email me at mcrandle at Montpelier. Orca. Orca. So in addition to emailing me, if you have problems accessing the meeting, once you're in the meeting, if you're having difficulties with the video conferencing features, you can use the chat function in zoom. Please keep that to, you know, technical issues. Don't provide comments on actual applications that way. You can use the chat function. Orca. Orca. If that does happen, that'll become part of the public record. The zoom meeting is being recorded as well as streamed live via Orca. Turning on your video is optional. All public testimony will be taken verbally. Please keep your microphone on mute when you're not speaking to reduce background noise. And for anyone participating by phone, you can also use star six, which will not only mute your phone, but you can also use the chat function in zoom. So that you're muted so that we know what's going on. If you're interested in speaking on a particular matter and we're able to say what matter you just wanted to speak on at the beginning when you first logged in. Then please raise your hand when that matter has come up on the agenda. You can either do that physically if you're on video, or you can use the raise hand button on your toolbar. If you're calling in the phone, you can use the chat function. You can also use the chat function. You can also use the chat function to do that. And if for some reason that's all not working. There's a pause in the discussion. You can unmute yourself and state your name and just ask the talk and we'll figure it all out. Once the chairs recognize you to participate, participate, please unmute your microphone. Confirm that you can be heard. And the first time you speak, please make sure to provide your full name and address for the record. If you have any questions or comments, please raise your hand. The DRB members will have the opportunity to respond to those comments or to ask questions of you. The applicant may also have an opportunity to respond to any questions or comments. The chair may grant additional time for speakers who have followed up questions or comments. But then once you're finished, we ask that you please mute your microphone. The chair will then probably move on to somebody else. You do have the option to ask to speak again on either the microphone or the microphone. If you have any questions or comments, please raise your hand. If the public is unable to access this meeting, it will be continued to a time or place certain. If you are having connectivity issues, try turning off the video and just having the audio function or closing other applications that you might have open on your phone or computer. And then also if you want to download the full meeting packet with all the items that will be shown on screen share, you can go and download the full meeting agenda. And that's also just if you're having problems viewing the screen share if you're at home on Orca, you can go there and pull everything up. Please note that all votes taken during this meeting that are not unanimous will be done by roll call vote in accordance with the law. I'm going to now hand this back over to Kate. All right. Thanks, Meredith for that overview. All right. So what we will do next next item on our agenda is item number four, which is approval of the agenda. So I will entertain a motion to approve the agenda. You're on mute, but I think I saw a motion by Kevin. Is there a second? Second. And yes, you did. Great. Working on the lip reading. That works fine. Great. I will call the roll on the, on the motion that has been made to approve the agenda, Joe. Yes. Kevin. Yes. Gene. Yes. Thank you. Rob. Did I get you there? Yes, I saw. Yes. Roger. Yes. Michael. Yes. And I vote yes as well. So we've approved our agenda. Thank you. The next agenda item is comments for the chair from the chair. I do not have any comments. So we'll move on to item six, which is the approval of our minutes from January 4th. Okay. So those who are present tonight who are eligible to vote are myself, Kevin, Rob, Michael, Roger and gene. So having reviewed the minutes, are there any corrections or modifications to the minutes? Okay. I'll take a motion to approve the minutes. To approve. Motion to approve the minutes from Jean. Is there a second? Roger. Okay. Of those eligible to vote. Kevin. Yes. Rob. Yes. Michael. Yes. Roger. Yes. Gene. Yes. And I also vote yes. We've approved the minutes of January 4th. All right. Moving on to the business before us this evening. Okay. So the first item of business on our agenda is 2996 Elm street. And this is final plan review of a two lot subdivision. Pull up my documents here. So anyone who's wishing to participate in this, if they could please join the meeting visually, if that, if they would like. And be ready to unmute otherwise. Okay. Great. Great. Great. So. All right. So the applicant is a Rob Scott. And I want to confirm that Rob is on the, there's Rob. Great. Welcome, Rob. Welcome back. So we first heard from you. I think a month that December. And we are, we, we have reviewed this application under sketch plan review, which was an opportunity to look at the proposal and walk through what information may have been missing or what things board members wanted more clarification on. And based on that review, you've come back with a final subdivision proposal for a second lot at 2996 Elm. So I think that what I would like to do. First, I will ask, is there anyone to be heard on this application? Okay. So in that case, what I will do is I will swear you in Rob. So do you, do you affirm that the testimony you were about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury. Yes, I do. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Rob. All right. So I think what I'd like to do is have Meredith tell us about the updates that are pertinent for her to deliver. And then I'll turn it over to you, Rob Scott to, to tell us, to update us on your application. And then we'll walk through the staff report. So starting with Meredith. I'm not sure I have much of an update per se. I mean, you kind of described the application for anybody who's watching via orca and is interested in this. This is a two lot subdivision of a parcel that's out in the rural district headed out of Montpelier towards the north. And there are no plans at this point for further development of the, what will be the new lot to that is set further back from Elm street. And, you know, my, my review of the additional materials that were brought in, as you can see in the staff report, it seems like all the information we need is here. You need is here to decide on the subdivision. I didn't find any, any holes. And it looks like Rob, in my, my view answered all the questions that were asked during sketch plan, but that is up for, for you all to debate. Okay. Great. Thanks, Meredith. And Rob, is there anything, Rob Scott, is there anything that you'd like to share with us about new information or that you've added since, since we first talked any highlights, we will still go through the staff report, but this is just a chance for you to give an overview if you'd like. Sure. I've had, according to state permitting requirements, I had three test holes dug on the existing three parcel site, which will go with the existing home and soil analyze and came back excellent. And the septic design for that is in the process and will be hopefully submitted to the state tomorrow or the following day. So I'll have to wait on that approval to proceed with the, I'm not really sure how this will, I guess they file it with the state and then the state will email me and then perhaps move ahead with some trying to sell the house. So it's, but yeah, that all went very well. And, but that's it as far as new developments. Great. Thanks. Thanks for that update. One of our jobs, even if there's not a specific proposal before us at the time we review a subdivision, it's our job to make sure that we're not allowing the creation of funky lots that can't be developed. And so that's one of the reasons we asked some of these questions about, about access and about septic suitability and things like that. Great. All right. So if it pleases the board, what we will do is we will look at the staff report, go through and confirm that we have the evidence that we need to review this. Does that work for you board members? All right. Very good. Good nods. All right, great. So it's an existing 12 acre site as we've heard and the proposal is to subdivide into two lots, a little more than existing house, someone that is, is undeveloped. So starting with our general standards, we look at our use dimensional standards and accessory structure standards. These are hard to apply. These cannot be applied because there is not a specific development proposal before us. But what we can confirm is that for the rural district, the parcel being created has the potential to meet all of the standards. And there are uses that can take place on it. Okay. One of the, one of the questions and things that we discussed last time is of course when we create a parcel, you want to make sure it's accessible from the road, not landlocked. And it sounds like it is still the case that the access is going to be veo, it's veo road, right? Which is a class four town highway. Yeah, I know I'd get that wrong. Thank you. And it sounds like in the event that this parcel is developed, it may need to be upgraded in order to meet public works requirements. Absolutely. Yeah, the road will need development and I will work with a DPW to do that. Yes. Okay. Thank you. All right. So then next section is regarding demolition, which is not relevant to this application. Section 3005 is riparian areas. And there is a stream forming the Southwestern boundary. And Meredith, could you help us? Is the best place to view that stream on page five of the staff report the slopes map? Would you say that gives us a good snapshot of the stream relative to the existing parcel? I actually think, and this is a little awkward, sorry. I actually think the best place to view it is on page 11 of the staff report, which is page 15 of the packet. There is an image capture from the ANR Atlas. It's a little small. I can pull it up and zoom in on the screen share if you want. Yeah, I'd appreciate that. Let's see. I said page. So again, there's not a building. There's not a structure being proposed. But I think what we need to be able to confirm as a board is that the parcel is developable with the appropriate buffer for the stream. Is that right, Meredith? Yep. Okay. It's a veio road is over here, right? And then the stream is this thin blue line here along the southern boundary of the property. And this is also where the steeper slopes are on that slopes map based on page five. Okay. The flatter area is here where it's most likely to be developed along veio road. Okay. I can also point out that on the survey plan, that subdivision, the southerly boundary of the property is the stream. And so you can kind of see more detail of where that is. Thank you, Rob. Goodwin. Just a just a general question. Meredith, how far out does the city, water and sewer works on Elm Street? I mean, it's not here. No, I know that I can, I can get that map pulled up separately and pulled out. I thought you might know it right off the top of your head. No, just. I looked when this discussion, you know, when this application first came in, it's quite a ways back. Okay. It's near the, it's near the Turtle Island. That's it. Okay. Yeah, I think it stops. It used to stop at North Park Drive right near the recreational facility. Yeah. Yeah. Just more spread out after that. Okay. Good. Well, that just gives us a reference point, especially for a little bit later in the application. But again, nothing is being proposed right now. So moving on to 3006, wetlands and vernal pools are not documented on the natural resources inventory for Montpeliers. We do not see those on this parcel. Moving on to steep slopes, there are some that are greater than 25%, which would, which are indicated on the map. But the more easily developed area is the one that we just discussed. And so there's no proposal to develop on slopes similarly with erosion control and stormwater management. We cannot assess those impacts because there are no impacts because there's no development being being proposed. Correct. All right. So, um, any questions about any of those from board members? I don't think it's necessarily proven to point out at this time related to conditions. However, the, I think via road does have some steep slopes, um, you know, coming in there and, you know, when it gets upgraded, you know, there may trigger some, some other stuff related to drainage and whatnot. But I don't see it as an issue for the subdivision itself. Okay. But that's never, nevertheless, good to, good to get out there. Thanks. Thanks, Rob. All right. Um, so section 3010 is access and circulation. Um, it's the plate, it's a, it's an existing road. It is within, it meets the requirements for spacing with other roads and driveways. But as we've, as we've discussed and as the staff report notes, um, any upgrades to their road of class four town on road are going to need to be, um, approved by city council. And as the applicant has said, that would be, um, something he understands and would pursue with, with public works. Okay. Um, parking and loading areas. Um, I believe it complies with this because there's going to be a lot of, you know, a lot of, you know, a lot of, you know, a lot of community off street off Elm street parking and nine nine acres available. All right. Any questions about those general standards before we move on to the specific subdivision standards. All right. Thank you. So, um, the first has to do with the capacity of community facilities and utilities. And this is, this is a two lot subdivision, like most likely developed as another home, um, community facilities. Um, community facilities, police, fire, ambulance, infrastructure, street infrastructure, maintenance, parks and recreation, et cetera, will, will be adversely impacted. Um, and we have received a narrative from the applicant saying that the subdivision would not affect these things adversely. Um, or sorry, it's not adverse. The standard is will it cause a disproportionate or unreasonable impact. Um, and I think that that is. Rational that, uh, the likelihood of a single family home, or even if there were four units on that property, um, which is not being proposed, which is just hypothetical, um, the likelihood of a disproportionate or unreasonable impact is, is slim. But, um, I think that would be a good idea. Um, I think that would be a good idea. Or if, if Rob Scott wants to add anything to beyond what's in the narrative. I'm good. Um, yeah, I believe that, uh, if there is development out there, um, it would probably be a single home, single family home. Okay. Great. Thanks. Um, All right. So then we're going to move on to section 3503. Which is suitability of the land. We want to make sure the land can be used without any problems. So, um, So we've discussed steep slopes and the fact that there are non steep slopes that can be developed on. And that parcel two can be developed with, within these standards. Um, the stream would not impede the development. And as I said, we've talked about slopes. So I think suit, I think the land is suitable. Section 3504 is traffic. Um, Which is, We don't have a specific use. So we can't ascertain what the comings and goings would include. However, um, as Meredith wisely points out, given the limited types of development on this parcel, it is unlikely that we're going to see a very intense traffic use. Um, So that, that makes sense. And any questions about traffic? So design and configuration of parcel boundaries. Um, this is to, To make sure that we're kind of replicating the pattern in the area and not creating awkwardly sized properties. Um, Number of standards here that, uh, Staff recommends we find our met. Um, we've avoided a flag shaped lot. We are including acts. There is access off of a road. Um, There at right angles, the lines are at right angles where possible. We're not creating dog legs and things like that. Um, questions about the lot configuration. All right. Design and layout of necessary improvements. Um, This is something we go through though. Sometimes some of these standards are more suited to larger subdivisions. We'll just, we'll check them. Um, streets, not applicable, not being built. Um, So, Um, So, Um, Pedestrian and bicycle bicycle facilities. Um, do not have any internal changes. Uh, that would trigger this water and wastewater facilities. Um, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with or the ability to comply with the state's wastewater system and potable water supply rules. And, um, we heard just now from you, Rob, Rob Scott, that, that the land is your, you've tested the land and you're testing it. Um, The three acre parcel. Oh, and that soil came back. Excellent. Uh, there is suitable, you know, a similar, um, No, I'm not sure. I haven't done, I haven't done any test bits on the nine acre parcel. Um, but, uh, it, It's an old gravel pit, I believe. Um, They, I think they skimmed about 10 or 12 feet of gravel off the upper field to help rebuild or 12. Um, But there is another section that has, you know, soil. Um, a lot of soil. It's, it's wooded. I, you know, I don't have any, um, Any fears that it wouldn't perk in one of many type of static designs available today. But, uh, Um, I know there's a very suitable for it. It's very, very large. Probably a three acre flat, uh, parcel up there. Okay. And the site would, would also be able to meet the state's potable water supply rules because it's not on town water. It would have its own. Wow. Is that right? Yeah. Um, neighbors. Uh, They are. In middle sex. Um, just uphill. Probably. 500 feet from. The field open field area where a house might be built. Uh, They have a, a well built. I think they dug 250 feet for it, but, um, We're at the bottom of East Hill. Um, though there is ample water that does flow down during the spring times. Uh, So I'm, I'm confident that there would be water available. Yeah. Great. Thanks. Any questions about that from board members? Well, I just want one question. Correct me if I'm wrong, but so you're applying for a wastewater permit. Um, Just for the three acre parcel. Um, and deferring the design and permitting of the nine acre parcel. That's correct. Yeah. Okay. So in order as far as meeting this standard, you are, you are attesting to the ability to comply with the state's weight, what wastewater system and potable supply rules, even though you don't have those permits in hand. Yes, correct. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Um, Public and private utilities. Um, no plans for development currently. We've talked about septic systems and drilled while wells and finding those things. Oh, I got ahead of myself before. So sorry to make you repeat what you've written in your narrative. Thanks for it's for our benefit to hear it. You say it. Um, Okay. So public and private utilities we've just discussed and they will be provided. Um, and then that brings us to landscaping. Applicants shall design the subdivision to maximize the preservation of existing mature vegetation and provide additional landscaping as necessary to meet certain certain goals. And the parcel is mostly forested now. Is that correct? Um, There's a mixture of forest and open meadow. Okay. I've been cutting the lawn out there for a few years. To kind of, you know, Propose a building site or, you know, a place to take Nick, basically is all I've been doing with it. Yeah. And, uh, But there's about three, I would say three plus acres. Of flat. Um, Open land. Um, and, uh, yeah. So there's, uh, There's a lot of, um, space. Um, And there's a couple of beautiful sites for home. If someone's going to build a home up there. Um, without really disturbing any vegetation. Um, It was, uh, Uh, You know, I'm not sure what the floor and fauna was, but, uh, You know, It was a good, we grow up every year and then it would flatten down and, you know, Be the law in the next year basically. Um, All right. So, um, One thing I want to ask is whether you would be, um, Open to a condition of final subdivision approval. That would require any for any future development application to include a landscaping plan just to make sure that once something is actually built, These requirements of the subdivision by law are, are met. Would you be open to a condition and you may not even be the person who ultimately. Right. I would. Yes. Okay. All right. Great. So then, um, All right. There are no parks and recreation areas and your two lots of division because that tends not to be the case. Um, Monuments and parcel corner markers are indicated on the final plan. Um, And construction and maintenance of necessary improvements is, is, um, Does not apply to this the scale of subdivision. All right. So we've talked about the landscaping plan that brings us, um, Toward the end of the standards, um, Section 30 507 character of the neighborhood and settlement pattern. Um, This takes a larger parcel and puts it into two, but in doing so, I believe remains consistent with the rural, relatively rural nature, um, of, of this district, mostly residential. Does not involve quality farmland or floodplain. Um, And it seems compatible with the rights rights, the reservoir neighborhood. Um, But DRB members, do you have any, any questions about how this, how this fits in with the area or any concerns you'd like to raise? All right. Thanks. Um, And then section 3508 has to do with renewable energy and energy conservation, um, To ensure that, um, Direct sunlight remains available to construct two buildings on these parcels. Um, And given the size of the parcel and the location of the building, Any future building relative to existing building. Um, They're not going to overlap on each other's sunshine. Okay. Any questions about energy, renewable. Thanks. Energy, Coma renewable and energy comma conservation. Great. Um, so that brings us to natural resource protection. Um, And this is where we talk a little bit more about the, um, the stream. There are a few items on the, on the parcel and the location of the land. Um, Um, The stream there, there are a few items on the, on the parcel. So there's a wildlife corridor on the south side of the parcel along the brook. Um, which the applicant attests will not be expected by the proposed subdivision. We talked about the stream. Uh, the conservation commission's feedback, um, from commission member page Graton is that, um, And a request that any activity on the parcel, Um, The land that exists along the stream for route 12 up to the west of the parcel with a recommendation for a 50 foot forested buffer along the stream for wildlife movement. Um, so we've heard that this is the area that is steeper slopes. Um, It sounds like the wildlife movement is the stream corridors. It's a riparian wildlife corridor. Um, So, um, Um, The zoning is a 50 foot buffer places some limits. Um, I don't know that the board will, will create a 50 foot buffer condition, but Rob, if, if that were to be a part of the conditions would, Would you be open to a 50 foot buffer on, on your side of the stream when we can't do the opposite side of the stream? Absolutely. Yeah. Very, very easily done. Yes. Okay. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. That brings us through our standards. Um, so I will ask if, um, board members have any other questions or comments? I guess I have one question I had, um, and this is about the, uh, process we're going through right now. Why would we need to make a condition to provide a landscaping plan in the future? Wouldn't it be better? Just, I mean, it would be better to have a landscaping plan in the future. And so it would have to be part of any future. Uh, future proposal. So it seems redundant. So Kevin, as I read it and Meredith can definitely correct me. Landscaping is one of the subdivision standards. And those standards won't be brought to bear. When the next person is applying for his own apartment. I see what you're saying. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But Meredith, maybe let's see if Meredith says I'm right. Just a slight clarification on that. If the future zoning request is for either a one or two dwelling unit development, landscaping plan would be required at all. Once we hit a site plan version of development. We're going to have to make sure that you have a landscaping plan. That might trigger landscaping, but we have to bump get into that. And it's a single family home or two dwelling unit doesn't apply. Right. And that's one reason we've been doing this for, for these subdivision approvals where we're like, well, it's only two parcels. They don't know what they're doing yet. It doesn't make sense to have a landscaping plan right now. But in future, if they decided to put two houses in here and they were right. Right. some landscaping to divide up that large meta. Sure, but then then again there's a there's a procedural issue as I see it and that is the ordinance does not require the landscaping plan for one or two. Now in this instance the applicant is willing to go with it and that's you know that's great but I just want to put it out there that that is not necessarily a necessity for the approval. Correct it's not a necessity for the approval it I mean it's that standard applies to all the subdivisions so just saying we're not going to require the landscaping plan is where I get into a bit of the conundrum but you don't you don't need to I mean the ordinance guides us. Right so for for example the subdivision standard is that the applicant shall design the subdivision to maximize the preservation of existing mature vegetation and provide additional landscaping which may be installed when parcels are subsequently developed as necessary to privacy character etc and so this is the way with a condition like that that's the only way that we can ensure for a subdivision a two law subdivision that that takes place but I think I hear you saying Kevin that that may feel like a bit of an internal contradiction given that we can't do site plan review right one and two family dwellings yep but we can consider it in a different way because a new lot is being created and I think that's going to be relevant to other subdivisions that we discuss that may be in higher density neighborhoods. Well I guess obviously we'll discuss more in the deliberative session but I think that you know it's possible that the preservation of 50 foot along a stream could be a condition that could satisfy both situations and that not worry about a landscaping plan condition unless you know we get into later where it triggers a you know site plan that's just my my two cents two cents here given the configuration of a lot and like that obviously we will discuss later and don't need to decide right now that that's okay it's good to share some of our thinking when we can I mean the standard is maximize the preservation of existing mature vegetation and there's there's more than one way to do that for sure yeah great I have a question for the applicant first I'll go ahead I'm sorry I was reading some of these rules here I know you touched on this subject but do you have a permit in hand from the state or you've applied for a permit the wastewater permit from the state yeah the application for a state permit acceptance will be submitted tomorrow the following day Rob Richard is the septic designer okay so that process is underway all right great thank you quick great all right Rob Scott is there anything else you'd like to add or have us know I mean thanks for answering questions along the way but yeah no um it's pretty uh pretty straightforward um I like I said I don't have any plans to develop the land um we'd like to you know I'll be moving that's the whole reason for the subdivision you know selling the house off and but I'll be uh coming back and I have a son in town so okay it's up on the field for a while and in the future I will probably sell it off but right now I'm just gonna enjoy it well good good glad you have some options and thank you glad to talk to you about them so um since the way that we conduct our deliberate our deliberations is in a closed deliberative session this is something that we've been doing since uh since going into the zoom format as a result of the pandemic this is I want all applicants to know that this is something we do for all applications no matter how straightforward or complex they may seem for the sake of taking the time to arrive at appropriate conditions and and deliberate in a way that is not um painful to watch on zoom which it can be we think this gives more fair and higher quality decisions for the applicant but we will get the written decision out as soon as possible after that um and you that is how you will hear about our decision we will not be voting on in public tonight so this is the point where I ask someone to make a motion to close the public hearing on two nine nine six elm street and consider the application in deliberative session at the close of the public meeting is there a motion to that effect so moved motion by kevin second second by gene all right i'll call the roll joe yes kevin yes gene yes rob yes roger yes michael yes and i vote yes as well so we will deliberate on this in closed session and get a written decision out as soon as possible thank you very much rob for for talking with us tonight and we'll be in touch all right thank you very much everyone we'll see you take care thank you all right thank you everybody um we're going to move on to the next item in our agenda which is for college street um this is a sketch plan for a two lot subdivision and a sketch plan review as many of you probably know is a chance to discuss a proposal we're not taking evidence tonight we're not making any decisions we're not swearing in witnesses it's a chance for drb members to hear about the proposal provide a weather report as to how we see the proposal complying with the standards many of which we've just discussed and it's also a chance for anyone who's interested neighbors and otherwise to learn about the proposal to ask questions about the proposal um and so that is what we're we're going to do so um anyone who uh it's optional to be on camera you can just keep listening but if at this point um terry simpeter would like to to join the meeting about unmuting or and or unmuting and optionally joining by video um i see you've unmuted so welcome thank you thanks so um oh and don march is here as well as soon with the applicant is that right very good thanks don so what we're going to do similar to last time we're going to have meredith give an overview and then we're going to hear from the applicant and um at that point i'll get a sense of how many folks might be here who who might have questions hello welcome um about the application and um at that point i'll tell you how we're going to do q and a whether whether we have um interested parties give kind of a general statement at the beginning or throughout okay but rest assured that folks here to learn will have a chance to ask questions all right so um meredith if you if you give a brief overview please well too thank you kate um so as you said this is a sketch plan review for a two lot subdivision um this is on proposed for a parcel that's on college street as you're headed down the hill towards berry street um and it's there's there's not a whole lot really controversial on this that that i found in the in the um review just about all the information is in here um you know we're this is a parcel where it's really right in Montpelier there's city water there's city sewer so we don't have those issues um the new parcel empty vacant parcel um there's no plans for development of that right now um it's bordered by two streets so there's plenty of frontage um and the you know there's one of the items that wasn't addressed in the application was about the public and private utilities and the um electric but those power and data lines run right along the side of the parcel on the side of the street the parcels on so that that really isn't going to be an issue in my view um it's it's a fairly straightforward two-partial subdivision like we've seen in many instances right now for infill okay and Meredith since you may have the numbers handy i will ask you um could you could you tell me what the two the the square footages of the two parcels will be of course um so this is going to be this is in the residential three thousand zoning district so every parcel has to have at least three thousand square feet and with the subdivision it'll end up being um the first parcel lot one as five thousand three hundred and sixteen square feet and the vacant new parcel or lot two will be six thousand and 34 square feet so that new parcel could theoretically hold two dwelling units um or also because every compliant parcel is allowed at least two dwelling units theoretically a future developer could take that six thousand plus square foot parcel and subdivide it further and put two more two unit you know two duplexes on it but that's further down the road there's not something that's being proposed here it isn't in the application materials but it's not what's being proposed this is just a two lot subdivision with no future development plan for that new parcel okay thank you Meredith so at this point I'd like to turn it over to the applicants Therese McGough and Peter Kelman if you'd like to speak a little bit about about your project um please go right ahead um well again uh it's pretty simple we just want to divide our that corner quarter acre lot into two parcels one the house that we have on it which we are in the process of trying to sell and make sure that that lot is large enough and configured in such a way that somebody who buys that would be able to put a modest addition off the back similar to the one that we I mean not similar smaller than the one that we proposed earlier for ourselves but out the back similarly um and that the uh the uh what's currently a vacant lot which is bordered by foster and college would be able to be sold separately for development in the future we have no plans for development okay great um thank you thank you for that overview and I apologize for any mispronunciation of of names um thank you for being here all right so um I see a couple folks who may be here to to um to learn and or speak on the uh application let me get a sense of that and then I can make a decision about how we'll proceed with um with public comments so is it the case that um Elizabeth Dodd and Christine Zekai are here to to potentially speak yes that's one okay I am curious to learn more about the application and would love to reserve the opportunity to speak or ask questions in the future as the hearing unfolds sounds great we can do that too and um I see that Diane Sherman is on Diane do you think you um might like a chance speaker sort of here to listen no I'm just here to listen thank you very good great thanks Diane all right so I think what I'd like to do is walk through the staff report because that's where we um look at how the application lines up with our standards it can answer a lot of questions about what the project is and isn't and then when we get to the end we'll be a chance for a little more back and forth at which point I'll invite um folks other than the applicant to to speak up all right great okay so um so the staff report um is available on the city's website um and gives an overview of what what we're doing here so we've we've heard that this is going to become two parcels and we heard about the um square footage of the parcels being created um so what we'll do is we'll start with the general standards again these have most these are most these mostly come into play when there is something specific developed for a parcel which as we heard is not being done at this time um the there are no specific uses proposed for a lot too um it but it would likely be a housing use given this given the testimony that we or the materials we've had submitted um and so we know that it is again our job is to make sure it's suitable for a use and and it is um the dimensional standards are met 3000 square foot minimum we need 45 foot minimum watt size the maximum coverage would ultimately be up to 60 percent of the site and there are also setbacks um density requirements that that would need to be met um we given that no development is proposed we anticipate that these would would be met that the site is an appropriate size it's a big enough size so that these could be met by future development okay um demolition is not being proposed that's um 3004 section 3005 riparian areas and 3006 wetlands and vernal pools aren't applicable here because those resources are not on the site um the next item is steep slopes section 3007 um and again no proposal is being subdivided is being nothing's being disturbed by the drawing of lines on a map um so for subdivision approval I don't know that we need more um more than that Meredith let's see are there slopes of over 30 percent or maybe this could be a question for for Don there are slopes okay sorry top of page five of the staff report there are slopes over 30 percent on the subject land including lot two is that a great deal of the parcel or can you give us a sense of how much um land is over 30 percent the entire parcel um 2800 feet is above 30 percent and that comes in sort of three sections it drops quite steeply off foster down to the parcel and then it's a gentle slope and then there's a steep little pitch down to uh so within about five feet of the existing house and then there's a little bit of steep slope on the very southern part of the parcel for those three areas total 28 which will be okay thank you Don so our zoning bylaws do not prohibit development on slopes of over 30 but do require an engineered plan um is it likely that to develop the new parcel it would be necessary to develop on slopes of 30 a greater yes I think one could would expect that and uh an engineering plan and a low control plan would be uh would be necessary okay thank you again that's not that's not prohibitive um I'm just sort of understanding the the landscape if you will okay and so you answered about erosion control which would be the next the next thing um do in storm water management um no grades are being changed at this time because there is no proposal um do board members have any questions about these these are there there's no specific proposal but do you have any questions about the site and its suitability well I guess I you know just generally obviously you know we have a slope here and there's be some sort of drainage considerations that would be needed for development I just didn't know you had a general idea is to kind of make sure that we we can gauge it's going to work yes our our concept would be to uh select the runoff on the south side of the parcel so just above uh existing house and then carry that out to college tree where we can connect to an existing uh city storm drink we can make sure that there's no runoff that that leaves the parcel and goes on those neighboring parts thanks any other questions about storm water from board members about slope or storm water erosion all right so um we'll move on to section 3010 vehicular access and circulation um the sketch plan could you pull up the sketch plan for us Meredith I apologize I didn't have that super handy um that'll show us a potential area for a driveway and parking area on lot two um the preliminary feedback from public works from deputy director moitka the potential driveway will likely not meet standard minimum distances from intersections and adjoining driveways however DPW would support an exemption to the standards due to relatively low traffic volumes on foster street the final driveway location would need to be determined during development review but preference would be to maximize separation from the intersection to the extent feasible so what we're seeing here thanks Meredith that's really helpful um on foster street you can see a potential spot for a um curb cut and um parking area kind of in the middle of the parcel is that what we're seeing there right okay and is there um let me wait a little bit we started this DPW typical standard is have it 45 feet from other driveways um Christine's driveway is sort of led on the edge of her property and joining that we try to keep the 45 feet um distance but Kurt's preliminary response was the way I understand is his preference would be to further from college and to bring the driveway back up to the uh more toward the western edge of the parcel have to see at this point uh you know all the way to the side of what somebody builds there but it could go either place and they seem to want to put it a little further away from college okay so um am I correct Meredith am I correct in saying that any place that a driveway goes on this site would require revisiting the DRB for a waiver from the from these distance requirements correct once a development is proposed regulations are written right now any um anything closer than 45 feet from the 23 foster driveway or closer than what did I say it was 100 feet from the intersection would require DRB approval okay okay because of math fair enough okay so I guess I wanted to emphasize that point so that folks who are here to learn about the application know that even if this subdivision is approved the conversation about the appropriate location of the driveway would take place again once when and if a development is proposed okay um great okay that's really helpful thank you um so parking and loading areas are the next set of standards that that we look at to provide adequate off-street parking in this zoning district each dwelling unit requires at least one off-street parking spot and that is indicated on the site plan as we just saw um and again technically nothing's being proposed so we are just kind of hypothetically thinking could this site accommodate what it needs to um signs not applicable okay so curious uh yeah jean go ahead curious to know on foster street is there an existing uh public street parking there right now currently oh is there personal yeah so there's some on-street parking for foster street okay all right that's good to know so great so any questions other questions from board members about the general standards we've just gone through okay and um anything that the applicants anything else the applicants would like to add okay that that's fine I'd like to just pause and slow down once in a while so I don't forget to give you a chance but all right well we'll keep moving so the next set of standards are the subdivision standards that that we go through to make sure the addition of a lot and eventual construction on that lot are compatible with the neighborhood and the ability of the city to provide services and maintain safety and things like that so that's what we're moving on to next so um section 3502 is the capacity of community facilities and utilities and again local schools police fire protection ambulance service infrastructure and maintenance parks and recreation facilities water supply sewage disposal storm water um and the narrative says that um even if lot two were developed to the greatest density allowed under the current regulations for a total to split into two parcels with two units each for a total of four there would be only a modest impact on the school's fire police and ambulance service that's an if that's a hypothetical not being proposed but it helps us as a board think about what um what the impact would be and the applicant attests that future development and connect to existing water and sewer mains that that makes sense given its location in fact it would be required so good that those are there um any questions about impact on community facilities and utilities from board members or any other again this is sketch plan review so is there anything additional you would want to learn about or know before doing the final review here okay great so then um suitability of the land um we don't want to create a hazard a lot that is going to be a hazardous lot to use um do board member we talked about slopes we talked about erosion um are there any other questions about the suitability of this land for um to be its own parcel from board members okay great um so then we look we go on to traffic subdivision standard from section 3504 um and the the need to demonstrate that the proposed subdivision will not have an undo adverse effect upon traffic in the area this is the standard that acknowledges that any change is going to have some effect it's our job to make sure that the standard will or that the change will not be unduly adverse okay um does it and so again we the subdivision itself does not generate traffic um but again if we think about a maximum build out of that parcel um it it is probably a relatively minimal amount of traffic and movement that would not completely debilitate college street or or foster street um again that that's the sort of thing that would be reviewed um if if there were a this would be reviewed if there were three or four units proposed not if there were one or two units proposed um so this would be a good time if board members have any questions about the the traffic i'm deliberately going slow but we can go back to any of these things too um so the next item is design and configuration of the parcel boundaries and um from from what we've seen on the site plan this is basically making a corner lot um on foster and college and it appears to be you know jumping it had a little to character of the neighborhood it appears to be a proposed corner lot that is not unlike the other corner three corner lots at the intersection of foster and college is it foster over onto the other side too it's a different street it's okay didn't want him to speak and make up neighborhoods here um have one question um go ahead sure Rob who'd you know more information on the configuration of the division line um i think i'm looking at the one that's got a couple angle points versus the one other one that's on the site plan or the site the slope sketch but um okay i see the what would we call that a mini panhandle on the upper left there yeah yeah yeah mini panhandle yeah good question why why is that the case that's put in there to enable the existing house to put uh up to a 20 foot long uh edition out the back and still um observe the setbacks between it and the new property okay i mean it's one you know one suggestion maybe it's not possible and you've gone through every single configuration but i just didn't know if there's a way to um to go from that 13 foot um um line uh you know all the way out straight out to the street um somehow um maybe you guys know the configuration better idea but that it just it seems like obviously got to have some nooks in it but that unless that uh i don't know does it follow the slope or something is there is there a natural feature that goes along that line with the 13 foot line out to the street what do you mean oh do you mean out to out to um um college street so you have a seven-foot diagonal uh section in the middle there i just didn't know if there was a way to uh to remove that and makes it make it a little bit more uniform but maybe the way that it looks out there with the slope it's uh it kind of follows the slope i don't know i'm just sort of uh giving you my my two cents so what it looks like on the plan well in order to get the number of square feet into their law we we need we if we straighten that out then we lose square footage and we wouldn't have six thousand square feet okay okay thank you it's a good reason thank you for the observation and the explanation that is helpful um okay other questions about from board members about lot arrangement dimensions configuration okay so we're going through a few more standards and then we'll have a chance for for questions from folks who've joined us to learn more um so design and layout of necessary improvements there are no new streets um you will be hooked up that any future development on the new parcel will be hooked up to town water or city water and wastewater um fire protection dpw has not requested additional fire hydrants this is in a settled neighborhood so presumably okay there's a page nine of the staff report shows that there's a uh fire hydrant just uphill okay um public and private utilities all utilities shall be located underground unless present prevented by ledge or other physical conditions or where the subdivision is in a section of street with existing above ground utilities and burial would not be practicable um this will be addressed when buildings are proposed though um there are existing above ground utilities so the need to bury them is is unlikely um Meredith do you have some comments on that do you have anything beyond what I just said that you want to flag here no just I mean it's it's one of those situations where if they were to go underground it would just be that for that one little distance from the street to the house because of like the homeowners desire really in this neighborhood most of these utilities are connecting directly to houses um you know by the other hand unlike some subdivisions we wouldn't have you know there wouldn't be the issue of having to dig up the street to get the utilities to be underground from the main line to the house I just I don't see it as being an issue for this parcel okay thanks board members do you have anything to add or comment on related to utilities all right um so landscaping um we just we discussed this a little in the previous a lot in the previous application which is um when the subdivision is is being done we ask that the applicant design the subdivision to maximize the preservation of existing mature vegetation and provide additional landscaping which may be installed when lots are subsequently developed as necessary to maintain and provide privacy to enhance the imperatives of street frontages and shade trees and sidewalks to maintain or establish vegetated buffers along waterways there's no no waterway there um and the narrative of this states that the landscaping would be addressed by subsequent property order when buildings are proposed and um that could be in in the final review that could be a condition that this board requests um be part of the application um to ensure that once development happens that that happens would that would that be okay with with with you okay yes great thank you all right parks and recreation facilities is not um applicable the sketch plan shows existing monuments and corner markers um for any new monuments or corner markers those would just need to be on the final the final plat that you submit um all right so then the last um almost last standard is the character of the neighborhood and settlement pattern so um this is to ensure fit within a neighborhood and i'll just read for the benefit of us all the college hill neighbor it's the college hill south neighborhood in our zoning and it's described as primarily residential with homes located on small parcels along narrow tree line streets proposed development should protect the historic character and appeal of this neighborhood while allowing for a moderate increase in residential density through compatible infill development particularly with compact buildings and conversion of existing buildings to multi-unit occupancy um the applicant's testimony is that a new parcel here is consistent with this settlement pattern and as we've as we've seen it similar to the other three corners of that intersection um but we can talk do do um d rb members have any questions or thoughts about the neighborhood compatibility character the area pretty straightforward okay great so similarly um renewable energy and energy conservation um making sure not to to leave adequate opportunity for um conservation including solar installation and such and the narrative um does address this directly the lot layout will accommodate a solar system a solar system sounds right the tone set of planets it's on moon and everything um a lot bigger than we thought this this is really you're really this is an incredible lot um probably solar energy system and it's expected that any building construction on the parcel will utilize energy conservation construction practices and the natural slope means that the existing house at four college will be less apt to impede the solar access so the downhill lot will not impede the solar access of the uphill lot that's that makes sense okay so these these are the standards that we go through in deciding whether this meets our zoning bylaw and and we've we've sort of been through the the flags and the questions and the conditions of the site so i'm going to do is see if board members have any more questions and then i'm going to turn it over um to those who've been waiting patiently and would um like to ask any any questions or make any comments so starting with board members any any uh now that you've seen the whole picture we've discussed it any questions or comments you might have said this in general like this comment i want to make sure that the applicants were aware um based on sort of the explanation here of the um the provision of the range for the infill development um density bonuses um planning developments where you have there's a section of the ranks that allows for you to get a density bonus and reduce lot size requirements and setbacks um for um if you meet certain criteria certain criteria um under a plan you have development i believe is that not in the regs anymore marita just can't hear you yeah there you go it is in the regs um but i don't remember which of any of these um it it may i don't know how many of these are applicable to this particular parcel um um i guess the infill housing development PUD might be a possibility i just wanted to fly it as a possible consideration it seems like the description already checked off a couple of the boxes that get them uh some bonuses there so um i just was going to bring it up but maybe it's thanks for more time i'm digging in here yeah nothing to get above anything above for dwelling units um on any parcel is going to require a conditional use review right um so it's you know i think it's it's for there are possibilities i would have to look and run it through all the math to see how far that density bonus would would get anybody under the PUD versus being able to just develop it with split in two and have two units on each parcel i don't know how much benefit it would get them or any future developer i guess the benefit that jumped out to me was the uh was the setback um and not partial configuration variances which would happen at this point um and i don't know maybe maybe helpful maybe not that's what jumped out to me well um since you raised that rob thank you um maritas would you mind giving us a page reference on the infill housing PUD provision of the bylaw yep so that's on page three dash seven five okay unified regs yeah section three four oh one okay three four oh one and what a PUD that stands for planned unit development and it's a more comprehensive approach to development that can in in this case if you do certain things to promote infill housing so the use of a lot that is currently underutilized whether there's something on it or not if you do certain things you can have some additional flexibility beyond what the regulations would otherwise provide so when we're saying PUD that's that's what that means um and often you see these used in rural areas where you might get bonus density by leaving more open space for example but there are ways to do it in downtown too so this does not directly apply to our review of the subdivision regulations and whether or not you meet the standards but as far as thinking what what is possible for the future owner of this lot um and how the parcel boundaries might affect that i i think i guess it it might be worth reading that section of the regulation and see if that changes the way you want to do the lot configuration is that what you're getting that rob yeah just consideration yeah okay but it's all it's all in the discussion phase at the moment so that's why we're bringing it up um the other term that we just used was conditional use review and that is for when something is developed that doesn't just get a straight permit from the from meredith from the from the planning office but when it requires a level of review that's above and beyond that it would come to this board again to again ensure compatibility with the neighborhood so there's your your zoning 101 for the evening thanks for thanks for humor in me there all right again with thank you to those of you who have been listening and um really want to give you a chance to ask questions so without further ado um i think um i think christine signed on first is that right meredith i don't know if you're keeping track so maybe it was i think christine and diane were on earlier and this came in after but okay so we'll do that we'll do christine diane if she'd like and then this beth and that ends up being uh alphabetical as well so um christine if you'd like you're you're welcome to just have listened or you're welcome to post some questions and um i'll uh start it over to you for comments okay thank you um um so in regards to storm water um don um i didn't you mentioned that storm water would be directed to the south to exit onto a street and i didn't hear the name of the street that you articulated for you saying college street college we collected what jay we collected along the southern edge of the new lot and directed to the east to existing city infrastructure uh along college okay okay um okay um so then i'm also just curious about um in regards to parking given that the intent is um to you know eventually yield a lot that can be developed and um potentially subdivided again um into two something folks are thinking about two duplexes um which would then require four parking spaces um i'm curious about how those setbacks can be satisfied and i understand that this is not part of the subdivision conversation right now but given that we are already talking about parking and that um you know that this vision for this lot is on the table right now i'm curious about how that those parking needs would be satisfied in that scenario um again it's it would be more appropriate natural development phase but we've done some preliminary work that i'm sorry i can't quite hear you be more sorry can you hear me now uh we'll try it hear me now yes you sound a little far away don but um we'll all listen i'm just spacing um we have it doesn't seem to be applicable at this point we just need that one parking space but we've done some preliminary designs that would allow us to be able to get easily two and potentially four parking spaces off foster you would be in anticipation of um the units having both a parking space and probably an attached garage so you get a space in in each or a garage that would be underneath a portion of the house so there is plenty of room if if need be to get four spaces off foster thanks thanks don and christine you're welcome to go ahead with uh with some more questions of you or comments if you happen okay thank you um so um zoning regulations may have changed certainly the drb has changed in the past couple of years so i'm just curious um in 2016 when um and again i so i'm at 23 foster so the adjoining neighbor when um i applied to um seek uh one um permeable parking space to develop one additional permeable parking space gravel parking space the drb had really significant concerns about creating that additional parking space um and as well um impervious surfaces and i'm just curious about you know what level of whether that's current a priority for the drb you know whether you know maybe regulations like the zoning regs have changed since 2016 but um i'm just curious it's a market contrast from my experience when um you know we sought to develop like one additional parking space the regulations have changed i can't um i can't cite chapter and verse unfortunately to say how it's possible that the coverage amounts changed um the the maximum coverage of the lots in this neighborhood are 60 percent impervious cover and it's possible that that was a different or different lower percentage in the previous version and meredith i don't know if you feel comfortable um speaking to that or if this would be better to have a conversation about um separately when when you've had a chance to look into it a little bit more and you could you could loop back with christine or um but i appreciate the point that you're making that you're sort of like what are the standards and how is this measured and what's different now that might have been different then yeah i because i came in um like five months after we went into the 2018 standards um i've had very limited work with those older standards and guessing that there was a change to impervious surface maximums um and so i mean you and i can talk separately because it may be that now there wouldn't be an issue with you getting that additional parking space um because i'm i'm looking at your parcel right now i think that's your parcel um yeah and it doesn't look like you have anywhere near 60 coverage so um hey i i think it is just a different standard issue but we can i can look back at the old 2016 standards if you want no that's okay i mean and again i'm not trying to bring up an old you know an old issue that's already been resolved i'm just curious about the like the city's priorities and how they're reflected in the zoning standards and if the priorities have changed around impervious surfaces water quality runoff i mean it sounds like that's just not the a priority in the way it was before i would want i would suggest you actually talk to the planning director make miller who's been here a long time um i think it was also a situation of and the revision in 2018 making sure that um the impervious surface limits and the issues around that were district specific like those new district lines were drawn with these standards like how much impervious surface should be allowed in that district for as a percentage of parcel you know those were considerations so those impervious surface maximums change greatly depending on where in the city the parcel is located um so we can have that discussions and bring in mic on that but i i know that you know storm water is in some ways more carefully monitored under these zoning ranks in that once development is actually proposed where we see what's happening with a a project we have to see a storm water plan you know even a single family home coming in we need to see what you're doing with the storm water so it's a mix of different ways of regulating i don't think it's any less of a priority though okay thank you and just so that i understand the current regulations it's 60 percent impervious cover that's right max 60 maximum of the lot i'm assuming right 60 percent maximum of the lot in this zoning district in this zoning district right right okay yes super um okay thank you so much yeah you're welcome thanks for your questions um i want to give diane the opportunity to comment if she'd like i don't have full presence or comments thank you okay you're welcome diane all right so moving on um to lisbeth if you'd like to ask questions or make some comments for a few minutes go right ahead i'm i appreciate the lateness of the hour and i'm wondering if you have a another um piece of business after this one i don't want to i feel i probably will take about 10 to 10 and 15 minutes and i really appreciate your time so i am serious do you have business after this well thanks thanks for helping us plan ahead a little bit you know my i would um i would like to limit i think we just took about five or six minutes with um christine's comments and so i would ask that um as a as a threading the needle between the lateness of the hour and wanting to make sure you're heard if you could take five or six minutes and and share your thoughts um that that would okay then i would like to be reassured that there is going to be another opportunity that this is not the final review this is just a discussion that's right this is the reason i'm coming from that is let me clarify one more thing before you go on um so we're actually not taking this is not testimony at this time this is a back and forth this is a weather report this is a learning um so as you as you probably know um people can go ahead and submit written comments that can be a really good way to be heard in advance of a hearing and that also helps drb members as well as the applicant have advanced notice of what might be of concern so this is the discussion um if you want to frame it up as written comments before the final application you could but if you'd like to give us a preview or get some questions asked uh questions answered now this would be perfect time for that take five five or six minutes okay and so uh just that there's enough advanced notice to write some things up and all right i've been uh at 14 college street which is on the corner of college and foster i call it a nondescript little ranch house it's right on the corner i've been there a homeowner there for over 10 years and if um i don't if you have not walked in this area if you have not personally walked in this neighborhood walk down the street and see this property i'd strongly encourage you to do so it's very important and to my knowledge it's one of the last open lots in the south in the south college area it's also one that's highly used um by deer and by wildlife that go through here and i know peter can testify to that it's kind of most of a lot of neighbors who've lost a lot of veggies over the years so it's not just us it's our coexistence with other other things in the area all right so um it is one of the last parcels and so i'm really concerned about it i'm also particularly concerned about storm water and parking um as you walk down foster street it's very limited and you'll see that when you take a walk particularly now when we have opposite sides of the street parking you want to take a close look at that there's really few of any other places to park on college street except on my lawn frankly and so now people are parking on my lawn because there isn't another place to park on foster street and so we're thinking of adding up to two to four cars and that parking there i really am concerned about where people go to park um also if you haven't stood and when i come out of my driveway you really have to be careful you won't come up with during rush quote unquote rush hour during normal times and see what it takes to get out of out of college street and i know peter can testify to this um i'm about the only person right now except for people peter who drives on the college street and tries to back on the college street and if you have four more people who are going to be backing on the college street during high rush hour times it's going to be a real issue people come up from down up on the hill and um so it's really a potential and if you haven't had um you know a traffic real traffic study done on this i'd really suggest it um because there's been a lot of close calls so that's one thing and i'll try to uh limit it um uh i i attended the last hearing when um they proposed an extension on their house and i'm trying to recall but i think they said that they were going to develop up on this upper lot that they're now proposing but they couldn't do it because of the cost that would be involved and i think it was um water that would have to align that would have to go across onto college street and rip up the new sidewalk the city just installed a couple years ago and so it was cost prohibitive for them to do that so then they build off the back of their house so i'm wondering now when you're going to be add up to four more units on there where is this line going to go and will that impact tearing up the brand new sidewalk because that's what they found from their designer was going to happen last time um it is a very steep slope when my house was built you can look in the basement the buttresses that they put in down there because of the slope slope and the wastewater runoff if you come after a heavy rain you stand on in front of my lawn on college street it's a river that comes down college street it's not on the quiet little stream it's a big river um and i'm not a specialist in that area but take a close look at it so um ambulance and fire departments um availability to access those houses i'm wondering what they think about it and be real curious to see design in there uh erosion control um so those are my some of my big concerns one would be the character of the neighborhood i have a master's in natural resource planning i have a master's in history and i've done a lot of work in historic preservation so this my background in my training in my experience and as a homeowner and a really lover of this community a lot of flags go up for me when you take a look at this and it sounds really nice when you go through the standards but you have to really take a look and come come to know the area um so i guess that's it for now um but if you haven't walked this neighborhood make sure you do it because it's the last open lot in this area we can say okay well it meets all the standards however um as far as livability i think that's really open to question and by the way i've been there 10 years and the loss of trees um we talk about tree line streets are tree line streets anymore we have lost a lot of trees and um just on foster street on the other side of foster street um it's it makes a lot it's a creeping um of a change in this neighborhood so i guess that's it for now i've that's been about four to five minutes i appreciate your time but really get strong consideration as far as what's going on it's not so anyway you can tell i'm concerned all right well thanks for laying those out this is the time to do it and it's important that everybody hears those um this is the point where um okay so everyone who's wanted to be heard on this has neighbors questions have had the chance so um i'd like to turn it back to the applicant if there's anything that they'd like to add um if i if i may put you on the spot and um if there's anything that you want to clarify about the proposal or or anything else it doesn't have to be full full response but this is a chance for discussion leading up to the final application the final testimony again this is all discussion none of this is testimony you can change your mind you can change your design you can change your concerns it's true for everyone but i will um i'll just turn it over to the applicant to answer answer some of the questions that have been raised if you choose or um just very um just to reiterate uh we're just asking for a subdivision here we're not doing any development uh any development that would be done whether it was for one two or four units would come before the board and citizenry and the neighbors at that time we have no plans to develop it ourselves um in fact we are offering the house for sale with the lot for anybody who wants to keep the lot open or to use it in whatever way they want that's not what we're uh asking for here um questions of parking uh obviously would have to be addressed uh when any building might take place but let me just clarify one thing for liz there will be no no people backing into college street if they're backing at all it would be onto foster street but again that's a question of uh a developer designing a driveway in a parking area um uh the the parking along foster street is very limited um but so is housing in montpellier we we we would like to make this lot which is basically uh a field with slopes open to a developer who might be able to build some more housing in montpellier and by the way it is not the only lot open lot in our neighborhood by by by a long shot unmute okay well thank you so that kind of that kind of lays out the the landscape of what we're considering um any last questions from uh board members before we wrap up um this this sketch plan discussion okay um very good i think we've done that pretty thoroughly so um as i said before i'll say one more time this was a discussion um when this comes before the board for final review that is the point at which we would swear and witnesses and take testimony that testimony can be given orally or in writing prior to the meeting um the same sort of rules of it would be a more formal process so it's more like the the two to four minute comment period um at the final hearing compared to the sort of discussion that we had tonight just so that people can can plan and and find ways to to make their comments heard in advance if desired um and that hearing will take place at the at the pleasure of the applicant when they decide they're ready to proceed but um public notice will be given um all right i think that brings our discussion of of this application to this not application this sketch plan conversation to a close thank you Kate thank you all for for being here and engaging engaging in some good discussion i appreciate it all right so um back to my agenda here going to move on where is my agenda lost my agenda um i i believe the only thing we have is other business very good thank you kevin um other business our regular our next regularly scheduled meeting is for february 1st but we do not have any business on that day and so the meeting is canceled we will not have a drb meeting on february 1st which will make our next meeting i believe february 15th unless no 16th because of president's day exactly Tuesday february 16th okay so mark your calendars we'll be off-cycle just a little bit but it'll be about a month from today when we come back together all right is there any other other business or announcements okay in that case i will accept a motion to adjourn the public hearing into deliberative session adjourn the public hearing and move into deliberative session you said it all i will uh i will offer that uh motion thank you kevin is there a second okay second from gene to call the roll joe yes kevin yes gene yeah rob yes roger yes michael yes so we're getting a super link uh the gmailer i i just sent it if you want to wait for a minute to finish the roll so people actually get the email then go things are starting to get very very funky here i'm losing losing you guys so okay i vote i vote yes the motion carries um all right um let's come back together in three minutes to um for the deliberative session