 but assuming that people who are in attendees, they hear what's going on now, right Scott? Yeah. Okay, so we take up items on the agenda. And when we call the agenda, Scott or participating in that particular agenda item to participate. And when we have public hearings, we swear people in. We also ask that people who participate will give Scott their email. Is that what you need, Scott? They're mailing. They're mailing. People who are participating in the hearing should give the staff their mailing addresses so they can get party status. So on the agenda, there are no changes to the agenda. Is that correct? I think that's correct. Ryan, what's the scoop of 400 North Street? Is that a request for deferral or no? I see the applicants on the meeting tonight. So I guess we'll wait and see. I haven't received any new information. Okay. So no changes to the agenda. Communications, I don't see any communications. Is that true? All the communications are in the packet. Okay. Minutes or I know minutes attached to this meeting there was from last week. Correct. So that moves us to the consent agenda. First item is 77 79 Buell Street. Do you see the applicant? Do I see the applicant? If you're the applicant, I don't see your name. Raise your hand. Oh, there we go. Okay. Jamie Sharp. Hello, Jamie. Hi. So this is for an application to establish a bed and breakfast use at 77 79 Buell Street. This is recommended for approval by the staff as a consent item. And they have recommended conditions of approval. Have you seen the staff's report and those recommendations? Yes. And are you okay with those? Yes, we are. Good. And I will ask the board, is there anybody on the board who objects at treating this item as a consent agenda item? It seems to be okay with that. Scott, is there anybody in the public who has comments on 77 79 Buell Street? I see Ann Brenna. He was raising her hand. Ann Brenna, do you have questions on this application? Are you objecting to it? Are you supporting it with? I just want to introduce myself. Can you hear me? Yes. I live at 34 Bradley Streets. Yeah. Almost directly behind that property. And we've lived here since 2001. Let me just say, Anna. So the question now is, this is recommended as consent and item for the public hearing. If you want to have questions and want to have testimony on this, we will pull it off consent and do a public hearing. Okay. Is that what you would like? Yes. Okay. So then we'll do a public hearing on this. So Jamie and Anna, is anybody else who's participating in this hearing at this time? No. I didn't see any other hands. Those two people, if you would in your own space, raise your right hand and do square to tell the truth and whole truth on the pain and peddler of the perjury. Yes. Anna? Yes. Yes, okay. So Jamie, if it's okay with you, I'm just going to ask Anna to raise what the issues are that she's bringing to the table here. Is that okay with you? Yep. Okay. Anna, the floor is yours. Yeah. So as I was saying, I live almost directly behind that property and I just have questions about how it's going to be managed. I read the staff notes and it sounds like you're going to be living there in the residence. Anna, you have to ask your questions to the board and then Jamie will come on afterwards. Oh, okay. So it looks to me from reading the staff notes that the owner of the property will be living in the property. Okay. I keep going with other questions. I just, you know, when I do back and forth. And I guess it's a triple X. So only one unit is going to be used as a bed and breakfast. And I guess the third question is, how is the bed and breakfast different from a short-term rental? Bed and breakfast is a short-term rental. But A.J., were you saying something? You're muted, A.J. Yeah, sorry. I was stuck. Bed and breakfast is a slight difference. That's it. It doesn't matter. Anyway, keep asking your questions. Sorry. Oh, okay. Are those, those are your basic, you're going to have another chance, but those are your basic concerns to start with, right, Anna? Yes. And I guess an additional comment would be that hopefully they can work with us to keep the neighborhood quiet and clean. Okay, let me give Jamie a chance to follow up and we'll see if we get those questions answered. Jamie. Hi, Anna. So I'm Jamie Sharp. I, me and my partner, Ellis McCartle, have owned this property since fall of 2018 where we have lived and we've rented it out as a short-term rental periodically since then. So we're not really asking for anything changed. We're just asking for the legal permit for this. Yeah. And you're continuing to live on the property? Correct. And there were some restrictions, in terms of hours, in terms of when people can arrive and check in, right? Correct. Okay. And, and Anna's also talking, asking if you would be willing to at least have a conversation about neighborhood etiquette, I guess. Yeah. And I, I guess my comment to that would be, you know, what we've found, you know, since we, since we've had a short-term rental is that Airbnb guests are highly incentivized to, you know, to have extremely good behavior. You know, we're in a neighborhood surrounded by college kids and loud parties and so forth. You know, I guess in a non-COVID environment, but Airbnb and short-term rental guests are all rated. And we found that they do nothing, but add value to the neighborhood. Okay. And before we get back to Anna, I didn't ask if anybody on the board wants to ask questions of the applicant on this project. I just have, I think there was a question just confirming it's only one of the units that's going to be used as a short-term rental, is that right? That's correct. Okay. Brad, I have a question as well. Yes. I'm just, for the applicant, I'm just wondering, are you applying for this permit as a result of any complaints or fines that you've received for running your Airbnb without the permit? We got a notice that it wasn't permitted this summer. I guess I can't speak to why we received that. We have been very active with the city council in their meetings about short-term rentals. So, at first we thought we were kind of getting singled out for participating in those meetings. We were told that's not the case, but we don't really know. And I also just want to add that, obviously, in the current environment, 90 plus percent of short-term rentals in Burlington are unpermitted and we wanted to do the right thing, come before the board and do this the right and acceptable way. I appreciate that. I recognize that a lot of them are unpermitted and I don't appreciate it. So, thank you for doing this. Thank you. You know the question for the board. Anna, did you have other questions that I think sounds like there's some conversation you could have with them directly, not part of this meeting, any other questions that we should address at this meeting? No, that's all the questions I have. Good. I think unless there's anything else, the applicant or the board has to say, we will close this public hearing. And just to let the applicant know, since this was taken off the consent agenda, we will probably at the end of the meeting and vote on it at that point. But you can't participate at that point. Okay, thank you. So, the next consent item is 90 cottage grove, combined preliminary plat and review of a two lot subdivision. Is the applicant here, Scott? Yes, I'm gonna guess that's you, Mark. Mark and Jessica Valin. All right, Mark's using older version of Zoom. All right, let's try this a different way. Our older versions, I didn't know that. I guess I was timed to update, Mark. All right, I think Mark should be able to speak now. Mark, can you hear us? Are you muted at all? We're not hearing you, Mark. Yeah, he's not muted. Well, tell you what, it's recommended for consent. Well, can you do any like a raise hand function or anything like that, Mark? Yeah, he did. That's how I knew it was him. Okay, so I'm gonna ask a question. This is on the consent item, consent agenda and the staff has recommended for consent with some conditions. And if you are okay with those conditions, can you raise your hand on that item? Scott, are you seeing anything? Come on up, get in. We know if he can even hear us. Well, at this point, we don't know anything. Yeah. There's Mark. I think I'm seeing- Hey, there's Mark. Can you hear us, Mark? At this point? Because we can see you now. It's like a no. Are you muted on your computer? Can you nod if you can hear us? No, he's not. I have no audio since you made that switch. Well, that's good. So I can put him back. He could call in the phone number, couldn't he? You could try that too, yeah. That phone number on the agenda. There's a phone number on the agenda you could call, right? Yeah. Here. He's also typing in the chat. Yeah, let's try not to do that, but I'll send him the number. Mark, this is the number you can call. So I don't know if he knows if that's the number he calls. And I'll tell you, but it's a dial in here. Keep an eye out for it. He needs a meeting ID. We're getting there. This was from him having an older version of Zoom. Is that what it was? Yeah. Okay. Your items are, some of them could be rather long, so it'd be nice to take care of this one now, if we could. I'm gonna ask anybody, while this is happening, well, I guess I should wait for him to get on the Zoom. Can you hear us yet, Mark? So he asked for the password, I just sent it. I'm just keeping an eye out for another phone number popping up. I haven't seen one yet. So Scott, people having old Zooms, I mean, is that something we should put in the... It's usually an update right away. What, say that again, AJ? It's usually an automatic update. Yeah, unless people don't go on to Zoom until right now and then they find out. Right, if you haven't been on Zoom in two months and you're getting on now. Yeah. All right, I think we have... Okay, I see. This you, Mark? It looks like it's on mute. My God, kill me. Okay. Hello, Mark. You've been doing yourself any favors? Can you hear us now, Mark? I can. And we can hear you. Okay, such a simple thing. Update your Zoom. That's the message after this. Update your Zoom. So just to go back to the basics here, this is recommended for consent agenda, which means the staff has recommended approval with some basic conditions. Have you seen the report and the basic conditions? Yeah. And are you okay with that? Yeah. Good, okay. So I'll ask the board now, is anybody on the board who objects to treating this as a consent agenda item? And Scott, is there anybody in the public who wants to make a comment on 9G CottageGuru application? I don't see any hands raised. So that being the case, does somebody on the board want to make a motion on this project that we do need a motion? On 21-0291SD90 Cottage Grove, I move that we pass the application and adopt staff items. Sure. Second. Keenan seconds. Any discussion? Okay. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Aye. Opposed? So after all that. If you're the applicant, I don't see your name. Raise your hand. Oh, there we go. Is that Chris there? Oh, it's Chris. Hi, how are you? Hi, Chris. Before we get started, is there anybody else in the public or anybody else on this project who's going to be speaking? Scott, can you see anybody in the public that might be speaking on this? If you'd like to weigh in, raise your hand. I don't see any hands raised. We did get some public comment that I included in the packet. Okay. And Chris, you're there when speaking on this project, is that correct? Correct. Okay. So I'd like to swear you in. Do you swear to tell the truth and hold truth under pain and penalty of perjury? Yes. Okay. So I don't know if you want to just go through it briefly. The staff has recommended approval on this. Some question about what the condition of the site is right now and what's going on. But basically, if you want to give us a brief overview, that would be helpful. Well, the last, did I lose you guys? No, no, we're still here. Oh, there you are. Okay. So in the last hearing, I felt a little slighted and ambushed. We, between the neighbor and I, it was an existing project that the neighbor had gotten approval. He had submitted an application for me and I signed it. And it was to remove the driveways and the garages. He didn't put in to remove my garage, probably because he felt that was my responsibility. And I agree with that. I agree with that in hindsight. However, the oversight was that my garage somehow was listed as a historic building, even though it was built in the late 40s and the house itself was built in the late 1800s. So that's why it's in front of you to begin with. And then my desire to put a garage in the front was came to the DRB because Scott had said, well, you need a replacement garage if you're demoing a garage and it's going to the DRB. So I guess my position is that the garage itself being demolished was part of the plan. I don't think it could be seen from the street yard, had any historic value whatsoever. But the driveway had already been permitted to be removed and it became kind of a useless structure. It shouldn't say useless, it could have been a very large garden shed, but still an ISOR and its positioning was on the property boundary with no setback either. So I'm proposing a modest shed to be placed with proper setbacks and something stylish that if we keep the house or sell the house, it would be kind of nice to look at. So that's all I've put in. And there's no new garage as part of this project? No, there's no new garage at this time. Let me ask a question. The driveway that's shown on your site plan not the old one that went to the garage but the one that's, I don't know which side of the house it's on, but that's the one you're using now, is that true? Or is that being built now? It's, yeah, in transition. It's partially being used because we're able to drive on it and we are working on the house but no curb cut has been made. And now that I'm looking at this particular site plan, this site plan is incorrect. Aren't you the one who supplied the site plan? I did, but I've improperly submitted the wrong site plan. And what is incorrect on it? The boundary itself on the, so the most I would need to submit a new site plan doesn't change the position of the garden shed and the garage, but it's the east boundary. Is that looking at the plan? Is that the right-hand side? Correct. Yeah, I guess there's no north on this? Oh, there is. I see the north, yes, it's there. Yes, the right-hand side. Correct. Oh, there you go, yeah. Thanks, Scott. So that would be when it's facing you and I hope it's not negated or inverted but on the right side, you'll see some kind of trees up on the right top corner. So that boundary actually has been resubmitted by the neighbor to be at a different angle than what's shown here. So just to make sure that it doesn't change the shed and the garage application, but to be consistent from zoning application, the zoning application, we should really have the correct from angle boundary in there. If I maybe just, let's see if I can speak. I may jump in to be clear, this would be a separate application between these two properties for a revised boundary adjustment. Scott, I didn't quite catch everything of that, so could you say that? So the revised boundary adjustment is under separate application and involves the two properties. Correct, it does. And this application itself doesn't have anything to do with the boundary adjustment, line adjustment between the two properties. This just has to do with demolishing the garage and the shed. I just don't want to muddy the waters by submitting something inconsistent with other applications. That's all I'm saying. And Chris, to that same point, this is Jeff Van. You're not actually asking for a driveway or that parking that you're indicating on the site plan. So that should be removed as well. We don't have that before us to approve right now. Right, I thought you were asking. That's already been approved, that's existing. So I can remove it if you like, but it's existing. So if you don't want it to be existing, I don't know what to say. I mean, it would seem like it was existing, it should be there. Yes. And so was that part of a previous application, Scott? Yes. Okay. That was previously approved, administratively? Correct. Okay. And so that exists now, Chris, right? It does. So the other things that are part of this, we're clear on the photographs of replacing the window and it's gonna match the existing windows and you're closing up a window. That was also clear from the photograph. So I think the package seems clear at this time in terms of what you're asking to do. The boundary line issue, I guess I'll ask Scott, is that something we can, because we don't, can we say we know that's coming if we approve this one and know that the boundary is gonna get changed or do we have to wait? So long as they're being applied for separately, I think the short answer is no, right? The site plan shows the boundary as it's presently approved and it may well change, but it won't change until that permit's approved. You heard that, Chris? I did hear that. Okay. Any questions from the board for the applicant? Yeah, I'm just, could you clarify if the work has already commenced without the issuance of the permitting? The garage has already been demolished, but there's no garden shed has been built or nothing else has been done. Chris, we do have a photograph that shows, are you replanting grass in part of the site or something like that? In which... It looks like along the sidewalk here that there's some work or some grasping plan. I mean, that's not something we have to approve, it's grasped. I just wanted to know if that's a condition of what's going on. I don't know which, there's a lot going on on this site right now. I know that I participated with a neighbor to kind of extend the mound and put some plants in and mulch. And I don't know if that's the picture you're looking at or not. If you could provide me a picture, I could verify what I'm looking at or verify what you're asking. Well, there's some correspondence that appears that there's a lot of construction going on at the site. Could you clarify that? That's a question for you, Chris. Oh yeah, there we go. Okay, from Carolyn Hansen, correct. I see that. Yeah, so what's the question here? So it doesn't look like your driveway is existing right now and isn't that car parked where your driveway is? It could be, yeah, it would be just about, but it's a, are you saying it's a violation? No, no, I'm just asking what the driveway's made out of. There's nothing there right now, it's just dirt. We're driving on the dirt. So the driveway on the site plan isn't constructed yet? No, it's not constructed yet, but who's to say, I could put gravel down, I could drive on the dirt, it's just a, are you allowed to drive on a dirt driveway? I don't know, I mean, it seems like logical and you're allowed to do that. Part of the idea of having approved driveways, that's where one would drive. And so if you don't have the driveway in place, it's hard to know where one's supposed to drive and park. That's really the point. Correct, but this is transitional, we're not, nobody is, this isn't a final product yet, it's a work in progress. You'll see a Bobcat back there, you see trailers, you see a job site trailer. I mean, we have to, we need these things on site. That car is not a tenant car, it's not a, it's not an owner car or an occupant car. So, you know, it's somebody who's working there. So I could try to, the problem is, is that we have very limited parking and parking passes for rent. We're just trying to ascertain the status of things, that's all, so I got that answer. So Bob, I guess what's the point of the picture and the car and let me ask you. It informed us of the state of things right now, but that's not an issue. Can you scroll up down a little so I could read what the comment is? Well, while he's doing that, can I have in? Yeah, can I? Yeah, so I think, I just had a couple of questions based on the public comments since you're reading it now. The springers sort of touched on some of this, but there was also some, we got some correspondence about, so two things. One, people currently living in the home, and then two, work being done on Sundays, hoping you can address that. Go reading, Chris. I am, I'm a slow reader. Scott, I'd like to, before I answer that, could I see the, this, can you scroll down a little more? Okay, can you keep scrolling? Scott, the applicant already received this. Correspondence? Yes. Now that you ask, I think I sent it along. Okay. No, I have not, so. Well, that's not our problem. You received it, we don't need to see your way. Please don't be rude to me. I've had enough of people being rude. I'm a person and I deserve the respect, like every other person in this community. I work very hard and I do a lot of good work. Chris, let's stay on point here. So, I think the question, I see what's going on right now. This is a project under construction. It looks like it's under construction. I think that's the point. Yes, of course. And in the process, the neighbors essentially have tried to stop me from improving the building. And therefore, I'm treated like public enemy number one. And really all I'm doing, excuse me, you don't have one question. I was in the middle. I was mid sentence. Don't interrupt me. I'm treated like public enemy number one. But my crime is, is that I'm improving the building. And that's it. Great. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Asshole. Oh, that's not appropriate. No, it's not appropriate. But the guy Rosa, Mr. Rosa there with his inappropriate comments constantly. You want to treat somebody poorly. They're going to treat you poorly. Okay. Why don't you grow up and be a little respectful? Chris. Hey, Brett. Brett, do we have anybody else in the public that wants to speak on this application? Oh, we don't. We do have a hand up. Why don't we let them comment on it? Don't ever interrupt me and be rude to me again, Mr. Rosa. Okay. Thanks, Chris. Yeah. We're going to go with. You're welcome. I do want to ask Chris one question before we go on to the public. Chris, one comment that came up was there's usually a restriction on having construction activity on Sunday. Are you aware of that? I think I was just muted. Can you hear me? I can hear you. Can you hear? Can you still hear me? I can hear you fine, Chris. Okay. So there was construction on a Sunday? I'm just, yes. That was the question. Are you aware there's not supposed to be construction on a Sunday? Actually, I wasn't aware of that, but what is the rule for construction? I didn't... I think generally it's Monday through Friday and the construction on Saturday or Sunday would be with permission. We can't just... Permission from, where is that granted? From the Development Review Board. From the Development Review Board. Okay. So I'm not actually aware if we were working on a Sunday or not. If we were, I extend my apologies. And especially that if it wasn't allowed, I mean, we have been painting the house. So, and the painting of the house was a tremendous amount of work. It's not just... It wasn't just painting. It was really scraping it down to the bone. It's not unusual to ask for permission to do something like that. Generally things like site work and equipment and things like that are generally not done on the weekend. Other things that are not noisy and done inside are often allowed on a weekend. But again, that's... I'll try to respect that. You know, I mean, sometimes we start on machineries to move things around. We need to, you know, move this or move that. But it's not like an all day big crew thing. So I'm not sure which Sunday we're speaking of. But again, you know, it's not like I'm purposefully trying to break the rules and be a nuisance. Okay. So, Chris, sorry, this is Jeff Hand. So just to be clear, you've not asked for authorization to work on Saturdays or Sundays. No, we haven't. And so that can't happen. It's not that you'll try to do that. It can't happen unless you ask for and receive approval for it. You just want that record to be clear. Respectfully, I think I just heard that. And you don't need to be patronizing in the way you speak. Thank you. I'm just trying to make sure the record is clear. And what I heard you say is we will try to respect that. And I just want to, I want to be clear that it's not a try. It's a requirement. That's all. Okay. And Scott, there is somebody from the public who wanted to speak. Yes. And are they- Ken Hample? Ken Hample, I did not swear you in. Can you hear me? I can hear you. Can you hear me? Yes. So I would like to swear you in so that you would tell the whole truth on the pain and penalty of perjury. Of course. Okay. So you have some comments you wanted to make? Yeah, I had a couple of comments. Some of them have already been addressed. I really appreciate you giving an opportunity for me to talk. Came in a little bit late. Sorry about that. My name is Ken Hample. I live at 354 South Union streets. We're on our mailing address to South Union, but we share a border with 119 Spruce. So a couple of the comments that have been made already. First off, the yard currently is set up like a work area. I don't mind that so much because there is some work going on in the house, but more recently, those hoop houses have multiplied. So there are four or five hoop houses on the property now. There's also a trailer. Chris has started work on the driveway. So he did a little bit of work with an excavator. My understanding of the driveway work is not really allowed to start until a water plan has been developed, until a water remediation plan has been developed. I do not know that one has been entered with the city. And I've spoken to Bill Ward about this as well. And he doesn't know of any water plan that's been made available by the owner. As I mentioned, the property has a lot of construction vehicles on it. There hasn't actually been any work that I've noticed on the property for the last few weeks. The last major work that I noticed was the excavation that was done over a month ago. As far as the cars that are parked in the yard on the dirt, essentially, those people do live in the house. There are people living in the house. I've seen them come and go very early in the morning from the house. I've seen people come and go from their vehicles late at night, lights are on late at night. There's activity in the house. The people live there. My understanding is that it's the people who work on the property and work for Chris who are living in the property. So any mention, any idea that people aren't living there is just false. It's easy to tell that people are living in the property. So those cars are there. They're not parked in a specific place on a regular basis. There's no driveway that's been built. People are living there on a regular basis. So I wanted to put that to rest. Also, the construction vehicles have been there for quite a while. They're not really being used on the property at all. They're just being parked there. And my impression is that this lot is now being used by Chris and his company as sort of a staging area for other construction projects that are going on with his properties around the city. People come and go. The vehicles are standing there. People come and go from their vehicles. They live on the property. So those are the points that I wanted to make. Again, thank you for giving me this opportunity. Okay, thank you. Chris, I guess one follow-up would be is I don't think that we have, I don't think we have any jurisdiction if the people living in the house, that's not necessarily an issue one way or the other for us. But parking and using the site as a parking lot for people living in the house, not parking on the driveway is an issue for zoning. Okay, if I could address that. Ken, thank you for speaking. I've never said not once that there were people not living in the house. We've established that four people live in the house and that's been no secret. The house is a livable house. And so the neighborhood can try to stop me from people living in the house, but that will be a battle of another day. I think I mentioned it was not necessarily an issue for us, Chris. Yeah, no, I understand that, but I'm addressing Ken's concerns. The car parked in the picture, I was clear, I said that car does not belong to anybody that lives in the house. It belongs to a worker and he does not live in the house. I'm not lying, I'm not trying to deceive anybody. The project is stale because we're waiting for permits to be approved. I've been asked not to go forward, so I haven't. And now that I've been asked not to go forward, there's, you know, I've got complaints about it not going forward. Yeah, it might correct, Chris, though, that you have approval for the driveway. Correct, yes. So you could go forward with that. Well, apparently not because there's, you know, I did submit a EPSC, yada yada, whatever that is. That's the public works. Yeah, so, and the extent of which I went forward with the driveway is I wanted to kind of extend that hump that my neighbor on the east had made a half hump and I wanted to smooth it into the lawn and make it look more natural. And we both agreed that it looked good afterwards and we needed some dirt. So I took the dirt from where the driveway would be. So that's the extent of the excavation I did. Again, you know, it's every motion I make, there's, you know, somebody disgruntled in the neighborhood or in the city about it. Well, I think we're trying to work our way through that. And one of the things we're working our way through though is that it would be without the driveway, since the driveway is approved and it can't be under construction, there's really no reason people be parking on the site without the driveway. Well, I don't think you could choke me that way. I can say that where that driveway is designated, it's a dirt driveway and I can park on it. Okay, if it's ready just not, but you'd have to sort of mark it off so that you know. So you want me to mark it so we could. Yeah. So we could park in that boundary. And then also where the old driveway was and the old garage that hasn't been completely demolished yet, we're utilizing that. That's essentially the axis of where we're trying to park is on what the old driveway was and the old driveway in the old garage. And who's parking there? The tenants of the building because that was where the parking has always been designated. I thought that driveway was removed. Well, the access from the front of the house has been removed, but it's still there. The garage, you know, the garage foundation is still there. How do you get to it if the access has been removed? With the new driveway. The new driveway on the other side of the house? Yeah. And it doesn't go all the way to the back of the property. No, it doesn't. Well, that may be. So when we get some kind of plan here, I mean, you know, let's get a plan instead of picking fly shit out of pepper. So I guess I'd encourage us to stay focused on what's in front of us. It sounds like they're likely our zoning violations occurring on the property right now, but it doesn't sound like what's being done is consistent with what he has approval for for a driveway. And it seems like we should focus on what he's asking for now. And if there are others who have concerns about whether he's following his existing permits, their avenues for them to raise that. I think that's a good point, Jeff. Respectfully, I agree with that. And I don't agree that there is zoning violations on the property now, however, we can have code enforcement come out and look at those. And then, but I did, you know, as I said, I applied to replace the garage with a garden shed and I've, once again, I'm talking about things that, you know, being bombarded with what a horrible person I am. Okay, any other questions for the applicant from the board at this point? Okay, Chris, anything else you want to add before we close this public hearing? Just want to thank everybody for their time. Okay, thank you. With that, we will close the public hearing. Okay, so the next item is 110 Riverside Drive. Is the applicant here for this one, Scott? Yes. And who's here? Is it Dave? Oh, I see Steve. Steve Kyle. If you're an applicant, let's do that. I see a bunch of first names. And am I correct, Scott? This is a new application. No. No, this is what the agreement was with the city and the applicant in terms of extending the time limit. This, so the original application for this project, going by memory, it was like 2013 maybe, right? Basically, it timed out with extensions, went to court, there's a settlement that the applicant could reapply with no additional fee. And that happened, I'm saying this without the dates under my nose a couple of years ago. Or maybe not a couple of years ago, anyhow. This is the continuation of this review. The board most recently looked at it in February and it's been continued a couple of times and was most recently deferred to October 20th, which is today. And this is where the second and final three month time extension runs out. And is the, so is the applicant here? Do we have them up again? So I'm gonna guess that this Steve is Steve Kyle. So I'm gonna allow Steve to talk. Can you hear us? Yeah. Can you hear me? And I just, I just wanted one thing on the board. So I think this is true that there are some members of the board who were not here for the previous review of this project. Am I correct about that? Kenan? Yeah, I think so. Brooks, were you here, Brooks for this? I don't think so. No. And Shawn, you probably weren't. I remember reviewing it, but I can't remember if that was on the previous one or not in the previous. Okay. Okay. So I think there's a lot of parts and pieces on this. And I see Kim is here. So the, just to find out, are there more people, applicants here besides Steve? Yes, it's me, it's Joe Handys here and Brian here is here, so three of us. And Brian is representing the only, representing Joe Handys. Okay. Okay. So can I swear Steve and Joe and Brian? Are they? Yes. Yes, we're all here. Yes. Okay, the three of you, can I swear you in that you would swear to tell the truth and hold truth on the pain and penalty of perjury? Yes. Yes. Okay. And Scott, I may need a little background on this too. If I remember correctly, we were really dealing with the retainage and a shoring of the bank behind this building and looking for engineering verification in the city review of that. Is that accurate? That was where our last hearing was on. There were three items that the board articulated when they last took action on this to reopen the hearing. Yes. Some extensions. One was city engineer blessing of retaining wall and associated easement with the neighbor. The other was figure out your storm water management and the third dealt with tree retention and protection along the bank. So everything there has been addressed except for storm water. You know, the oddity here is, okay, so we have storm water remaining as an outstanding item, but now the applicant wishes to defer again and we simply can't. You're at the end of the time period of the extensions. So I guess I'll ask Steve and Joe and Brian that maybe make comments on that that we're very close to being able to approve the application addressing most of the issues. Is that something? Are you not intending to have us move ahead on that? Well, there was, there are several issues we got. Well, the main issue was neighbors. You know, with today's environment, the COVID we had issues communicating with the neighbors. It took us a while. I want to speak that communicated with the neighbors and neighbors weren't going to cooperate with the shoring on the retaining wall. This is getting easements from the neighbors. The city engineer approved the shoring but we couldn't get any easements from the neighbors. So, you know, this went on and on. I mean, that's why we had the extension because we kept trying to get a hold of neighbors and you know, that's kind of like our last resort. And that's why we kept calling for extensions and then when we could not get any neighbors to approve for it and then you already decided, well, I guess we got to scale the building down. So that's where we are. We are asking for an extension, maybe 120 days to revise the application to reduce the size of the building. So we do not have to deal with any shoring and dealing with the neighbors regarding that. So that's what we're asking. We're asking for an extension to revise the application and reduce the size of the building. We guess we don't understand why it was being complete when for example, the DRB was requesting, you know, easements, the shoring, the stormwater. Those are kind of the three items that were the main topics beyond the June 28th, 2019 when Scott gained the application complete. So that's where we are. And that's why we just wanna, we just wanna, we just wanna extend the application, revise the application, it's gonna be the same use, but we just wanna make the building smaller. And then resubmit new plans to that. And I guess I'm looking at the agreement between the city and the, is this the relevant thing that the, and I guess I'll ask Kim this question. Can you hear us? Yes. I can. So am I correct that this stipulation between the city and the applicant relates to the time duration of the review? Am I reading that correctly? It related to, yeah, when they could apply again and still have the same fee. But does that also set the date as to when the time period, these dates for when they have to complete their review by, that clock is ticking. Is that not part of this stipulation? The main part that the intent of the stipulation was to give a time when they would have to come back in and still be able to have the same permit fee. So they had to do that by, I think it was June of 2019. And they did that. And then the time would clock as typical once it was applied for. Okay. So that, and so that Scott, the time we're talking about is from after this date of this stipulation. Correct. Just like there's time limits on permit life, there's time limits on how long you can leave your application hanging out. And I guess for my own clarity, if they're coming back with a revised building, and you could answer this too, Steve, but if they're coming back with a revised building plan, which means it's gonna be different storm water, different parking, different criteria, different issues of shoring everything else, where is the advantage to not having a new application? Steve, I guess I'll ask you that question. Well, I guess our main concern is, Joe, we like to, we have to revise existing application. We just don't, we don't wanna lose our application fee. I mean, we're talking around $35,000 fee here. So that's kind of where we are. I mean, it's a good chunk of money. Yeah. So the owner doesn't wanna, doesn't wanna lose that. So I don't blame him. So we basically just want to, we're simply saying, why can't we just use the same fee or same application for the same use, we're using the same new same site, we're just reducing the size of the building. And we're hoping that we can just keep the application fee and just, and just reapply it with a new building. And the ticking clock that we're talking about, the Sunday Scott that starts when you team the application complete. Correct. Steve, this is Jeff Ham. Do you agree that the city is gonna need to go through the process of reevaluating your revised project that it will take more time and effort to do that? Well, I'm assuming we have to go back in front of the, you know, review boards because the building will be smaller for reducing the parking. And also the main reason for doing this is hopefully we're trying to eliminate any shoring on the site. So we don't have to deal with the neighbors or deal with any part of the bank. So that's kind of the main reason is, you know, we don't have to do anything with the shoring but also again, you know, our main concern is not to lose our application fee. It's Brian here. Can you hear me? Yeah. We asked that Scott distribute the agreement from 2019. Did you happen to get that? It's about a three-page document. So I wasn't around in 2013 for this project either but it was approved for 57 units in 2013. Permit expired, the city and the applicant came to an agreement that would allow them to reapply by June 30th, 2019, which did happen. So, and then subsequent to that, there were requests from the city staff for information continuously including that the shoring beyond the neighbor's property. Now that's not able to happen because we weren't able to reach a deal with the neighbor on whose land the shoring would be installed. So our position is the application was never actually complete because it was a constant process of submitting information in response to requests for information. What we have is the same use, an apartment use. We're gonna have fewer units. It will have a slightly smaller footprint but it's basically a revised application. It's how we would characterize it, not a new application. A continuation of the entire process since 2019. It's not a different use. It's not a different look. It's the same application but reduced because we couldn't get the shoring easement from the neighbor. So by necessity, the number of units need to be reduced. Is that fair to say, Steve? Yes, yes. And did you come in question? Yeah, so I mean it sounds like the long and short of it is that you basically, I'm looking at the agreement. It does say in paragraph three that after June 30th, any future application would be considered a new with new fees and process. So it sounds like what we're really talking about here is is there a way for us to allow you to submit revised plans given the reality that you're not able to get the shoring in on the neighbor's yard without having to incur the additional fee? Is that basically where we're at? I think that's a reasonable summation, sure. Correct, yes. And I guess the challenge the city has raised which I'd be interested in hearing Kim's take on is in section 3.2.5 after there's a complete application the timeline is very clear. And unfortunately, it doesn't look like the zoning ordinance is written to give us any discretion to extend it longer than today's meeting. In other words, there's a six month time period and then there are two, three months extensions and we were at that period. Well, I use a question I have for Kim. Kim, do we have to act on the application or do we just have to hear it and then go into deliberation? I think you can hear it and go into deliberation. Let me just pull up that section. We have what, 45 days on that? Well, if we close it or we could, we can't continue the public hearing, right? Scott, is that what you're telling me? I hear that Scott, correct. Tonight's the end of the public hearing. The board needs to close the hearing and decide thumbs up or thumbs down and if they have 45 days to do it. And it would seem that our asking for additional information seems like that's not really germane to whether the application is complete or not. I mean, our review raises issues in the process that we then ask for answers to. It doesn't seem to me that changes the application being complete. Just a difference between complete and compliant. So again, Scott? The difference between complete and compliant. Yeah. If I may, at 3.2.5, the ordinance says that it's not complete. The all submission requirements have been provided. So. But submission requirements are different than asking for additional information. Well, there's no point arguing about it. We've tried to make our position clear that this is not a new application. It's necessarily a revised application because of the inability to construct the retaining wall that the city required the applicant to do. If not for that, this project would have come and gone months and months ago. It's part of the review. I don't think that, well, the requirement for the retainage was something that was essential for the building as designed. It wasn't something the city, the city has a solution to. In the 2013 permit, there was no offsite assurance required. Isn't that right, Steve? No. It was just a block wall. We just had a block wall for 2013, which was approved. I think the evidence show that that was not safe, which is why you all needed to go back and demonstrate some shoring to make the design safe. Correct. And that's when we didn't feel that the application was complete because the DRB was requesting the additional information for that. And then also, when regards to the shoring, the board also mentioned that we want, you want an easement agreement for the neighbors. So that's another thing we had to get. And of course, with the state's environment, it was very difficult and tough to get that information in approval. And that's why we asked for extension because we couldn't get it. So I've got a question real quick. I know that we were being flexible on some deadlines as COVID and it sounds like there was at least some delay as a result of COVID because they weren't able to communicate with the neighbors. Is there any flexibility there, I suppose? In addition to the board-granted extensions, there was a 90-day suspension of timelines during the state of emergency that has also benefited this application. So it's been going on for six months plus the two, three month extensions plus the 90 days for COVID. We're still under a state of emergency. Yeah, I understand, but the suspension was for 90 days. There's really no harm to any party by granting a short extension for the applicant to make some revisions and to put them before the board. Is there? I mean, if you look at, I mean, right now the sites falling apart is just if the land made, the buildings falling down, or as well, and to clean it up, make it a better building, add a nice building, nice site there, to site contaminating, he's willing to clean that stuff up, make it a better site. And we're just asking for an extension to remodify the building and not to lose our feet. I mean, because this site needs it. A question I have is if a revised or what I'm gonna call a new site plan is submitted, don't you feel that the city resources going to reviewing the new plan should come along with a new fee? No, I mean, like I said, it's a revised application. I mean, it's the same, just reducing the size of the building. You know, I mean, like I said, 35 or $36,000 is a good chunk of change for this first one. And we don't see why we can't extend that fee into for this revised application. Can I ask you a question? Yes. How are you? Good, how are you? So I think we're all scratching our head here. I don't know if you have any advice you can give us in terms of flexibility or options. I think AJ was hunting around one there as to whether we could sort of take this all under advisement and somehow allow or revision within the construct of our deliberation. Obviously the public hearing would need to be reopened then, but is there any avenue in your view in the ordinance to essentially allow us to extend beyond what's provided in that section? I don't believe there is. I mean, you could close the hearing and deliberate. I mean, that section was added because of applications that were going on too long. And I believe at one point it was in the rules and then it was put into the ordinance itself. Because of the concern of how long can, you know, of ones that might get lost and because people ask for more time, more time and more time. I'm wondering, I mean, there are two sections there that I'm trying to understand. The one is in the second paragraph that says modifications to a pending application by an applicant shall restart any time limits commencing upon the modification date. And then the next sentence says an applicant may request deferral. It doesn't say that the board on its own motion can't defer it longer. Just that they can't request a further deferral. So I believe that second sentence says the modification starts the clock over. That's really talking about the administrative review in the deemed approved timeframe. It's not really talking about, you know, changes that occurred during the DRB process. And I think you guys already mentioned, I mean, you know, frequently things change during your process and you ask for more information. That's not atypical. Or people change it automatically to react to concerns that they heard from neighbors or from the board. So that line's really, I read that line, especially the way it's positioned in there and just because of the intent of the section. Yep, that's it. Yeah. What about the second one? The paragraph has started with the applicant requesting something. It ends with the DRB shall not grant another extension, which gives me pause, but it doesn't seem to say we can't on our own motion or own decision allow for a longer period. Let me, I'm just trying to pull that specific section up. Any, yes, that's that section is definitely talking about when an applicant request for it. And then as I read that last sentence now, it's actually it says, if an initial extension is granted by the DRB, the application lies dormant for three months. You can't grant another one after that first three month one. Or it's already granted that though, Jeff. We have granted the second. Right, I understand we're, we have granted as many extensions as the applicant can request under this provision. And I'm just trying to understand is that affirmatively limit us from our own motion saying for reasons such as COVID, we find good cause to grant a further extension. I don't know. I think this is intended to be very specific. Like this is all you get for the reason Kim said that it was put in here to deal with applications that linger too long. But I also think some of that, some of the intent there was people who just leave their applications dormant and don't try to deal with them. I don't think it's been the case for this applicant. I do think they've been trying in good faith to resolve things. Well, I agree. I mean, this is going to be, make a six or $7 million project. And it all came down to a couple of neighbors coming down to the easement. So that's why we went right down to every extension we can get to see if we can get these neighbors to agree to it. And, you know, that's Scott's right. We used every 90 days, every easement to see if we can get these neighbors to cooperate because it's a big project. And you only had a lot of stake years. That's why we wanted much time as we could and we could not get the neighbors to cooperate. So that's where we are. So- Wait, one second. So you just said that you believe the project would be somewhere between six and $7 million. You said that, you know, your big objection to filing a new permit is $35,000. We're talking a half a percent of your entire project budget here. Projects easily run over, half a percent over budget when they're bill. Again, I go back to, you've ran out of time and $35,000 for the city's time to review a new project seems reasonable. Hey, can I- Can I have my- I'm going to deal with Kim. Go ahead, Kim. Well, I just, you know, this is an application that was applied for in 2019, but the basis of the agreement and the reason we even had the agreement was because it wasn't originally built in 2013. And then, you know, they came in and didn't come in as a question over the timeframe of when the new application was, whether it was within the year. So then we ended up with an agreement to allow another year to, you know, another timeframe to apply. So it has been out there for a while. Fair point. Could I offer something? Thanks. The paragraph five of the stipulation requires that the board review the application pursuant to the same substantive standards that were in effect in 2013. I don't believe the section of the ordinance 3.2.5, completeness of submission, you know, the time you were talking about was in the 2013 ordinance, but I'm not 100% sure. And, you know, maybe Kim, it's hard to know what was the ordinance changes every year, but the stipulation and it was approved by the court as an order requires that the city review the project under the standards in place in 2013. So I'm submitting that if the timeline here contained in section 3.2.5 was not in the 2013 ordinance, we can apply it right now. Well, that does say substantive standards that may be different than these kinds of procedural things, but it would be good to know that whether that was in there or not. Something we can check on, Jeff, you know, that said, I'm confident it was in the DRBs bylaws at that point, if not in the ordinance. And the board does have precedent for ending the clock on a long pending application under the bylaw standard. But it wasn't an absolute requirement under the bylaws, is that right? It was the same limitation you get out of six months and then up to two or three month extensions. So at the same force in the bylaws or the ordinance? I'll leave that to the lawyers. I'm just saying that we do have precedent of at least one application that ran out of time and the board acted under that. Within the bylaw. Can I ask sort of the ultimate question here? If we don't take action tonight, what's the effect? Is it that the application is deemed approved or it's denied? We'd ask that you table the application for the time being so that we could submit a revised application in a short amount of time. We don't know if that's an option. I was gonna say what approval is, like what approval? I had the same question, Jeff, just raised. I guess I'd like to answer to that. Is that something Scott or Kim can clarify for us? Because a lot of times if we don't approve an application or don't take action, at a certain point it is deemed approved. Right, you would close the hearing tonight and if day 46 comes along and you've not issued a decision, then the specter of deemed approval comes in. I'll defer to Kim as to what procedure is involved there. I don't think it's an automatic thing, but it's possible. We have the 45-day deliberative after today's hearing. So I guess the question is gonna be, we seem to want an answer to that question as to what was in the ordinance then, even though that may not be germane to our final decision. And if we're gonna deliberate on this, is there any other information that people need before we deliberate on the board? Jeff, did you want to? I guess we would like to ask for approval. We would like to ask for approval, that's what we stand so. Right, we understand that. Well, hold on, but Steve, that doesn't make any sense to me. You're asking us to approve a project you just said you can't build because you're not an easement to build the project you're asking us to approve. If the board is saying that your choices are approval or denial, we would choose to be approved. There are other options. We're happy to continue to discuss them, but it's kind of unclear from the discussion so far about what that option may be, a third option. This is gonna come down to our deliberative. I mean, I think Springer's comment and it's something to be aware of is that if this were a totally new application, there's a fair amount of work on the part of public works and zoning permitting department, other city departments that would be involved. And to some extent, that's what part of that fee goes for. So to say, gee, you wanna create a whole new application but not have a fee to cover the review by the city is we understand that you've paid a lot of money for this already, but also there's a lot of work that the city's done. So it's not clear cut that how that issue should play out. I've got one last question. So if we sort of sit on this for the 45-day deliberative, does that give them enough time to still, like let's assume in an ideal world they're able to get the easements that they needed, would they then be able to submit them at that point or would that be done? I don't think we have the ability to have another public hearing with that question. Yeah, that's the problem. We'd have to reopen the public hearing to take new evidence and give other people opportunity to comment on it. So we'd have to issue a decision based on what's in front of us. Unless we feel there's some way that we can do a time extension and we keep looking at that and this seemed to not be a way, Jeff's reading it is sort of interesting is it seems clear the applicant cannot ask for an extension. Doesn't mean the board can't create an extension. That's sort of a question there, Jeff, isn't it? It is, I don't know if I buy that argument. I'm just posing it for trying to understand it. And I guess just to be clear on the record we're on right now, my understanding is the stormwater issue has also not been adequately addressed. It's not just the shoring. Correct. But there are times we issue a permit with the stipulation that they have to get that approved of. Yeah, my recollection of our discussion of this issue was we were concerned about bank stability and other things in this area to really feel like we needed the stormwater information before we approved it. Yeah, it all goes to the shoring issue. On either side of the project. Okay. I guess I'll go back to my question. Does anybody in the board have any other questions or any more information that they feel we need before we go into deliberative on this project? I would like to know what the ordinance said at the time, the 2013 ordinance. I don't think that's necessarily additional evidence. Maybe it is, but I think that would be helpful to know what it said on timeliness of permit review. So, Jeff, I can actually answer that. Well, you've been, I found it while you were talking. So, the language of the third paragraph was added in an ordinance from 2018. Okay. So, it was in the bylaws, but not in the ordinance in 2013. Correct. It was in the bylaws. I'd have to check the data to period in the bylaws, but it stems, it goes all the way back to building the cats proposal, ill fated proposal out on apple tree point lane. Folks, I would submit the ordinance is what controls, not the procedural bylaws of the board. But, and also just to remind people, this project was completely approved in 2013. Okay. The permit just expired. Okay. So, there's no reason we couldn't be approved, as far as I can see based on what's been submitted, but we would like to improve the project based on site constraints as we've described. A lot of the information committed would not necessarily change and require a huge amount of staff review. Brad, I just had a quick point and then I would also point out we have a couple of folks with their hands raised. Public to speak on this project? Yeah. Okay. Well, I'll say to Steve and Brian and Joe that let's take a minute and see who is the public that wanted to speak on this? Can you admit them to the hearing? Yeah. We have Bob Botany, Jason Stuffle and a phone number. I'm going to get that sharing butcher. So, I don't see them appearing yet. They're here. I'll allow. Okay. Phone number. I think this is Sharon. And who else is here? I'd like to get the three people you said. Okay. I'll allow them. Yeah. Okay. Jason, Sharon and who's the third? Bob Botany. Okay. Jason, Bob and Sharon, would you please swear that you would tell the truth and whole truth and pain and penalty of perjury? I do. I do. That's fair. Okay. I'm just seeing in the order on my screen, Jason. What is it that you wanted to say? So, I would say that I've been following this project as a neighbor. I'm not an easement neighbor, but very close. I can see the property from my house since 2013. And I know the city has spent considerable time and effort reviewing this. You know, there is that clause to review it under 2013 circumstances, but we know that things have changed along Riverside Ave with landslides and other things. So I very much appreciate the, you know, willingness to update the plan to a smaller building that doesn't impact the hill. But I feel like the city is like you have said, spent considerable time and resource and the neighbors have spent a considerable amount of their time attending all of these meetings to try and deal with the situation. So, you know, I would echo, you know, the owners there that it, the property is not doing anyone any good. It's falling down. It's dilapidated. It needs to be cleaned up. Something needs to be done there. So we need to facilitate that. But, you know, the long, long process of it being drawn out, most people are not even aware of the initial circumstances except for a few of us. So I think it needs to be, you know, submitted again a new application, you know, it's a smaller building and review the stormwater and the access to crossing the road and other issues that I felt weren't addressed in the 2013 plan. You know, so I think it just has to start over. It can be very similar plans, but there has to be that similar public review and input of all the people that live here now that did not live here in 2013. You know, it's seven years of difference. So thank you for my comments. And Jason, can you give your address for Scott? Yes, I'm at 316 Colchester Ave. Thank you. And Bob Nutani. Yes, can you hear me? Yes. Hi, thank you. I just first want to say that there is no room for uncivil discourse. And I object to the way that previous applicant or whatever he is talked to the board. That said, I live at Fletcher Place as the board knows or should know, we've been battling this developer Colchester Avenue Housing for the past nine years. And Vermont Geological Survey has identified Gully Head failures on the applicants project behind my house. Has this particular applicant 110 Riverside Avenue reviewed the Vermont Geological Survey which identifies landslide areas particularly along Riverside Avenue? They've had extensive engineering as part of that as part of this application. Okay, and the applicant states that he wants to reduce the size of the project. Now, numbers of units, it's kind of a red herring. You could have 57 units. Truthfully, Bob, I would say that nothing is before us in terms of any more units of this unit. So we'd rather not get into that what the new building might be like or not be like. I can't comment on that, we don't have it. Okay, so the next question is, if this is approved, is it going to be approved with the previous, over the objections of the neighbors? I, Well, you don't have objections to the neighbors. The neighbors don't want to issue an easement. That's not the same thing as objecting. Yeah. Okay, so even though the neighbors wouldn't provide the easement, would the project still be approved? They have an engineering issue. I'll also say we have no authority to rule on easement or property rights issues. It's a permit, whether they need an easement or don't need an easement or can get one or can't get one, is separate and apart from what the CDO says and what our decision is. Okay, is there an understanding as to why then the applicant wishes to reduce the footprint or project size? Can't talk about that. We don't have it in front of us. Okay, well, he brought it up. I understand that. I understand that, but it's not the project. Okay, thank you. Okay, and Sharon, is that you on this last one? It is me, thank you so much. So first off, I had raised my hand during your back and forth with Kim Sturt event because Guilty is Charged, I was on the ordinance committee in 2018 with Chip Mason and Jane Nodell when we took up the modification to how long, how many requests for extensions could be allowed. And it was at the request of planning at that time because of the fact that you had so many projects that sometimes really just languished that we tightened that up and reflect and made the language in the ordinance reflect, I guess your bylaws. So I just wanted to state that, but I'm really calling because my understanding, I read the whole packet, all of the information once again tonight before this meeting. And as I recalled at the February 19th meeting, there were three issues that remained. But when I read the staff comments, the one that remained, that was outstanding from staff's point of view because the issue about getting easements from the neighbors, I didn't read in the staff comments, but the outstanding issue was the stormwater. And as Bob Buchanan tried to speak to, so my request is that if you take this up tonight, and I thought if you didn't act on it, it got approved, that was my thought. And so I hope I'm wrong because if you don't act on it, I don't want this to move forward without addressing stormwater. It's not a minor issue. The whole Chester Avenue is on top of the bank, Riverside on the bottom, the erosion of the bank, the erosion of the roadbed on Riverside Avenue, the erosion as it goes to the Winooski River is significant. I asked Paul Bierman to come tonight, but he did not respond, but he's really the resident expert in our area. So my point is, if you have to act on it, I would request that you deny it based on the fact that the stormwater has not been addressed. And this is very significant because as we all know, water really can over time really erode a bank, erode a site. And I think that it will be detrimental to the people on the top of the hill and the people living in the residential units that are about to be created. I don't want anyone to misunderstand, and I know that's not germane for tonight, but I'm supportive of this housing project. And some of the things that I heard other people mention about pedestrian crossings, some of those things were addressed when you came back in 2019, bike parking, a lot of good stuff in this project, a lot of responsiveness to the comments from the DRB and from public. And so it's a good project, but it hasn't been completed. The other thing that's not complete, if you look at all of the information from staff in your packet, is the fact that there were three storage tanks, abandoned tanks, and no one really knows the condition of those tanks and whether there needs to be some soil remediation. I think that's a big deal. And so when we're talking about what this will involve, I understand that's at the state level. I'm not quite sure how the city interfaces with the state on those issues, but I do believe that there will be some work, even with a smaller project for the city. And I'm gonna wrap it up. I know Brad, I can see you there going, oh Sharon, wrap it up. But anyways, I feel that from 2013 to today, we've learned a lot about stormwater management, the significance of it, the significance of that into the rivers and our watershed and our drinking water. And so I think really it would be detrimental to the community and to all of us to apply standards from seven years ago and not benefit from what we've learned and what remediation and what we need to apply to today's development. So I just wanna speak to that. If you look at the information that you got from staff, if you do move forward and approve it, there was one thing that was inconsistent. Part two, site plan design standards that talks about provide for nature's events. And it talks about stormwater. And it says that that was an affirmative finding as conditioned. And I think that that was a mistake. I would beg to have someone review that to make sure that there is a difference between the stormwater addressed earlier in the review process versus this particular criteria because it seems inconsistent. And then I think I had other comments but I will stop there. And I very much appreciate all your time and how challenging this is. I'm not opposed to having the DRB have autonomy and make good choices based on odd times. 2020 is not typical. So if there's a legal way to extend, fine, but I do want us to apply the right criteria, right standards and right information for this project. I don't want us to go back to 2013 and not use the lessons we've learned about what we need to do to protect our water and our environment. Thank you. I think the ball is in our court in terms of two things. One is ruling on the application or granting a time extension. And go back to the question of is there any further information we need? I think Kim gave us the data as to when this item was added into the CDO but apparently was in the bylaws prior to that. So I think it's gonna be something for us in deliberative to determine whether we find a way to grant an extension or whether we deliberate on it. Brad, may I make a brief point related to what Sharon had just said? Yeah. So there's a reason why zoning permits have time limits and applications have time limits. It's because standards change over time. And since this thing first came around the block seven years ago or so, there have been a number of changes to the CDO and this is just off the top of my head but two significant changes are inclusionary standards have been totally revamped and parking standards have been totally revamped. So again, there's a reason why there are limits. I'll ask Steve, Brian, Joe, is there any final comment you wanna make before we close the public hearing? Yeah, I would just respond to Scott's comment that I would ask that the board take a look at the stipulation from 2013 because it's quite clear that because this application was already approved when it's resubmitted the substantive standards from the ordinance from 2013 will apply not today's zoning ordinance. And that's quite clear on page two paragraph five of the stipulation which was approved by the environmental court and is a court order. Brian, do you have any reason to disagree that that same language with respect to the time extensions was in the DRB bylaws at the time? I think the substantive standards are found in the zoning ordinance and if bylaws, I think you mean the DRB's procedural bylaws not zoning regulations themselves. Yeah, the agreement, the court agreement is not specific as to zoning ordinance or bylaws. It just says substantive standards. So if we read that broadly, it sounds like you're not disagreeing that that condition was in the DRB bylaws. We've established it was not in the zoning ordinance itself. I don't know what's in the DRB's bylaws in 2013, so. Okay, thanks. Thank you. Yes, Kevin. If I may just, I mean, Brian read it. I mean, the question also is substantive standards and if this is a substantive or procedural, the timeline of the application I would submit as more procedural, it's not a substantive but that would also be for you to debate. Yes, it seems like it's very clear that we don't know exactly how we're gonna rule on this thing. Okay. Unless anybody on the board objects, I will close the public hearing on this last day of the public hearing for this item. And we will discuss whether we deliver it tonight or not at the end of the meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we have one other item on the agenda that's 400 North Street. It's a continued hearing to remove garage and instruct an accessory dwelling unit 400 North Street is the applicant here. Yes, Will McKenna. Okay. Will, is anybody else here to speak on this project besides Will? So raise your hand. I see at least one more. Can you bring them into Scott? That's Joseph Cleary. Okay. I'm gonna ask both of the applicant and Joseph Cleary to do square to tell the whole truth of the pain of penalty of perjury. I do. Yes. Okay. Unless somebody on the board objects, this is something we reviewed before and there were questions that came up to main issues was access of a driveway from the street and what the topography was actually like and how water is gonna be dealt on the back of the property against, I think it's Joseph Cleary's property. So I ask Will, has anything been done to address those issues? Hi, yeah. Hello? Yes, I hear you. Okay. Yeah, well, I just want to first say, sorry to Ryan. Sorry, I've been pretty unresponsive. It's sort of a crazy time for me right now. But I guess that what I do have is that, so I met with James Charard from the, who's I guess a project, stormwater project manager. And I guess he, we met on site and it seemed to me like we kind of were able to come to a consensus that the problem on the street, which I've been trying to, which I've said quite a few times and maybe I've not been clear is that I believe the street was designed to drain into a catch basin that's located on Dan's court. And it's very obvious that the catch basin is non-functional. And so I think that, so I think any existing, any problems that are with stormwater runoff are probably because the catch basin is not working properly and appears to not have been working properly for quite some time. I think that was raised at the last hearing as an issue. Yes, so I think that, and I think one of the concerns was that if I create a driveway, there would suddenly be lots of stormwater. I think, well, I'm not, not that I do, but the concern was not just if you create the driver, but how do you create the driveway? We have no information on the rain and water flow. Right, okay. So I guess one thing is that, I mean, I hate to admit it, but I'm 29 years old and I don't have lots of money. And I'm $10,000 plus into this project already. And what I would like to do is just sort of have, and I'm not saying that the city has not been clear. I have not been responsive. What I would like to do is just sort of clarify what the steps I need to do so that I can kind of make sure that I'm not doing things and then there's more. So basically, I just wanted to clarify exactly what I need to do for this that's going to satisfy the city. From what I understand, one is to provide some sort of plan that's showing the amount of fill used for the driveway to make up for the approximate, like 18 to 20-inch drop from Dan's court. And I guess a plan showing how that is going to tie in. Am I correct in that? Yeah, 18 to 20 inches is a substantial grade change when you're talking about getting drive and to a driveway off a street with a curb. And the other issue is the water at the back of the property may take some engineering solution against Mr. Cleary's garage or shed back there. Those are the technical solutions that are going to be required for both of those. I'm just, so what I think should be the standard would be for the EPSC erosion prevention and stormwater control plan to be approved. I think that should be the standard that we use. And from what I could see is in an email that I got, this is stormwater conditions of approval. The applicant will have the basin clean prior to the stormwater permitting approval. I can certainly do that. The applicant will execute a maintenance plan for the catch basin 5262 located along the privately owned access to Dan's court. So I, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems like that the standard for the instructions on the zoning permit are to have an approved erosion prevention and stormwater control plan. And I think that if I satisfy that, that should be enough along with the, I guess some of the diagrams and descriptions of the driveway. Does that, am I making any sense? Because sometimes I don't know. No, I don't think that comment addressed exactly what has to happen behind the adjacent property. We're how the water is gonna get addressed here. Now that is part of what you have to do. I'm trying to read the same thing you're reading. That's not James Sherrod note, is it? No. Yes, it is. Let me get. So because, and the only reason why I'm, and I don't, and I'm not saying that I do not care about mitigating potential stormwater from going on to, Mr. Cleary's property, that's a priority to me and it remains a priority to me. And I will do everything I can and I don't think it's going to be an issue. And if there is an issue, I will do whatever I can to address it. However, I think that what I think by what's fair is for me to have clear guidelines on what I need to do to have this approved. The originally, when I was sent from the city had, but prior to my first hearing had 15 conditions, many of which I've already met. And I, and it had nothing that had anything about no, I just, I do not want to be difficult in any way. Okay, the short, I would say one short version here is that, is there a way to do this building and not add more water to the rear of the adjacent property? And right now you have a shed roof, that gable roof that sheds water towards the adjacent property. It's got no gutter on it. A simple thing like a gutter would take a lot of that water and not be putting it on his property. But right now the roof right now is set to drain all that water towards the adjacent property. So that's like a problem right there. Okay. You know, it's not, from zoning, nothing wrong with building the building you're doing. Okay, well, it's, okay, so what I wanna- Brad, can I sort of comment? Yes. It's not, if the city has an issued an ESP plan, EPSC plan. And, you know, I'm not sure we should be really, if James Sherrod is not comfortable yet, you know, do we wanna be designing solutions here? Or, you know, that's sort of where, we're sort of circling around this, you know, suggesting what do they need for approval? It's like, well, you know, we've got an issue and there's a way to deal with that. So I'm sort of wondering what we're spinning around here. I'm sorry, but, and I agree. That's why I think that approval of the EPSC plan is, I think that's- Yeah, but what the staff's comments is, is the staff suggesting that we see that approval before we issue our approval? Okay, yeah, no, I agree. Okay, and you don't have that though right now. No, I do not. So all I'm trying to clarify is that if I do have that, because there's, because I guess my initial comment was there were two clear things for our people on the EPSC that did not have anything to do with water going, shedding onto 158 North Village. Right, but I think there's other requirements in the EPSC that Mr. Sherrod would deal with. Okay, so what I just wanted to say, what I wanted clarification on was that if I just got that approval, would that be enough for approval from the zoning board? I don't think we can say that. Okay. I don't think we can say that until- It wouldn't be enough for us to deliberate on it and make that decision. Okay. But I guess just to be clear, I think we asked for two things. So it was the EPSC approval and slightly clearer plans on what the driveway is actually gonna look like. Right, yes. I don't think those need to be incredibly detailed, but we need more information on what that proposal is. Yes, okay. So what we could do, Will, is we could defer this and give you time to gather that information and bring it back to us. Yes, and I don't wanna take up more of the council's time. So basically I just wanted to clarify that those two items would be enough for you guys to deliberate and make a decision on. Probably depending on what the answer is to those two items, but probably. But right now, I think I'd like to have Joseph Cleary may have some comments. Do you wanna have something you wanted to add at this point? Sure, well, mostly I was here. Just making sure you can hear me. Yes. Yep, mostly I was just here to check in and see if the plans that you had requested were dropped even late today. Our main concern is about dance court. And I wonder, is there anyone on this call that can tell me who owns dance court? Yes. It is, gosh darn it. Guy's name is Doug Boyden, sorry. Okay, is that, does the city understand? I guess speaking out to Scott or employees or the board, does the city require permission from the owner of dance court for a curb cut or does the city have a separate application? If it's a private road, we don't, you know, we don't know if there's a curb cut or anything yet. Okay. That's correct. Okay, so, but Will, have you gotten permission from Doug Boyden to make a curb cut there? Nope. Okay. So it's actually similar to the last case. You know, what I'm doing is I'm applying for a permit from the city to do this. And then since it is private and it would require an easement, I would have to procure that privately from Mr. Boyden. I see. Okay, I guess to the issue of runoff, just to bring the board's attention back to that. I guess my main concern, for example, the building as Mr. Rabinowitz suggested, the building, there's ways with engineering to remediate a known amount of water from a specifically sized roof that has been proposed. The big concern is from Dan's court, there is an unknown amount of water that rushes down Dan's court. And a curb cut at that point, it's really like the low point. It's very near the catch basin that's been described as clogged. Whether or not it's clogged, if there's a curb cut there, that driveway will replace the catch basin. That's very clear to anyone who looks at it. So if there's engineering that can solve that problem, I suppose that that could reach the board's approval. I really appreciate the fact that you're taking a close look at that because, and I'm here speaking, but I know there's several other neighbors that are interested in this issue that would also be impacted. Okay, but that's why we wanna get that approval through. Thank you. Question for Scott. This is an application. This is the second hearing on this. Are we running into any timelines on the review process with this? The plans I'm looking at say, receive July 21st, next available meeting is December 1st. So you're not running into a limit yet, but it would get close in December. But the applicant could request an extension at that point. If additional time was needed, yeah. Okay. And I just wanna reiterate something that we talked about last time was on here. This driveway's come up before, and Will, I would encourage you to look at the ordinance with Ryan that a driveway may not be necessary, something to consider. But I just something to consider and just, yeah. I appreciate the problem. I think that the driveway adds a lot in this. Yes, it very well may. And that's your personal decision. And I just wanted to hear you were asking for guidance and there's other paths you may wanna consider. And if I could add that the, again, it's the building itself seems to have a known amount of roof and potential runoff. And the driveway is really what's the big concern to us. And it's, you know, it's essentially terraced. We have dance court at one elevation, 400 North Street at another elevation that 18 to 20 inches. Now, 164. I'm gonna, Joe, I appreciate what you're saying. The only issue is that we're sort of having a conversation about engineering data that we don't have data on. Okay, I understand. That's not your main to your decision tonight. Yeah, I mean, that's something that's gonna get solved, but we don't have the information in front of us to be able to do that. We understand that it is a very clear issue. We understand that. Okay, I'm mostly here because I expected that information to be presented tonight. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Do we need to move to defer this? Is that what we're? Yes. Yes. Okay. To a, and what's the next available hearing, Scott? December 1st. Will, how does that sound to you? Yes, I'll have an engineering plan for the driveway and approval from James Charard. Sounds like a wonderful idea. So, Keenan, you made a motion to defer this to December. Yeah, it's sure. So on 21-076-CA-C-U-400 North Street, I moved that we did for action on this until December 1st. Is there a second? Springer, any discussion? All in favor? Opposed? Okay, Will, we'll see you in a few months. Thanks, guys, I appreciate it. You're welcome. So that was the last item on our agenda. Unless there's any other business, we are adjourned.