 review board. Thank you very much for being here. Thank you for joining us to conduct business in the Zoom environment. I will introduce my other DRB members. They are Rob Goodwin. Hello. Rob, Kevin O'Connell. Hello. Jean Leon. Hello. Michael Azortak. Good evening, sir. And we are supported by our zoning administrator, Meredith Crandall. Hello. And we're recorded by ORCA media this evening. So thank you again all for being here. We will dive into the agenda. The first item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda. Is there a motion to approve the agenda as printed? No moved. Motion by Kevin. Is there a second? Second. Second. Second by Jean. Thank you. I'll call the roll, which we do for all of our votes on Zoom. Rob? Yes. Kevin? Yes. Jean? Yes. Michael? Yes. And I vote yes. So we've approved the agenda. As part of the approval of the agenda, I want to raise something that just to make sure our meeting runs smoothly. I'm not sure what the weather is in Central Vermont right now, where everybody is, but I hear it might be a little wild and woolly. I'm beaming in from elsewhere. Where it's wild, but not woolly. So what I'd like to do is make a contingency plan in case anyone loses power, any of the participants in this hearing, or if we lose a DRB quorum due to the power outage. Our rules of procedure do allow us to continue a hearing to a time and date certain if all the applications cannot be disposed of on the day set. And that would indeed be the case if we lost power. So this is a bit unconventional, but I think useful. Could I suggest that there be a motion to continue the agenda of tonight's meeting to our regularly scheduled July 6, 2021 meeting in the event that technical difficulties keep the applicant interested parties or a quorum of DRB members from participating in tonight's meeting? Is there a motion to that effect? So moved. Motion by Rob. Is there a second? Second. Second by Jean. Thank you. Is there any discussion or questions about that motion or why we're doing it from the board members? No, it's a good idea, Kate. I fully support it. Thank you. It was Meredith's idea. Credit where credit is due. Thank you. Then we'll vote. Rob? Yes. Kevin? Yes. Jean? Yes. Michael? Yes. And I also vote yes. Thank you all. All right. The next on the item on our agenda is the staff review of remote meeting procedures and process. And during this time, related questions may be asked. For that, I will turn it over to Meredith. Hey, I'm going to share my screen here. And this is mostly for people watching but it can sometimes be helpful for people who haven't done a Zoom DRB meeting. Can you all see a slideshow? All righty. So for anyone viewing this meeting via work of media, you can participate in tonight's DRB meeting via the Zoom platform through either the video or telephone access options shown here. So you can either click this link and be able to go in through the Zoom platform or you can dial this phone number with this meeting ID number and gain access to listening and speaking. You just won't be able to see the screen, although work of media will be showing that screen on your TV. If anyone has problems accessing the meeting, please email me. My email address is right here and I'll leave that up on the screen for a little while. Please note that this will be the last probably fully Zoom meeting that we have starting in July. At the very least, I will be upstairs in council chambers. So anybody who's gotten used to seeing my office in the background on work of media while we do these, that will no longer be the case. Right now the plan is to still stream this and have a Zoom option, but I will be upstairs for anybody who wants to attend in person in the council chambers and City Hall will be unlocked at that time. So if anyone is having difficulties accessing the video conferencing features in Zoom once they're already in, please message me through the chat function in Zoom. This makes sure that that discussion is off to the side and please use that chat function only for those technical type difficulties. The Zoom meeting is being recorded. Turning on your video is optional. Public testimony will be taken verbally. Please keep your microphone on mute when you're not speaking. This reduces background noise. And as I mentioned to Allison, since she's on by phone, anyone participating by phone can use star six to allow you to mute or unmute that and then also let's anybody in Zoom see that you're muted so we know why you're not answering questions if we pass them. If someone, everyone we have on tonight is on about the same matter, so I'm not going to go on to the next one. If somebody has a question, especially if they're not on video function, instead of raising your hand in the video, you can press star nine and that will do a little hand flag on Zoom. And if for some reason that's not working there and there's a pause, you can also just unmute yourself and ask the chair to speak. Once the chair has recognized someone to participate, please make sure to unmute your microphone, confirm that you can be heard and provide your full name and address for the record if you're not actually the applicant. You'll then be free to provide your questions or comments and we ask that those interested parties aim to keep those initial comments to two minutes. The board members will then have the opportunity to respond to your comments or ask questions of you and the applicant may also have an opportunity to respond to the board. The chair may grant additional time for speakers to follow questions or comments so that two minutes doesn't mean that's all you get to say for the whole hearing. After you have finished, please make sure to mute your microphone again. As Kate mentioned earlier during this whole Zoom process in general, we have been finding that if it turns out that the public is unable to access this meeting and technical difficulties due to power outages would count, but it's also if I get emails from somebody who's trying to get in and they just can't, then the meeting will be continued to a time and place certain. If someone is having connectivity issues, try turning off your video or closing other applications on your phone or computer. And for anybody at home or anybody who is tuned in right now and hasn't already downloaded the meeting packet, you can get that here at this link. It's the agendas and meeting minutes page on the city website. And so that's also you can get there through the how do I link on the city's main page. All right, I'm going to hand out the last thing. Please note that all votes taken during this meeting will be done by roll call vote. I'll hand this back over to the chair. Great. Thank you, Meredith. Okay. The next item on the agenda is comments from the chair, and I'll share two. One, there is a position open on the DRB. So please tell your friends. It's a really, really, I think important way to contribute to the community. So we would like to have as many diverse voices and experiences represented here. So please do spread the word. I also want to give my general statement that I've been giving at the beginning of the Zoom hearings that during the pandemic, during Zoom, we have been conducting our deliberations in a closed deliberative session. And we've been doing this for applications no matter how large, small, simple or complicated. So should this application move into deliberation this evening, you'll hear us make a motion to do that in a in a deliberate, a separate non-public deliberative session. And this is something we've been doing consistently for many months. So I want you to just be prepared for that. It's not a commentary on the application. All right. So moving on, our next item of business is to approve the minutes. We have minutes from May 17th as well as June 7th. And we have, we don't have enough, we still don't have enough DRB members here to approve the minutes from the 17th of May, but we can approve the minutes from June 7th. I, Rob, Michael and Jean were all present two weeks ago. So I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes of June 7th, 2021. Motion from Jean. Is there a second? Second. Okay. So if there's eligible to vote, Rob? Yes. Michael? Yes. Jean? Yes. And I also vote yes. So we've approved the minutes of June 7th, 2021. Thank you. All right. So we will turn to our main item on the agenda this evening, which is 14 Liberty Street application from Alice and Donovan pertaining to the demolition of part of a historic structure. So here's how I'm going to, here's, here's what to expect. I will swear in witnesses, anyone who wishes to testify on this application. We'll hear an overview of the project from Meredith. We'll hear an overview from the applicant. And then what I'll do is I'll take initial comments from interested parties. We'll do those for two minutes each. And during that, if it doesn't come through otherwise, please identify your specific concerns. What that will allow me to do is hold space as appropriate as we then walk through the staff report and go through the different criteria of the zoning that need to be met in order for this project to receive a permit. And I would just say that when we do do that part of the hearing, please, please direct any questions or comments through the chair rather than having parties talking to each other. That's, that's how we tend to run this. Okay. Great. So with that, I will swear in the witnesses, anyone who wishes to speak on this application, please raise their right hand. And I know that the people who are phone only are raising their right hand. And I will ask you to affirm this. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury? I do. I do know. Great. Thank you. And Brooke, are you, do you expect to testify this evening? Well, I wouldn't be testifying. I was here to assist either with cross examination, raising questions for the chair to ask or helping to facilitate my clients to testify. So I won't be providing any factual evidence. Okay. Great. Thanks for clarifying that. I usually do kind of loop in everyone to that sharing of information testimony. So if you are willing to agree to the statement that I just gave that, I would, I would appreciate it. And if not, I'll note that for the record as well. Sure. I always, I just don't want to go under oath to mislead the tribunal or any participants that my, my legal argument or analysis is the equivalent of evidence. Okay. So am I hearing correctly that if, if you present, you're going to provide questions and counsel rather than argument for lack of a better word for or against the, whether any particular criteria are met? Well, I intend, I hope if you're giving me the opportunity to restate facts in an argument fashion. But my point is, I won't be testifying as a witness, which is that's when you put people under oath, because it's the evidence itself that you have to make sure is correct. If I as an attorney advocating for my client and restating the evidence, asking questions on cross examination, that's facilitating the evidence to get to you. So I, I, the secretary of state does not think it's appropriate for lawyers who are acting as advocates to go under oath because it's, we don't want to mislead, you know, the folks making the decision that what we're saying is the equivalent of evidence. I'm advocating for my client based on the information presented. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. I hear the distinction. And I think our discussion of this just now has provided a good record of what you are and aren't providing this evening. Thank you. Thank you, bro. All right. So I'm sworn in the witnesses. And now what I would do is turn to Meredith, please for an overview of the application. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I'm going to try and stick mostly to the procedural overview here. So as you said earlier, the main issue here is we have a proposal that includes demolition of part of a historic structure. And that is why this is coming before the board. It is, we're dealing with the request to demolish a shed that is attached to a barn. The barn is the main entity listed in the National Register of Historic Places, but the shed is described in that description of the barn. And the rest of the application involves moving that barn to another location on the same parcel. If it had been just moving the barn, then that would have been an administrative permit. And there would have been no need for this to come before the DRB. So in the staff report, there are some distinction between which provisions apply to which parts of that project. I do want to make one clarifying point. There is an error in my staff report where I refer to a neighboring parcel as 26 Loomis having the barn move in front of the 26 Loomis building and closer to that building. It's actually 24 Loomis, which is like a condo that's part of the 26 and 24 Loomis part there. It's a carriage barn. So it's really 24 Loomis. Just wanted to get that out in the beginning. I think that's the main part of my procedural overview. Okay. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Meredith. Okay. With that, I will turn to the applicant. Alison Donovan, if you'd like to please tell us a little bit about your project. Hi. Can everyone hear me? We can. Thank you. Oh, great. Okay. Hi. Thank you for this meeting. I applied for a permit to move my barn. I have been living in that house for 16 years and always knew that there was going to be a barn project coming. I will admit I went back and forth a couple times, whether to move it or take it down, but I was happy to be able to get to a point with contractors and financing to be able to move it and save it. So we recently found out that, as Meredith explained, the shed is part of the historic register. So that's why I'm here tonight to petition and request being able to demolish the shed before moving the barn to a different location in the yard. Okay. Before I go on, I'll see, do DRB members have any questions about the basics that we've heard so far? Go ahead and unmute there, Kevin, please. Thankfully, we're not probably going to have another year and a half to practice. Yeah, I guess you're right. It's okay. So anyway, just very quickly, I know it's in the application, but what is the dimensions of just the shed? I think the dimensions of just the shed is 12 by 28. 12 by 28. Thank you. That's it. Thanks. And we'll get into some details as we continue on, but that gives us a sense of scale. Thank you. Okay. So what I'm going to do next is take some initial comments from interested parties. And would you just do me a favor and raise your hand if you're maybe a neighbor or someone else who's interested in this who might like to speak. So I'm seeing Amanda and company, as well as steamer walk. Great. So I believe that the steamer, oh, and Courtney, Courtney, Miryal O'Connor as well. Just, sorry, just Courtney. Okay. Okay. So Meredith, as far as order, who logged on first, do you recall? A steamer did. Okay. So that's what we'll do. We'll go steamer walk, we'll go Courtney, and then Amanda Aldridge. So what I would do is I'd invite you to introduce yourself, please provide your address, and take about two minutes to tell us what you'd like to say about this application. And if you have specific concerns, please note them so that we can, as appropriate, revisit them as we go through the staff report, which is what we'll do after. So please go ahead. Thank you. My name is Stephen Walker, steamer as I'm known. This is my wife Judy next to me. We've lived at 12 Liberty Street since 1973, and have watched the deterioration of the shed mostly, and somewhat of the barn. And I would just like to point out that the shed was apparently added several years after the barn was built. And it really is just an appendage to the historic structure. I don't know. It's old, but it's not historic in any way, and it's about to collapse. One year early on in our tenure here, a snow came crashing down from the roof of the barn onto the shed and broke all the beams in the roof and should have been taken down then. But we support the application. We love to see it. We have built it and moved it. That's all I have to say. All right. Thank you very much. And you are both welcome to speak if Judy would like to say anything. I'm fine for now, but I'll take care of it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. So I'll turn next to Courtney. She'd like to unmute and take about two minutes to. And Kate, if I can just jump in, because I am representing Courtney and Amanda just very briefly, and then I'll let them speak about their specific issues. But we're very concerned about the demolition of historic structures in section 3004d2 because it gives the board the opportunity to determine one of two things that would allow demolition of the historic structure. And I don't believe from the materials that we have reviewed that either there's evidence for either prong of that determination. I don't think that the applicant has met their burden of production, even no less the burden of proof here to either prove that the rehabilitation of the structure or portion thereof would cause undue financial hardship to the owner or that the demolition is part of a site plan, site development plan and design plan that would provide clear and substantial benefit to the community. Notwithstanding the staff recommendation, which obviously doesn't have a benefit of the evidence presented at hearing. It's very important that the board focus on that being the job and the evidence that's been presented has not provided any information, such as the factors that you are to utilize to determine those two questions. So that's legally where I think the application is informed. But now I'll certainly let Courtney and Amanda speak to the impacts and the concerns that they have. Okay, thank you. Courtney, go ahead. Okay. Yeah, thank you. I'm very focused on that section of the URBD as well. And I agree with what our council said about having met the burden of proof regarding undue financial hardship. And I also see that in the greater context of Montpelier, generally the state of Vermont, etc., in terms of the policy goals and the themes that run throughout regulations and legislation about what we want here in the city of Montpelier and generally in Vermont, and which speaks to the second half of 1B in terms of any substantial benefit to the community. Needless to say, two of the neighbors are very, very concerned about the effect of the dramatic relocation of a historic structure away from its master dwelling to a position on our neighbor's property that would actually events a different relationship. It would appear to belong to Amanda and Kevin's house or to my property. And it would not exist as a historic structure, which at the time it was constructed, those barns were normally constructed adjoining the master dwelling or very near to the master dwelling. We have a lot of, I personally have a lot of other concerns beyond the historic integrity. I'm very concerned about the effects of the value of my home. I'm very concerned on issues of environmental sustainability. I've asked a number of experts in a variety of disciplines to come into my home to assess the effect on my solar gain, my daylighting. However, the plans are so vague and actually internally contradictory that they have said that with those plans, they've given me a general sense of the damage that would be done. But with those plans, it's hard for them to assess because they're very vague and you're internally contradictory. I think I mentioned the value of my home and also the enjoyment of my home. I am deeply, deeply concerned about the context in which the request for demolition, a demolition permit has been presented. Thank you. We'll have a chance in a minute for DRB members to ask questions of the things you just said. But for now, thank you. And I will turn to Amanda to take a couple of minutes as well for any comments she would like to make. Hi. Just trying to, okay. Hi there. So I live at 18 Liberty and my home is diagonal currently from the barn and the prospect is to move the barn behind my house. And the barn is almost as big as my house, if not as big as my house. And it would block my kitchen windows and my dining room windows and potentially my daughter's window to a bedroom that's already blocked by house on the other side and our bathroom window upstairs as well. I have concerns obviously, like solar gain, our house is a beautiful bright house right now and that's going to completely change. It's not, it would be awful. It would definitely affect the property value and it would definitely affect just my overall enjoyment of my home and my plants enjoyment of my home. Yeah. I also feel that the plans aren't very accurate. Like I feel like they don't look dimensionally rough. Like if you look at them, like it makes it seem like the barn's going to be further away from my house when it's going to be like right up against my house, which is really scary to me. Yeah. And the stormwater runoff is potentially a huge issue because we already have issues with water going into our basement and I'm really concerned about that. Yeah, sure. Hi. Sorry. I don't mean to interrupt. You are welcome. You're welcome to join us. I am Amanda's. We finally got married after four years of engagement, but so we have been living here for a little bit. We've been in Vermont for six years. I do have a few different concerns regarding the movement of the barn. Looking at the stormwater runoff, I do have some concerns about with such a large structure with a standing seam roof and us as technically actually a more historic structure that was built earlier than the barn itself. And we have a dry stone laid foundation. The amount of groundwater that we're already dealing with close enough to a flood plain or flood zone is going to be greatly exacerbated by a large structure that is then draining water here. Beyond all of the other reasons that Amanda came up with, just now that we're all extremely, I mean valid and everything else, the big thing that I'm worrying about is the structural safety of my own home and going forward, the idea that this whole motion is over the idea of a historic home when the home that is in jeopardy is actually technically older than it, I think. Yeah, I think, I mean, I don't know. I just have a few objections to that, but I'll leave it to you guys anyway. So I guess I just would love for an environmental engineer to come check out the space, to check out the wastewater runoff as well as having a historic, a person who knows about historic homes, be able to check out the space and see if it would be all right to have it moved because I don't think that it would be an effective use of space for us for sure. You don't want that to happen. Thank you. I'll let you guys go. I'm sorry. Thank you. It's okay. Thank you, Amanda. And I want to make sure I caught the name of your partner. Was it Jason? Kevin. Kevin. K. E. V. I. M. A. Coughlin, C. O. G. H. L. I. M. Okay, great. Thank you, Heather. All right. Okay. This is Brooke. Yes, Brooke. Just for orientation purposes. So Amanda and Kevin's house is actually it was built on the property boundaries, my understanding. So the five foot setback when one would normally think of maybe you would have that setback at least on either side of a boundary line. That's not the case. So it's particularly concerning there. And Courtney's house is on the back lot line of the subject property built. How far off Courtney? Maybe you're muted. You're muted. Sorry. So the setback is 10 feet and my house is three feet from the property line. My content is not wastewater, but a massive concern about solar gain and daylight loss. They're saying wastewater, they mean stormwater. Sorry, they said stormwater. Sorry, I made the mistake. Okay, great. Well, thanks. Thanks, folks, for providing some overviews to provide some context, situational context as we move into the criteria. So our job is the DRB as I'm sure you all know, is to look at the zoning and look at the standards that are available to us in order to assess whether the project as proposed meets those standards. And as a development review board, there is some amount of discretion, but we also have the sort of the legislative we have, we have the law to go by. So that's what we're going to be looking at when we go through the staff report. What I would like to do now is see if the DRB members have any questions for any of the folks who just provided testimony. And we'll spend maybe five or 10 minutes on that and then we'll walk through the staff report, which will answer a lot of questions as well. But I just want to take our time to get the lay of the land, literally and figuratively. So Rob, please go ahead. Just another record. Amanda and Kevin just like describe and point out which house there is theirs. So maybe Meredith, could you, could you share the site plan with us or one piece of it? This is the part of the meeting where I put Meredith on the spot. Thank you, Meredith. Hold on one second. My copy of the full packet went away. While you're doing that, I will I'll welcome another DRB member whose books haven't been introduced to you yet. Joe Kiernan is on the DRB. Thanks. Good to see you, Joe. I do have a question. Sure. Let's um, thanks, Dean. Let's um, let's get Rob's question answered and then we'll, and you can go next. Okay. So this is the new proposed site plan here. And I believe that Amanda's house, Amanda and Kevin's house is here, right here. This is Courtney's. So this is, you know, what the site plan says, it's, you know, it's not, it's not a surveyed site plan. Down it says Karen's house and pink house. If you go scroll down to the next page, it says Karen's house and pink house. I just wonder which one is, which one is which. Maybe you go down another page. Yeah. So there, so Amanda, your house was Karen's house. Yes. Yes. So that's perfect. Thank you. Okay. And while we're, while we're on this picture, I just want to observe, um, we've got vertical lines going up and down through these. That's an indication of the roof line. So does that mean that these, these both drain off in the same direction and not towards each other? Is that what's represented on that diagram? I mean, that's a question for Allison or I don't think Will is here, right? We'll shave off. Yeah. We can leave looking at Google Earth. Yeah. That's the peak of the roof line there. Peak. That is the word I was looking for. Thank you, Joe. Great. Appreciate that. Um, all right, Jean. I just have a question for the applicant. So what is the game of rather than revitalizing or restoring the existing historic barn, removing the shed because it seems like it's the hazardous at this point, as your neighbors suggested. What is the game of moving it rather than restoring it in its present location? Hi, can you guys hear me? Yep. Yep. Okay. Great. Thank you. Um, well, this, this barn has been a long, long project. Um, talk to the credit union, the state-of-the-art credit union about several times. I'm going to, I'm going to pause you if I can, Allison. A couple folks are having trouble hearing you. It's just a little, a little blippy the way that cell phones can be. So, um, if you wouldn't mind trying again and I don't know, maybe hold the phone a little closer to your mouth if you wouldn't mind. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. And I heard you say the barn's been a long project and you were talking to the credit union. Go ahead. Thanks. Here. Um, basically, I can't get along with the barn in, in this next 16, I think, is having an approach on my property. Allison, I'm so sorry to interrupt you again. It's, I don't think it's your fault. I think it's a technology issue. Um, it's, some folks can hear you and some, some folks can't. Um, let's see. I'll look to Meredith. Do you think it's useful for, for Allison to hang up and call back in or? Um, yeah. I mean, Allison, is there any way you can get to a landline instead of a cell phone? Yeah, I know the connection isn't. It's not getting better. It's getting, it's getting worse. And we're going to blame it on the weather. Yeah. Um, these, these things do happen. Um, tell you what, let me, I think this is an important question and I, I don't want to, to miss a complete answer. Um, I'm going to propose the turn it off and turn it back on again method of, of technological repair as, as the best thing I can think of. So Allison, I'm so sorry, would you, would you be willing to hang up and call back in and, and we'll give that a try? And we'll, we'll hold your thought and the question until you're able to return. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. Thank you everybody for your patience. So we'll just wait a minute while Allison hangs up and then dials back in. Is everybody else, I guess I'm the only one talking, but it's every, is there things coming through? All right. Yeah. May I ask a question? Um, if it's a procedural question. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Um, just, um, could we clarify how close, um, when Allison moves the barn, if she does, um, away from its historic location up against our property lines? Let's, let's get to that when she comes back. That's, that's a fact of the case question. Okay. Um, I should have said what procedural means sort of logistics of the meeting. That's okay. That's all right. It's a good, it's, um, we'll make sure that there is space for that question. Allison, welcome back. Hi. Um, I will say that I did get stranded because of thunderstorms and wasn't able to get back. Um, so I do apologize for the bad cell phone connection. We understand. Can't be helped. Um, thanks for calling in the weather. All right. So, um, I'm going to back up a little and I'm going to count on Jean to nod. I want to reiterate his question, which was what's the gain rather than restoring the barn in the existing location? Why would you, why move it instead of restoring an existing location? We heard, um, that you talked to the credit union. You can't get a loan with the barn in its current location, and that's the last we heard. Okay. Um, the, the home next door had built in addition within one foot of the barn. I'm not sure when that happened, but it's been there the whole time of which there. The addition encroaching on the barn has prevented me from getting a new loan, 30 year mortgage from the credit union. It also makes restoring the barn in place impractical. Um, and it's, it had to stay in place more expensive. You cannot paint the backside of the barn because of the proximity to the house next door. Um, and also I, I can't get a mortgage visit there. Okay. Thank you. Um, we heard you. That worked. Thank you. Thank you very much. Sure. Um, do you have cost estimates, Allison, for what it would cost to restore the barn in place compared to moving it to restore it? I don't have those numbers. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thanks. So I'm going to proceed with having, um, DRB members ask, ask some, any clarifying questions from anyone we've heard from so far. And then we'll, we'll do that for a few more minutes than go into the staff report. So do DRB members have any more questions? I guess I have one question and it's for Allison. Um, we, and this, the question also had some information in it. Um, I'd like Meredith to affirm, we are, we are reviewing the moving of the barn and we are treating the barn as an accessory structure. Um, an accessory structure has a certain set of rules within the zoning bylaw. As far as what standards it does or doesn't need to meet. Um, so I want to confirm with the applicant that this will indeed be an accessory structure once it's been moved or, or whether it will be something else. So Allison, could you tell us how the barn is going to be used once it's moved? It's going to be used as a barn. Thank you. Thank you. Um, other questions from DRB members? Rob, do you want to mute? Yeah, I got a follow up to that. Um, so a barn, is that a listed use? Um, like what, maybe Meredith can help out with what the planned uses for, you know, for this, I'm guessing not residential is what she means by the barn, but. So is that a question from Mira? Uh, yeah, you can answer it first of what the proposed use would be. Well, do you want to propose, what the barn is being proposed to use, be used as, or how the regulations deal with barns? Which of those? The regulations question is for you. The, uh, maybe a little elaboration is for, uh, is for Allison. Do you want me to go first? Yes, please. Okay. So a barn is one of those items that is specifically listed as a accessory structure. So this is not something that is listed in the use table, right? It's in section 3003. Um, when you look at the accessory structures and uses within setbacks for principal buildings is under figure three dash 07. And these are just examples. Um, but the, the garages, carports, it says pole barns, but it's a barn and similar large accessory structures, right? So there, we have all sorts of uses that are accessory to residential uses parking, you know, a garage, a storage shed, a barn. These are all dealt with with as accessory structures in that, depending on how they fall into this chart, they may not have to meet the principal structure setbacks or other principal structure dimensional requirements. Um, but this is not something the barn, if the barn had a, a, another primary dwelling unit in it, right? If it was being converted and going to be used as a new third dwelling unit, it would no longer really be an accessory structure because it's being used for the primary use on the parcel as a whole, which is residential. Um, but you know, even a, even a, you know, commercial entity might have some accessory structures, sheds and things that would fall into these categories. Okay. Thank you. And the applicant previously did state that it would be an accessory structure, so that's good enough for me. Thanks, Rob. I see that Kevin's unmuted. Did you have a question, Kevin? No, I'm sorry. I was scratching. Okay, you unmuted. Um, and, um, Allison, did you want to, um, clarify anything based on Rob's question just now? No. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um, all right. Um, Brooke, I see that you have your hand up, so I think what I'm going to do is take your question, see if I have other questions from DRB members, and then we're going to move into the staff report. So please go ahead, Brooke. Um, thank you. I, I had a question, um, because while, um, maybe a 30-year refi, or mortgage for refinance couldn't be obtained, it appears that the materials that were provided to the DRB from the credit union indicated while you're not going to qualify for a 30-year refinance on this, they actually did provide a credit line to, uh, uh, equity loan for the moving of the bar, and it looks like $50,000. So it doesn't seem to be accurate, um, to suggest that financing couldn't be obtained. It just maybe not, would not be the most advantageous financially. Um, perhaps I could, oh, I didn't mean to interrupt you, sorry. If, if that could be clarified, because the materials seem to be at odds with the notion that this can't be, no loan could be gotten to do anything. Okay. So, um, Allison, could you please clarify? I would note that in the application materials, there is discussion of the 30-year mortgage that couldn't be obtained for the whole property. There's discussion of the line of credit that would, which I, um, maybe you could tell us why that, why that was granted and how it will affect your financing on the parcel overall. Yes, that's, that's accurate. I can get a home equity loan to move the barn, but I cannot get a 30-year mortgage because of the encroachment issues of the home next door. Um, so, um, does that mean that, does that mean that if you wanted to refinance your home or if you were selling your home and someone else was trying to get a mortgage, that it would not be possible to get a mortgage? Yes, that's exactly. Okay. Okay. And, um, I will acknowledge that these questions stretch a bit beyond, um, what we usually ask about at the, at the DRB, but because one of the tests, uh, having to do with demolition of a historic structure is the financial, um, burden, it's not the exact word, but, um, that, that is why we're, we're talking about this. So, um, okay. Thank you. So, um, I'm going to, I mean, I see you have your hand up. I'm going to check in with DRB members before I come back to you. So, um, DRB members, do you have other questions? It's for clarifying that, Kate, on the last one. Oh, sure. That, no, that was a, that was a, a, a team effort between Brooks question and Allison's answer. Thank you. Um, okay. So I'll take Amanda's question. If it generates questions from DRB members, we'll, we'll do that. And, but otherwise I'm going to move to the staff report, um, after that. So Amanda, please go ahead. Um, I just had a question. So I, I understand not being able to get the 30 year fixed mortgage, um, but does the barn actually have to be, could the barn be moved one foot over or just can the barn be moved in a way that it wouldn't be so damaging to Courtney and I's experience of life? And then beyond that, um, could we get more clarification about, um, potentially more information from the bank about what needs to be done? Um, so I will ask Allison to answer, um, ha, what options she had and how she decided to make the choice she made in order to solve the 30 year mortgage question. Okay. Thank you. The contractor that I'm working with, um, did submit a letter which stated, you know, if the barn must stay in place, he would have to move it first over to the back of the yard before a proper foundation could be installed. And then he would have to move it back. So that would incur more costs. And was it content? Oh, you're moving it back in one direction towards the, some of the other homes. Is it possible or from your perspective is moving the barn toward your, I think it's toward your driveway. Um, so perpendicular to the direction you're moving it, um, to remedy the, the issue of being too close to the other property. Was that something that you considered? And if so, if not, why not? I guess. Well, it would still need to be moved to where there is no structure. So if it gets moved, you know, towards Judy and Steamer's house, it would first have to get moved to where there is nothing, you know, where the green glasses. Then then a foundation would be installed and then it would have to be moved back. I see. So the current proposal involves building a foundation and then moving the barn from point A to point B on top of the new foundation. If you did something different, you would be talking about moving it from point A to point B while the foundation gets, the new foundation gets built and then over to point C where the new foundation is. Is that what I'm hearing you say? So there would be two moves instead of one of the building? Absolutely. Exactly. Okay. Good. So we're going to get into some of these details and dimensional pieces as, as we go through. And I think Courtney, maybe you could tell me the topic of your question, then I can make sure that we incorporate it into the staff review that we're about to go through. Okay. It relates to the information that Allison just gave us. And I'm happy to have it answered later, which is as someone who owned a historic home and an historic district for 25 years and had to make a lot of decisions, because that's what that's how it is with historic properties is an additional cost and undo financial hardship. That's my question. And that can be answered later happily. Thank you. I think that goes in the category of questions for the board to consider as it evaluates the criteria. Great. All right. Thank you, everybody. What we're going to, I mean, I see you still have your hand up, but I don't know if that's left over or if it's if I'm missing you. My partner did want to say something. Okay. Sure. Last comment, and then we're going to, we're going to move into the details. Here it goes. Okay. Do you want to take it? I guess he doesn't want to say anything anymore. Okay. All right. There will be other opportunities. I don't know what I missed. Okay. Can I just ask a super quick question? Super quick. We're just curious. It appears from what we've discerned that there is an existing mortgage on the property. So the question about, well, you couldn't get a mortgage on this property. Sounds like the subject property and its current owner has a current mortgage, correct? I don't know. So I'm going to put that question to Allison and then we'll move on. So Allison, could you speak to that please? Yeah. What happens, I have learned, is an appraiser notes encroachment on an appraisal and gives it to the bank, at least to the credit union. And I think the particular mortgage products that I was applying for, HFA, that precludes a 30-year mortgage. If there is a note from an appraiser that says encroachment, the bank will not give me a 30-year mortgage. Okay. Were you able to obtain a mortgage when you purchased the home? I did. Okay. So could you tell us why that was possible? And I do feel like I'm prying. So thank you, but this helps. This is Michael. Hey, Kate, do you mind if I interrupt you real quick? Go ahead. I do want to get to the answer to this, Michael, but go ahead. And that's imperative can weigh in. Otherwise, I feel like we're getting way beyond the scope of this permit. And personally, I'm feeling a little uncomfortable with the amount of questions we're asking the applicant's finances. I don't feel like this is necessarily appropriate. And I think we should move on to the permit itself. And if the questions come up in the scope of that review, then we can go further. But I feel like we're very far afield from how we've treated other permits. Okay. Thank you, Michael. I've been pursuing this on the line of we're looking at financial hardship as an argument for needing to take the barn down. But I want to look to DRB members and look for a nod or a shake of the head regarding Michael's comment. Do you agree that as appropriate, we should take these up as we go through the staff report? Well, if you mean take these up as in the totality of the financing options, I think I agree with Michael in that we are getting far afield here. I think that there's it can be considered within the context of what the permit request is. But I think we're going into places that are further than we should. Okay. In that case, let's pull ourselves back closer to the context of the permit request. I do think we'll find that a lot of what we've discussed applies to the criteria we need to evaluate. But in the event that we're getting too far afield, queuing to the staff report and to the requirements we need to follow is a good policy. So we're going to move in that direction now. Brooke, I'd like to get to your question as we go along. Can I just ask one procedural question at this juncture? Yes. It's really unclear from the application, but what is the application request? Is this a request for a hardship decision or the other option, which is a substantial benefit? Which which are we doing tonight as the decision that you're making? Because I agree. You don't want to talk about finances. If that's not what the applicant is arguing and trying to get approval on, it's one or the other. So which proceeding are you doing? And that way you'll know exactly what the scope is. I'm asking financial questions because it appears that that's being talked about. So Meredith is going to rejoin us in in a second, but what I'm going to do is I'm going to look at 3304d2 and read it to you. The demolition or replacement of any structure or portion thereof listed as a contributing structure on the Vermont Historic Sites and Structure Survey and the National Register of Historic Resources is prohibited unless the Development Review Board approves the Demolition and Site Restoration Plan and the Board finds rehabilitation would cause undue financial hardship to the owner or the demolition provides a clear and substantial benefit to the community. In my mind that is, and I would like Meredith to comment on this, in my mind that is at the Board's discretion to look at the application to determine the circumstances that apply. But Meredith, please tell me how you were reading it. So it is at the Board's discretion when I get these permit applications, you know, I let evidence know what the standards are. In general, the financial burden has some degree, a little bit clearer scope of what goes into that even if it is a really long list and the Board has an opportunity to just consider all of those elements. And so the, I have just found over time that that is where applicants tend to be able to have information that they can present to you. And then you have the option to look at it either way. The applicant doesn't necessarily have to pick one or the other of those as long as during the application and during the public hearing process you get the evidence you need to decide whether or not they fit either of those options. Either both or neither. Yes. Okay. Thank you. So what I would like to do is move to the staff report and I'm going to start the staff reports in order of the zoning by-law. I'm going to start with the demolition piece because the application is for the demolition of a historic structure. So if that pleases the Board, I'm going to look to my Board members for a nod. Shall we get into that? Thank you. Okay. All right. So the part of the staff report that I'm going to walk through begins on page four of that staff report. So the demolition, the requirements are that there be a demolition and site remediation plan describing the intended use of the site in the manner in which the site shall be graded, resurfaced, landscaped, and or screened to minimize visual adverse visual impacts and secured to prevent hazard to public safety and adjoining properties. So I would like the application packet tells us that the larger application package serves as the site remediation plan. I'm interested in hearing more from Allison about the manner in which the site shall be returned to grade, surface and landscaped, and what's being done to minimize adverse visual impacts, prevent hazards to public safety and adjoining properties. And if you could point us to the parts of the packet that tell us where that's happening, that would be very helpful. And I can repeat this question too, but I would also like to know the exact measurement between the barn and the Karen's house, Amanda and Kevin's house, because I see the five foot setback, but not an actual measurement on the site plan. You're talking about the shed, demolishing the shed. Sorry, I'm talking about, Meredith needs to speak up because I think your question, yeah, go ahead, Meredith. We are just evaluating the demolishing of the shed at this time. That provision is just about demolition of the shed has nothing to do with actually moving the barn. Thank you. Thank you. I misspoke. I conflated. So we're talking about the removal of the shed. So yes, please do elaborate on what the demolition and site remediation plan are and what's being done in the demolition of the shed to prevent hazardous public safety and adjoining properties. And I'll turn that over to you, Allison. Well, the contractor that I hired, I have told him, obviously it's a tight site. We need to make sure it's very quick. The materials are removed quickly, but I don't think I included that specific remediation plan in my application. I don't have those specifics in the application right now on exactly how it will be done, what materials will be used, and the procedure that will be followed. I didn't realize specific information from my tractor in the application. Okay. Questions from board members or about that? May I ask you the contractors? That's a valid question. Jason Merrill? Okay. Rob, did you have a question? Um, I'll wait till the appropriate time. I think we're getting there. Okay. I'm sure we are. Great. Okay. Do board members feel satisfied that they have enough information to assess this, that this has been provided? I feel that I need to... Yeah, go ahead, Rob. Well, I just wanted to point out, I would note that I think any reference to this process to whether they're being in encroachment or a property line, I just would say that I don't feel like the information will be provided tonight, the quality of people tonight, to be able to consider that factor has anything to do with financial hardship because that's not something that appears to have been determined by a professional, and that may be irrelevant, but I've heard the word encroachment, I've heard a letter from the bank, but neither of those processes have put into the record as a fact that there is an encroachment over the property line, and so I just wanted to throw that out there as a concern for me, and I would voice not to consider anything related to encroachment in our deliberations part of this process, and if they would like to, we would probably need to get more information from a professional. Okay, and by a professional are you talking about, are you interested in seeing a surveyed? I think that the applicant, if they are preparing to use the term encroachment and have it be stated as fact in the record that there is an encroachment, I leave it to the applicant to get legal counsel, whether that means a survey or whether, you know, an opinion, like I'm not really sure, I think that there's any number of possibilities or, you know, actually other remedies that they could go for, so I don't know. I guess this is Allison, sorry, that's a word the bank used. Okay, I guess my point being is, is that if we're considering that letter from the bank, if someone were to come in and come to determination that there was not an encroachment and the bank saw that, you know, evidence, then potentially it seems like the bank wouldn't, you know, see there was an encroachment and it would resolve the financing issue and the information provided appears that the encroachment is, you know, the only mechanism which is triggering the financing troubles. Is there evidence in the materials provided from the appraisers that an encroachment is present on the property? Is that evidence in the packet? We do in the full packet have something from the appraiser, I believe. Meredith, could you point us in the right direction, please? So, are you meaning like, do they have, I mean there's not, it's not, as far as I could tell and I tried to read the whole thing, it's not giving like title and deed references necessarily. It is making the professional opinion of an appraiser that the, the, there's, that there's a violation of this zoning ranks in how close those two buildings are. You know, because that's, that's what an encroachment is in the terms of there, as far as I was able to tell. I'm not, I'm not an appraiser, I don't have that training. You know, I think my suggestion would be, and this is not saying that what Rob said doesn't have any validity whatsoever, is to make sure that the board looks at all of the different factors to be considered when making the financial hardship determination. There's a whole long list of them, but I do, you know, I, I think that the encroachment is termed in, in the appraiser's report, maybe a term of art that they mean, I just, I don't know. Okay. Maybe a term, I honestly don't know what those standards are. Okay. Well, let's be careful not to speculate on that. I would like to keep moving through the criteria, because there will be the financial hardship test right now. What we are looking at is my documents here. We are confirming that the application includes certain, certain pieces. We haven't gotten into the criteria yet. And so what I'm hearing from DRB members is there's some question as to whether we have sufficient information, this demolition and site remediation plan. And we are, and we also are unclear as to whether there is sufficient evidence that demolition or rehabilitation of the structure would cause undue financial hardship to the owner. We're talking about whether we have evidence as a board to make decisions. Is, is that board members do you want to weigh in on that? Do you feel we have, are you, Rob is questioning whether there's adequate evidence about the encroachment piece of financial burden? I'm in agreement with Rob on that. I think that since the term is used, and is now part of the public record that we have to fully explore it, the encroachment issue, which may mean that surveyed site plan might need to be prepared. Right. And as Meredith noted, there are other criteria and ways in which we evaluate financial hardship. We are talking about the mortgage as one piece where we've gone, we've gone pretty deep on that already. I want to get to the other parts of that financial hardship test to understand what information we do and don't have. I, I want to get through a couple more things before I take questions. I do want to keep the discussion going amongst all of us, but I want to move through the staff report just a little more. I acknowledge broke that your hand is up and I will not forget that. All right. So we've talked about whether we have adequate evidence per 30 04 CL demolition must be completed within 60 days of commencement. Allison, could you verify that that would be the case? That the building would be demolished within 60 days and remediate and within 60 days of commencement. Yep. Yes. Yep. Thank you. All right. All right. The board and this now I'm looking at the top of page five of the staff report text of 30 04 D2, which is what we must find as a board. We must find that we must it is prohibited demolitions prohibited unless the DRB approves the demolition and site restoration plan and the board finds that rehabilitation of the structure or a portion thereof would cause undue financial hardship to the owner or the demolition is part of a site development and design plans that would provide clear and substantial benefit to the community. So the next piece of our zoning bylaw are the factors that we can consider in deciding whether there is financial hardship that is undue and I would like to get into that. But I'm going to pause and first take questions from the board and then and then address acknowledge Brooks raised hand. So questions from the board. All right. Brooke, did you want to add something before we were going into the considerations to find undue financial hardship? It was just about the encroachment issue. The materials themselves, I don't think you need to dig any further into that because the materials themselves actually show that financing is available on the property and is being provided. That's how the applicant is actually going to be moving the structure. So the notion that I don't like this kind of financing, I'd rather have a refinance at a long term debt thing. Well, she may be able to do that after she cures this encroachment if it is one. But the evidence that's before you says she can get financing. You don't need to find out that one particular kind of financing isn't available. 15 years. I'm going to leave the discussion of the encroachment and the mortgage at that as we previously discussed. I'll take a brief comment from Steamer and then we'll go into the criteria for undue financial hardship. So please go ahead and unmute and can remark. Got it. I just wanted to point out there's a significant difference in terms of hardship between a fixed 30-year mortgage and the line of credit which typically lasts a year. And if you can't refinance at the end of the year, big hardship. And with respect to the encroachment, I would suggest if somebody got out of tape measure and walked over the property, and I could do that right now and measure the distance between 16 Liberty Street and the barn, that question would be solved. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Board members, we're going to proceed. I know this meeting's gone long and I recognize that we've lost one of our parties. I hope they will be in touch if they can. If it places the board, what I'd like to do is go through the consideration of the factors beginning in the middle of page five of the staff report and we can, board members can ask questions about these factors. That is what we'll do. So when considering the finding of undue financial hardship for income-producing properties, we can consider the following and we'll ask Alison about each of these. The applicant's knowledge of the property's historical significance at the time of acquisition or if it's status subsequent to acquisition. So Alison, when you purchased the property, were you aware that it was a historic property? I was not. You were not. Okay. We also consider the structural soundness of the building or any structures on the property and their suitability for rehabilitation. So we have some information in our packet, but Alison, could you just briefly tell us about the suitability for rehabilitation of the shed, which is the part we're talking about now? The shed is in very bad shape. The exterior wall has disconnected from the sill. There's water, standing water inside the barn. In the spring, there are pictures in the packet that show how far beyond repair it is. Okay. And what was the state of that shed when you purchased the home? It was not in such bad shape, but it was never fully attached to a sill or really a usable space. Okay. Thank you. If the shed were to be rehabilitated and made beautiful and sturdy, what would the economic impact be on your property? I haven't gotten a cost to rehabilitate the shed. Okay. Okay. Would it increase your property value to rehabilitate the shed? Would it provide additional leasing space or anything of that sort? I don't think so. Okay. Thanks. I should have read the criterion that I'm asking about. It's where consideration is of the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the existing property in the case of proposed demolition. Okay. So I'm going to pause there and see if board members have questions about those considerations or want additional information from the applicant in order to consider them. I mean, I just, as a temperature, you know, check here, I look through the staff before it. I've seen what's been presented. I just, I don't know, would put it to the applicant. I don't have the information or feel like I'm going to get the information tonight to be able to make a decision and would entertain the option of continuing the next hearing to work on sort of detailing the reasons for this exemption, maybe getting professional assistance to prepare that argument. I think that the questions from the neighbors in the community were good and that's feedback. And I would pause to say that, yeah, just again, I don't feel like we're going to get to where we need to tonight. I'd rather not waste people time and, you know, have more information. Okay. Thanks, Rob. I appreciate that comment. I thank you for zooming us out a little bit. That is totally appropriate because what we're doing is deciding if we have the information to make the decision and before we can make the decision. So I'm hearing from one board member that more information is needed. And I'd like to hear from other board members if you feel additional information is needed. Kevin, go ahead. Yeah, I'm going to support Rob's comments. I'm in agreement with the fact that we do not have the information necessary to make even the most fundamental decisions tonight. There needs to be a lot more specificity as to why the barn is being proposed to be in the location that's being proposed and things of that nature. And I'm very concerned about the encroachment issue. I think we need to have a much better idea as to what the actual border lines are. Okay. So I believe that the main thing we are able to evaluate based on the standards in front of us has to do with the demolition of the historic structure. I'm going to look to Meredith, but as far as evaluating the location of the barn that is being moved, if I'm looking at the black and white of our zoning bylaw, we do not have the authority to do site plan review because this is a one or two family dwelling. We do have as part of the application site plan for the future location. If that's going to that should have more detail on it than what exists. But Meredith, chime in here. Go ahead. You said site plan in two different ways. You're right. I did. I did. But if you're concerned with regard to the getting a survey so that you can judge the financial hardship aspect better, that's separate. I would just not use the site plan language for that. Thank you. Under from moving the barn, there are other provisions to be weighed that we haven't gotten into at all that are in the chapter 300 that are in you mentioned in the staff report that we haven't discussed yet. Let's go ahead. Let's get to that in a second. So what I'd like to do is I would like to let the DRB members identify what additional information we need to evaluate the demolition of the historic structure in order to ascertain financial hardship. If the argument is regarding encroachment and the mortgage, the board is seems to be asking for additional information to verify that an encroachment is in fact occurring. So that's one piece of additional information. The other thing that we have not seen is estimated costs to repair the the shed that's falling down. Estimated costs to move the barn from point A to point B and estimated costs for what it would be if it were a point A to point B to point C. That is a comparison that we are talking about, I believe, in this. It is that I want to clear. Yes, go ahead, go ahead. So you're talking, you're not revitalizing, rehabilitating the shed that's being demolished. That's the proposal. Does the applicant want it? Because the language is a little confusing. Does the applicant want another shed? Want to rehabilitate? Or is this because of what I'm reading from the application? It's not. The fiscal the undue financial impact has to do with what it would cost the applicant to rehabilitate the shed versus taking it down. So that's that's what's before us in understanding. Meredith, would you like to go ahead? Sorry, Gene. Because Rob made his point and Kevin as well. I personally think I have significant evidence or information from the applicant to present that or differentiate the cost factors on one versus the other. It's pretty obvious to me. Related to the shed itself, not the barn. Correct. So Gene feels you have sufficient evidence. Meredith. And then Kevin. You know what? Keep going. Because I think my brain's getting a little convoluted right now. That's okay. A complicating factor in this application is that we're really reviewing the shed and it implicates the rest of it. And we as a board need to have a good understanding of what we're reviewing at what time. When we're talking about financial hardship, we're talking about the shed itself. Okay. Kevin. You know, I don't have anything further at this time. Okay. Thanks. Okay. All right. I guess I'll go ahead. Go ahead. I have a question kind of for Rob and Kevin. Is the encroachment question, what are you trying to determine exactly? You're trying to determine if it's legally encroachment or if the buildings are too close to each other? I'm not sure exactly what exactly you're looking for when you ask for documentation or a survey on the encroachment. Right. Because those could be two different things. The buildings could be too close together without there being a step over the property line or there could be a step over a property line and buildings that are too close together is what I'm hearing you say, Joe. Sure. My thing is that I think if the existence of an encroachment is being used as an argument for financial hardship, we need clear evidence that an encroachment exists. I don't really care actually if the survey comes to us or not, stop talking about the encroachment. I just think that remedy due diligence needs to be done with the bank to evaluate whether there's an encroachment or not and whether financing maybe could actually be obtained because there might not be one. I don't know. Okay. I was just looking at the pictures I've provided to us. I mean, it looks like maybe a squirrel could get through between these two buildings, but I certainly couldn't. I don't know. I guess I just don't know why they look like they're too close together. I mean, the eve of one house is over the roof of the other house or the barn, I guess. Barn of the eve is actually over the addition of the house next door to it. That just seems like an encroachment to me. Sure, but I think that what's also part of this process is that there could be additional rights or something out there that would also satisfy the bank's concerns, but I really don't get the weeds on this. I think that it's just the very specific, if that terminology and word is going to be used and relied upon in order to talk about financial hardship, we need facts upon it. That's an if. That's something that we have paid attention to as board members and other witnesses as well have talked about the encroachment. It may be that the applicant chooses to make a different line of reasoning and argument as to the financial hardship that and that is up to the applicant. What I'm hearing is that when it comes to the demolition of the shed itself, which is attached to the barn, so it's hard to separate the issues, but when we're talking about the demolition of the shed itself, we as a board would like additional evidence that it is a financial hardship to repair the shed in place, and we've heard some descriptions of why it's in bad shape, but we haven't seen numbers that show what makes it so difficult. Can I interject real quick, this is Michael? Sure, yeah. So if we're requiring the applicant in this instance to provide that information, then in sort of full faith here and giving everyone all the information, then we should probably explain why we didn't require this from the previous applicant with an historic home, with the enclosed porch that was being disconnected from the home. We didn't ask for any of this. We didn't ask for any estimates. We received verbal testimony from a contractor that had been hired and had assessed the property, and that verbal testimony was accepted. Well, at the moment, this is an entry level here with other members, a verbal confirmation from a contractor whose skills and qualifications we didn't ask for, nor did we inquire how did he get to that number. All he said is it was going to be cost prohibitive. He said it was like he estimated it would be about $50,000, and you know, I want to I want to view this case. I think we need to stay within the bounds of the staff report and have these discussions when we go into our deliberative session, because I think we're we're changing the goalposts here for the applicants, and I don't think I don't think we're providing clear guidance in a fair way. Okay. I appreciate that you're keeping an eye on the fairness in the goalposts. It's our job as DRB members to decide whether we have enough evidence to determine the whether the standards have been met for demolition. And what I'm hearing from the board is that we don't have that evidence, and so it's our prerogative to ask for it. If there was a contractor here, we might be having a discussion about it, but because there's not, it's appropriate to continue the hearing until that evidence is received. If we were to discuss this in deliberative session, we would have closed the hearing and no further evidence could be accepted. And so that's that's why this is different. So I'm I'm going to move on. We have determined that we need more more evidence before we can answer the 3004. Board members, please nod or shake your heads. Yes. Okay. And Michael, I hear you shaking your head. I don't think we need additional information. And if we do, we need to be clear about what it is and requiring the applicant to go back to her bank for further information. That's beyond the request for an applicant. I mean, I think we're asking for too much. I also agree with Michael. Okay. So it's up to the applicant whether they want to go to the bank and pursue the financial hardship related to the mortgage. I think in order for this board to understand about the shed itself, we need to see estimates of what it would cost to rehabilitate it versus knock it down. Rob? Yes, I would just for the point of discussion, maybe moving things forward, make a motion to continue this hearing until the July 6th regular meeting of the DRB giving to give the applicant time to provide additional information on their financial hardship for any reason of why this demolition of the shed should be approved under the sections also adjacent to financial hardship. Okay. There's a motion from Rob. Is there a second? I'll second it. There's a second from Kevin. And now we can begin discussion. I would like to note that it could be a good use of our and other folks' time to look at the other pieces of the staff report and close the hearing after we've had a chance to look at the general standards. That would be my preference, but I'm interested in knowing the will of the board. That's my preference. I've been just waiting for you to say that and continue in going through the staff report before motions are. Yeah, I think it's good that we had the motion in order to get the discussion going, but I would support continuing through the other criteria. Okay. So, we have a motion. The motion can either be withdrawn or we can vote on it. I'm not going to retry. Okay. I retract my second. Okay. I'm going to disclose this is where I'm going to look to a parliamentarian perhaps. I would throw out my motion. Okay. Thank you. I would like to thank you all. I would like to continue discussion of this. I appreciate the brain power everyone's put into this and the fact that we've been sitting in front of computers for 90 minutes. So, I'd like to propose a seven minute break to return at 837. When we return, we will review the general standards. As we enter that part of the discussion, I'm going to again put Meredith on the spot and ask her to clarify for us the way that we are reviewing the accessory structure as distinct from the demolition piece of things because we've been talking about standards having to do with the demolition of the shed. Another part of what's happening here that would have been an administrative permit is the moving of the barn. So, I'm going to ask Meredith when we return to give us an overview of the standards pertaining to the movement of the accessory structure. And with that, I'll see you all at 830. I want to confirm that Michael is with us. Michael, are you back? Okay. I see Amanda. Thanks. I want to confirm Allison, are you back? Yes, I'm here. Thanks. And I'll ask again if Michael's back. We have enough DRB members to proceed, so I'm going to go ahead. First, I'm going to thank you all for your patience. I appreciate it. I appreciate that we're asking questions and taking time to do that. I know there could be more efficiency, but I appreciate that we're building some understanding and getting things solved, even if it's not always pretty. So, with that, I'm going to return to the criteria. What I would like to do, I want to move on from the demolition standards and get into the next part of the staff report that is the use standards. We did have a question from Steamer, and I know Brooke has her hand up. Okay, we're going to take three to five minutes to wrap up what we talked about to inform us, and then we need to move on. So, go ahead, Steamer, and then Brooke. It appears to me, from reading section 3004d2 to 4004, that's on the right relates to demolition of an income-producing property, and this is clearly not an income-producing property. It's going to be a barn, and it's not going to be rented out. Okay. So, this whole discussion is irrelevant. Thank you for that question, Meredith. Could you speak to that, please? Yeah. So, we still have to consider the undue financial hardship, whether it's income-producing or non-income-producing, and because I understand that the barn itself, well, the shed, it's the property, part of the property is being rented out. I mean, maybe Allison is the, I guess I can't ask Allison questions. There's a really good definition of how to make the differentiation, but there is at least part of the parcel as a whole that is used to bring in income, and that's why I voted to go with that standard in the staff report. If the board, I mean, the staff report is suggestions. If the board is free to review the entire provision and say, oh, this is what you said we should use, but we really think you should be using the non-income-producing properties standard, right? So, income-producing properties is the building site or object cannot be feasibly used or rented at a reasonable rate of return in its present condition or if rehabilitated, and denial of the application would deprive the owner of all reasonable use of the property, which in this case, I would mean the shed, right? If you don't demolish it, you still can't use it. The other option is for a non-income-producing property, which so far generally in our review has meant a single-family home, because otherwise the applicant, the owner is usually making money off of somewhere on the property. That standard is the building site or object has no beneficial use as a residential dwelling or for an institutional use in its present state or if rehabilitated, and denial of the application would deprive the owner of all reasonable use of the property. So, it just, this didn't seem to fit in that mold for me, but if the board just felt like that's where it should go, then that's a possibility as well. Okay, so this is something, in order to move on, I think this is something that with like additional information on from the applicant, the extent to which the property as a whole is an income-producing property, and the extent to which the little shed is an income-producing property. Okay, thank you. All right, so again, thank you for bearing with us. Brooke, please go ahead. I'm a little concerned about how this process is unfolding, and it goes to the issue of when an applicant comes for permission to get something, they are the ones who frame the issues, who say, I'm entitled to a permit because, and the because needs to be because, it's a financial hardship or the other reason it's a benefit to the substantial benefit to the community. Sorry about the dog barking. And so now instead of the applicant choosing where, which direction they're going and what their standard is of proof, you know, you're saying, well, we get to figure out where they go and we'll apply it wherever we can. And now you're giving them another bite at the hour to go back. Excuse me. Sorry, I have two dogs to keep track of. But my concern is that you're putting on the application for the applicant. Now you're sending them back to go retrieve more evidence that they didn't come with. And the decision should be you didn't provide the evidence to prove that this is a substantial benefit to the community of Montpelier or there's a financial, there is a significant financial hardship. And those standards aren't, oh, go get us some more information. And this is what you should get. I want a letter from the credit union that says more than what you gave us. I wanted to talk about this and that. Tell us about obstructions. The bottom line is they haven't presented evidence to support their application. And right now you guys are sitting there trying to figure out whether it's an income producing property or not. Why is the applicant not planting their feet and saying, this is what I'm applying for. I'm applying for it because it's an income producing property. And I can demonstrate under the many other analyses that are laid out in your section 3000. This is what we go and talk about. That's what she should have come with today to say it's an income producing property and it's going to be financial hardship. Or the other avenue, which is I have no reasonable beneficial use of my property. It's a regulatory taking it. I can't move it. It's sort of the same legal standard. And I'm very concerned that not only staff, but now the DRB is helping the applicant put together their presentation. She obviously has not presented the information sufficient to clear the bar. And now we're going to go send her off on an errand to come back yet again. I object to this process. You are a judge and That's where I disagree. This is not a professional setting. This is not a law office. She is not a lawyer. She does not have professional representation. And if we held everyone to that standard, no one would get anything done because this is a civilian board. We're not professionals nor a court of law. Yeah, exactly. That's the term I was looking for. Thank you. Well, but I don't I think we need to get this written back in on the staff report and thank you respect to refer the argument from from broken and we get it. Yeah, I think we just need to continue on. If I could just finish my thought, the problem is you leave me now unable. Now I have to not know what we're doing. I have to deal with every shotgun approach here. Michael, Michael, please, please let Brooke finish. Well, I think we're I think this is getting Michael. I'm going to say I'm going to bring this back around. I appreciate the interest in keeping it on track. But Brooke, just in in my point, my point is we don't know what the application is about and now you're going to have a new hearing. We're going to show up again, not knowing what the heck's going on and have to respond to it on spot. That's not fair to us. I think you should set a date. It says whatever evidence you go and collect and bring to us. You have to give us by set date and give us an opportunity to respond to it so that we can't this is a very difficult setting to do it and I can't cross exam and witness and get all the information I want out so that then I can make my point to you. So if okay. Thank you. So I'm not going to I'm not going to take any more any more public comments on this, though I appreciate people's interest. I am going to echo Joe's comment that this is a quasi judicial process that this is a place where we're trying to have neighbors talk to each other where we're trying to help people who may not have been through the DRB before come through the DRB. That does not mean doing the application for them. This means making sure that as a quasi judicial board we have the information that we need. This board has precedent over many years of continuing hearings in order to have adequate information rather than voting applications down because of inadequate information. And Kevin I see you're unmuted if you wanted to add something as the longest serving board member you'd be welcome. I just wanted to support the comments that Kate just made. This is very important that we don't get into this tit for tat kind of battle ground. That's not what this board is about. That's not what this process is about. And Kate's comments are the best summary. Thank you Kevin. I also want to note that the materials usually come out the Thursday or Friday before the meeting and that is when the board sees them. And those are also available to the public at that time on our website. And that is several days before the meeting I acknowledge that it includes a weekend. But the board receives those materials when the applicants and interested parties do as well. I'm going to move on. I'm hoping that Meredith can rejoin us and Michael I appreciate that you were speaking up and thank you for your understanding that we're moving on. I think we've accomplished the goal. Sorry I had to interrupt anybody. Meredith I would like to move into the use the general standards. So the general standards of our zoning are things that apply to everything. We also have some specialized standards depending on what the use is. But those general standards are what we're using to review the project as a whole because we're tangled up because we have the demolition of a shed attached to a barn that's moving. I'm going to ask Meredith to untangle us a little bit and talk about what standards do and do not apply to the movement of the barn. So that we can then walk through those standards to ask questions of the applicant which do constitute evidence and see what we can determine. So if I may Meredith please. Okay so out of the staff report the items that really apply to the barn here under chapter 300 for moving the barn we're really going to be looking at sections 3002 and 3003 about the dimensional standards. In this instance because the primary if you're talking about where exactly you're moving the barn to and these setbacks from property boundaries in some instances accessory structures will have more lenient setbacks than a primary structure but in this case because it's in residential 1500 the primary setbacks the standard ones for all your initial buildings are the most lenient even more than the 3003 special accessory structure setback allowances. So you don't even really need to look at 3003 in this instance it's really just 3002 standards for res 1500 those are worth going to apply and you're going to be looking at setbacks and really and coverage in those dimensional standards nothing else is really getting affected by this. Then you're going to jump ahead and sorry I'm just giving you the things that don't apply because they don't have this on this property um you know erosion control section 3008 can be considered and 3009 stormwater management that's really the bulk of what I think we're looking at um you know the the sometimes in something like this where you're dealing with moving a garage or placing a garage or something barn that's going to be used as a garage you would look at um maybe access and circulation and parking and loading areas I didn't see that those were really being changed much um there's a driveway that that length that the barn is still going to be there and able if it's sound able to be used as parking which I maybe it isn't now that's something I guess to confirm with Allison um but I didn't see that this application was impacting those two so 3002 and then erosion control and stormwater. Okay thank you and so Meredith are there any other standards within the zoning bylaw besides those that are used to evaluate the location or the impact or the aesthetics or the effect of an accessory structure in the zoning district? Not with regard to a single or two family parcel. Okay and for the sake of those who don't read the zoning bylaw every two weeks um which is fine um I just want to note that um there are additional standards in a zoning bylaw that apply if you're talking about three or more units on a piece of property but the state law that tells towns what it can and can't do says that you can't do certain types of review when there are one or two units on the parcel so that's just a little bit of background as to why we're looking at what we're looking at okay and I think that's important important for a butters to know the constraints that that we're working within so um let's let's go in order um section 3002 is dimensional standards and those have to do with how far from the edge of a property line a building needs to be so in this district parcels need to be 3 000 square feet the coverage can be a maximum of 60 percent of the parcel that means driveways and houses and roofs and things setbacks in the front are 10 feet side five feet minimum rear 10 feet minimum and from water need to be 25 feet minimum um the building height maximum is 35 feet so um I want to ask Allison um how many feet from the side property line is the barn proposed to be because we we do see some detail that it is beyond the five feet as required but um I know that earlier there was a question about the about how far from the property line it would actually be but would you give that another try Allison I think that the the phone is blippy again I have that number okay all right um but we do see that um it you would testify that it it is outside of the five foot setback so it is it is outside the five foot setback it's more than five feet so it is more than five feet okay okay thank you um uh staff report highlights um the conditions around a non-conforming structure um I'm going to take comments and questions at the end after we run through this um just so folks know um and I'm going to those will be limited but we'll start with the board um it's a 640 square foot barn being moved to the rear of the parcel the existing location will be seated with grass the total coverage on the site will be reduced because something will be demolished any continuing coverage in excess of the 60 maximum would be a nonconformity that could remain as the alteration to the barn did not increase the degree of nonconformity so um that's just important to note um as we just discussed it will be at least 10 feet from the rear rear parcel boundary and more than five feet from each of the side boundaries the barn is behind the main house and the front setback is more than that um I want to see if DRB members have questions about the dimensional standards um how the barn does or does not about the barn's adherence to the dimensional standards so the next thing we're going to look at we already talked about demolition and we got as far as we're going to get with that tonight um I'm going to take questions at the at the end after we go through the general standards so as Meredith noted um the sections pertaining to riparian areas wetlands and vernal pools steep slopes um are not implicated because those things aren't present on the site so that brings us to two other sections um for the board to evaluate section 3008 is erosion control and section 3009 is stormwater management so um there are requirements in this section that come into play when a certain amount of land on steep slopes is being cleared that's not happening in this case um however the project will be required to implement and comply with the erosion control practices within the zoning bylaw um so I'd like to spend a little time on stormwater management um so this requires that storm sewer system and other drainage improvements shall be in accordance with plans approved by the director of public works will there be um Alison this was a question for you will there be any sort of treatment of the stormwater from the barn once you move it that is drained into the storm sewer system what will how will another way for me to ask that is how will the stormwater be handled on the newly moved bar you know I I just gotta say I didn't know I needed to prepare these things um and unfortunately I got caught up on this storm and I wasn't able to make it home um you know I don't have that information right now I mean it's the the I was gonna follow the zoning um it would not go into the sewer system um I would comply with the requirements for permeable surfaces okay um thank you so um one of the standards within the stormwater management part of the bylaw is that stormwater drainage shall not negatively affect adjacent properties we've talked about stormwater a little bit earlier we heard from Amanda and and Kevin about that um and the concern existing in their basement um there's a requirement to use the best available technology to minimize stormwater runoff increase onsite infiltration encourage natural filtration functions and stimulate natural drainage systems low points in standing water should be avoided um so the staff finding is that this because this is the same roof just in a different place it doesn't increase the rate or flow of stormwater because there's not more paving on the parcel the new location will have open ground on all four sides of the barn whereas the current situation there's not much open ground for infiltration the building will be closer to 26 limits and 18 liberty um than the current location so um I would turn to Alice again and ask um are there are there plant you may have already answered this but are there are there what are the plans to ensure that this does not impact neighboring properties the the water off the roof in its new location that's a high priority for me um and I haven't worked that out with the contractor yet in detail I certainly will comply with with all of the requirements but I don't I don't have the exact materials I don't know exactly how we would accomplish that yet okay um thank you so in section 3009 it's it's our job as the quasi judicial board to to get information that assures us that these standards will be met so those details will will be important um to the issuance of a permit um yeah so i'll turn to the d rb members now for questions go ahead jean oh is it how is it being managed now this the stormwater situation that because from reviewing the application and some of the photos it seems that there's a significant amount of standing water currently in um go ahead alice if you want to ask about I'm sorry I don't understand the question what so right now there's this seems from from the application the photos show a significant amount of water that's standing right adjacent to the shed barn so it that's which is so there's a stormwater management process here that you need to present the specifics and the details a little better on the application thanks yeah thank you for letting thank you for letting me know I I just you know I I didn't know I needed to um put that together okay um so as as one board member I think we need more details to understand the the stormwater because as the report notes um there won't be an increase in impervious coverage but where it falls changes and may have different impacts and we need to be able to evaluate those impacts as a board um what do other board members think I married this Michael again I again I'm going to make the same comment I feel like we're asking this applicant for a level of detail and information that we haven't asked other applicants and that we can simply make a condition of this permit that they work with their contractor to abide by all standard practices for stormwater and rain off a roof okay thank you Michael what do other DRB members think I think we should have a general sense as to what the stormwater management is going to be I mean that would probably be one of the most contentious issues with regards to the neighboring properties um and I do believe we have an opportunity I mean it's not that hard really to to provide some detail as to what the expectation is uh for stormwater so I'm I'm not into a full-blown engineering analysis but certainly some some submission of uh of information that gives the general plan I think would be helpful I just yeah I agree with Kevin and you know I think that it's really important when uh you know citizens come with concerns to this board um specific questions that um information gets submitted and is widely available to the public and an opportunity to comment and ask for questions and um you know I think that um that's that's really important it's good to see the interest that makes these applications better is what the process is for and um so I think that uh yeah the neighbors uh you know the rest of the public are are owe that uh that information thank you Rob and I would add on to that that it's it's our job as a a board of neighbors and a board of Montpelier residents to take into consideration the site specific issues and concerns at each application which may mean that we request different information from from different applicants depending on the likely impacts or possible impacts okay so um where it sounds like we are not able to draw conclusions about um the general standards mostly because of the storm water management question so that's another thing that um that this board needs additional evidence to to review that we ask the applicant to come back with at a subsequent hearing all right um these are the key standards that we needed to go through together as Meredith noted access and circulation parking and loading areas and signs are are not applicable to this um what I would like to do now is give each each person who's spoken two minutes maximum um to put out any remaining questions or things to consider between now and the next meeting and then um Allison you can have the opportunity very last um to to speak and um then then we'll I'll look for a motion um first I'll see any last questions from DRB members okay um Amanda had her hand up quite a while ago I see Brooke has her hand up now so I'm going to turn to Amanda and then Brooke if you'd like to Amanda vows and my phone is going your phone's about to go sorry that's okay hi it's part of getting stranded battery power okay so less than two minutes if you can but go ahead go ahead Amanda hi um so I just want to make known that my my the back of my house is actually the end of our property so therefore the barn would be quite close to our house if it were to be built but also I don't have a backyard and I have a very small front yard and it definitely doesn't have space for a shed so it definitely would be a benefit to the community and we would totally help her restore that shed if she would be willing to rent out a bike space to us and that would be a total benefit to us that we would love to have that space utilized for something for us because right now as you see our bikes are in our living room all right that's all I have to say it's just our property basically your butt's numb and we have no thank thank you yeah sorry go ahead Kevin oh I missed you um okay so next I'll go brook for two minutes and then steam rice do you have your hand up and then we'll go to Allison who will hopefully have some some juice on her phone so um please go ahead brock if you like yeah I just want to make a couple requests in terms of the setbacks what are they at least five feet or ten feet is not a location and that is essential that we know what the setbacks are in order for me to be able to hire an expert engineer regarding the stormwater management issue so I need a location I can't just say well it's going to be at least five feet or at least ten feet um and you should insist on that that's what a site plan's all about has to have distances can't just be floating somewhere on the property within five and ten feet in terms of the stormwater management you have a provision that says um that improvements shall be in accordance with plans approved by the director of public works get the public works director to approve a plan don't don't make it less than that and for lay people on a board to look at and to give an okay to get the city engineer to actually look at it and do his job according to the way that you have your ordinance written and lastly in terms of conditions um that are arbitrary and capricious oh go work it out we need to have conditions to a permit if there is one issued that are very clear that is noticed to the public not you guys go figure it out according to whatever standards you might want to use that so we're looking for more clarity here we're looking for factual information so that our side can look at expert opinions about whether stormwater drainage will work according to their experts plans but I think it is incumbent upon the city to require this that's the whole issue that is trying to be remedied somebody next door apparently built an overhang that drips onto the subject property and now you're going to let the subject property try to remedy that by creating a different problem for other neighbors and I think it's absolutely essential that the stormwater issue is adequately um provided in terms of expert opinion evidence and then have the city engineer give me okay thank you for all your time and I appreciate your listen thank you for your time as well bro and Meredith I um understand the criterion about the public works approval to be when it relates to draining into the storm system I don't know that it calls for that otherwise but I wonder if you could talk with public works about the applicability of this provision I don't want to take much more of Allison's battery and that's that's that's one of the things that after this hearing this part of the hearing uh you know I will help Allison navigate how to respond to the questions and requests that have happened tonight and how to get internally here once she gets more information um I'm sorry I know I know steamer wants to say something but just in case I thought it might be worth checking in with Allison before she loses power to make sure that she's even available at the next hearing on July 6th or there is a continuance if it should instead be to the 19th okay thank you that's good question Meredith and Allison you can go ahead we'll want to make sure to get those docs in a row before your battery dies so if this hearing's continued Allison is July 6th are you available on July 6th I you are okay thank you so go ahead steamer a couple a couple minutes and then Allison and then we'll entertain a motion um I just want to remind the board that we have here an applicant who is trying to preserve an historic structure the barn itself um and we're getting all tangled up in the whether the shed it's workable or it doesn't make sense I'm afraid we're going to lose the whole thing if it's not the determine is not allowed that's what I have to say thank you thank you and Allison um if you'd like to go ahead and comment and as as clear as you can be given the garble so please go ahead if you'd like to say anything else it's quite broken up I'm sorry we can't hear you can you hear me now yes by this process I to demolish the issue to his structure is already down and just feels like it's under so much territory that I didn't feel like people I'm so sorry Allison I really value what you're saying is we're wrapping up here and and we were not able to hear properly I heard you say you came into demolish in addition to a historic structure but you feel it's entered into a certain territory what's it I need to get time for that motion yeah I would agree yeah I I think we've heard a lot from the applicant and yeah we we know what we need to do okay we've done our best there will be another opportunity to talk um I would entertain a motion regarding this application Rob now's I did time for that same motion from whomever wishes to provide a motion to continue this hearing to a time and date certain I'll make a motion to continue this application to the next regularly scheduled DRB meeting which is on July 6th 2021 so the applicant has more time to provide information on their rationale for approval of demolition of a contributing historic structure and also for more detailed site plan information regarding storm water and the exact layout of the proposed new barn and any other information that that staff or the applicant need necessary to make this more complete we have a motion is there a second second there's a second from Jean may I offer a friendly amendment Rob in that when you said site plan we are not requiring site plan because it's not possible for two family dwelling but we mean a sketch of how the site will be used and where the location of the barn will be in order to understand storm water and impacts as discussed right can place replace the word sketch or ever site plan was said that is a excellent word I love the word sketch call everything sketch very good very sketching all right we have a motion a second is there any discussion amend historic barn versus new barn all right we'll take we'll take the we'll take the vote Rob yes Kevin yes Jean yes Michael no um Joe yes and I vote yes as well we will pick this up again with additional evidence provided to the board and the public um prior to the July 6th meeting we will talk about this at our July 6th meeting I really appreciate all of your participation thank you folks are welcome to stay on if they like we're going to move on to the next item in our agenda which is other business and it's discussing a return to in-person meetings okay all right yes this is Brooke sorry to interrupt again but Courtney is not available on July 6th and we were wondering if there was any way that the applicant would be willing to kick it to I think you said the 19th when she would be back in town um the the motion has passed we're we're about to discuss how we're going to meetings and my um intention is that we will maintain a remote option even as we return to in-person meetings and um I am hopeful that that can be adequate thank you anyway okay thank you uh Meredith did you want to say something you guys dealt with it okay so um Meredith sent us an email or Cameron Niedermeyer assistant town manager city manager sent us an email um saying that the state of emergency has um has ended um which means that the provisions that allowed us to meet remotely those circumstances are no longer and so it's our job to return to in-person meetings um if we have the prerogative to allow there need to be some way for the public to appear in person should they choose and Meredith has said that she is going to be appearing in council chamber city council chamber so that that is possible for anyone who wants to be there in person this board needs to discuss and decide how it is going to convene um I want to say that I think staff and the board have done an incredible job thank you Amanda um an incredible job with the development review by zoom it has not been easy um we've tried to take complex matters in a way that are fair to everybody um and I appreciate it the professionalism the focus the attendance um I also think it's been a really important way to allow people to listen in and participate I think it's a easier way to participate for some and particularly those who have obligations at home in the evening with caregiving so um it's sometimes hard to manage the back and forth um I think we can all I'll be candid about that and I invite participants to be as well um but I think having a remote option of some sort is an important way to help people access the process I think it's uh a silver lining that we can take from this COVID period so I'd like to have a discussion but what I'm going to start with as a straw dog is to propose that we return to in-person meetings for board members but retain a remote option for participants there are some computer things that would need to be worked out um I would propose starting this as a pilot um and reevaluating it um after two months maybe six maybe after maybe after six months with three months check in whatever we decide um I want to understand how any option affects our participation as well as staff prep requirements and others so I'm throwing that out there as a starting point for conversation and I'd love to hear from board members what your thoughts are Kate I think you nailed it I mean the um the pandemic has been an incredible challenge I mean I'm thinking about the first couple of meetings we had and how we're kind of tripping over our our shoelaces just trying to get oriented and I for one am overjoyed to start meeting again in person but you know the we've all been zoomed at this point and we might as well make the best use of that that we can and I really do think that there is a role for it as far as the public's participation so it's important to have the public meetings available for those who don't have this access or the capability I mean that's just essential and I'm not married this it's just going to be present but I personally have found the zoom structure it's convenient to me I mean I work out of my house and you know I could be mowing the lawn and then pop in at 6 30 and get ready and I'm there versus taking a shower leaving my house driving going downtown parking you know going to the hall so personally it's been pretty convenient in that aspect and you your point is well taken Jean I mean as far as I mean we we struggle as a city to to have adequate representation from this you know citizen boards recruiting is difficult and if you have the option I don't know how you manage that exactly but conceptually I certainly I certainly am in agreement so Meredith is it really true I can show up at seven o'clock on July 6th and I can actually go to the council chambers and yeah so as of the July 6th meetings City Hall will be open during the meeting hours so that's DRC and DRB for people to come into council chambers what we have set up for technology right now is that I will probably have my own work laptop in the room so that I can control and still host the zoom there will also be a computer station in you know at the table in the middle for people who are there in person to be able to interact you know it's it's we haven't I haven't quite conceptually understood it all yet my understanding is that orca is still going to be streaming like they were with the discussion from the board members and that there will also still be a microphone for people to talk to but really they should be talking into the laptop so if we have an applicant there and we have members of the public there they might need to trade off on the laptop to be able to have that go out into the zoom world for anybody who's tuning in that way um so is orca doing it managing the video feed through the zoom or are they also putting this on the tube or on tv well I mean it's not like they've been they've been doing it going over the work of media live stream right that's been happening for a long time streaming these zoom discussions um if we have members who are coming into the council chambers just like before we'll have a member of you know an employee of orca they're handling the technical feed changes um over the live stream which will also be it'll all be worked in right that the the thing to note is that that we do go in person on july 6 we've been having city council be the guinea pigs we're going to be the guinea pigs um because city council doesn't meet again until july 21st right um which I mean is we can do that but that would mean if we're going live in you know in person in july we're going to have two meetings before city council meets again um so I just wanted to make sure you are aware so we'd be we would be the guinea pigs drc and drb would be the guinea pigs so if I if I mean if I if I want if I want to be there in person am I going to have the connectivity I need if I bring in my ipad or my laptop or theoretically I don't know is they have mapped it all out and I don't think that there are they I don't think they have wired all those desks I mean we we have the method we used before which was actually printed copy would that be useful as an interim um well I was also thinking of if you right now probably if you want your faces to be on zoom you would need your laptop if you don't worry about that um and it's the you know other having your voice on zoom right then um it's you would need your laptop and we could do printed copies I am gonna suggest that if at all possible we don't go back to fully printed copies there are a lot of efficiencies um and it was printed copies I would be bringing this to the meeting I think I think we would still send out the email versions um ahead of the meetings and then just bring printed copies to the meeting itself would be my suggestion um versus trying to use the police department again to hand out packets are they against the the concept of of being the distribution center one if I have one system in place in general it's it's just going to be efficiency wise a little easier um it here's here's A I'm needed B I wonder if I could just interject and it's getting late and if we if we do want to do printed packets let's talk about the the logistics of those in another setting um I think our next we could talk about that in another setting for sure just a reminder that we're going to need to talk about that really soon because if we have to plan for printed packets I need to know we need to do that by July I mean I think we can do that by email and not run a file of any any any open meeting laws so um I'm sorry I had to step away for a second um those who might not have a laptop you know you could ask each member like I might need a packet that day because I don't have a laptop and then have a couple for the public if they want it there yeah so the city council meeting so I think I think packet logistics are a little less important than um deciding how we're gonna meet and I apologize that I had to step away is is there a is there a will of the group as far as whether we get together on July 6th versus experimenting get letting city council experiment um Strupple who who wants to convene in person as a DRB and city council chambers on July 6th one two who does three three three Michael or I want to know in person you want to be in person Michael okay is there anybody who doesn't want to be in person okay I think that tells us we're going to experiment with it um can we also do a remote option that's I mean that's the that's the plan okay is to have an option for people to remote and be okay and thank you I know that's extra work for you and others um do folks have access to a tablet or a laptop so that they can be seen on zoom if they choose from council chambers raise your hand if you do okay so okay so what we can do is um Meredith this is an additional step but I again like as we figure this out for the whole city um I wonder if you could ask around and see if there are some some laptops that are extra within the city I know the city doesn't collect extra technology um and uses its budget well but are there some uh late some not currently being used laptops even if they're older that would allow um make it so that people participate in city government don't have to buy their own computers um I'll see even if it's just one I'll see what I can find out uh you know I I my understanding is that um board members who didn't have a laptop to be able to do that um would still be able like their voices would carry on to zoom through that center that central laptop has a really really strong microphone okay it just their people who are bringing their laptops may have an issue um with the sound then all the speaking in person right through the laptops okay so if you you know you're you might not want your sound on on the laptop when you're there right my headphones or something it's just to flag that out there okay I can I can check I'm going to hazard a guess that it is unlikely that there are three or more laptops available that are not already designated um let's try for one and see see where that gets us um this is this is a new world it would be ideal if people could arrive at 6 30 but I know that imposes on people's evenings um if people could arrive sometime between 6 30 and 6 45 for our next meeting that would be really tremendous I think that's a good idea k okay and I yeah I am we can talk about details via you know email yeah and our our plan be will that we will have a zoom call in option for the public but we will not appear in our faces will not appear but our voices will that will be our our plan B if necessary um our packets the digital packets will be available to board members and to the public so that that access will be maintained and people can be in touch with Meredith if they want printed packets anything else I'll make sure that there you know even if nobody has requested printed packets I'll make sure there are some at the meetings um I always had extra before so we can do at least a few people okay thank you um don't mean to rush things along but here we are um any other comments on returning to in-person meeting besides hooray I second that um okay great um so our next meeting is to stage July 6 are there any other applications besides the one that has been um tabled or continued yes there are okay two others two others okay so um we'll start with the continued application that's usually what we do and then we'll move into the others um as completely and fairly as possible um there there was an outstanding record I don't think we can talk about it anymore um the meeting has been set for the continuation of the public hearing on Liberty Street so about that will that's where we'll continue um any last words I'll make a motion to adjourn second all right is there any discussion call the roll Joe yes Kevin yes Jean yes Rob yes Michael yes and I vote yes as well really appreciate your time and your thinking tonight um thanks to to the public who participated in the applicants as well I appreciate everybody's work it's um appreciated good night and I want to thank you uh publicly for your steady hand throughout all of this thank you thank you it's been a team effort but I appreciate that all right good night folks good night everybody