 This is the Development Review Board of Wenuski, Vermont. We are a quasi-judicial volunteer resident board that upholds the standards and procedures as defined in the Wenuski zoning ordinance. The DRB reviews and makes decisions on subdivisions, site plans, conditional uses, variants, and appeals of the zoning administrator's determinations. The DRB has authority through Vermont State Statue 24, VSA Chapter 117 and ensures due process protects the rights of applicants, the rights of the public to participate in proposals for land development within the city. Appeals of decisions made by our board are heard by the Vermont Superior Court Environmental Division and the Vermont Supreme Court. Tonight, we have here Elsie, David, Emily, and online. We have Erin and Jordan. Welcome to the online members. And I would first like to get right down to the agenda here. Any changes to the agenda from the board or anyone online? Sorry, if I could real quick. Erin and Jordan, can you hear us OK? Hey, Eric. Yep. Can you hear us all right? Now again. Yeah. OK, perfect. Yep, sorry. I'd like to remind the audience to please sign in. There's a sign-in sheet at the door. And I would also like to swear in anyone who will be giving testimony tonight. So you can raise your hand. And do you swear to affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you. So first or third on the agenda, I have public comment. Does anyone want to make a comment or question on a topic that is not included on tonight's agenda? And for folks that are joining us online, if you can use the raise hand or the chat feature, and we will recognize you for items not on tonight's agenda. OK, seeing and hearing none, we'll move on to item 4, approved previous meeting minutes. Previous meeting was held on April 20, 2023. I was not present, so I'd like to abstain myself. Anyone who was here and has reviewed the minutes will welcome a motion or any changes to approve them. I make a motion to approve minutes from last month. Motion from David. Second. Second from Jordan who was in there first. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed. And the abstained. That's me. Motion carries. The minutes are approved. Sorry, Harlan, you're the only one to abstain? Or are you as well? OK. Next on the agenda, we have a public hearing on the planned unit development and waiver request at 205 West Allen Street. This is a preliminary plan review. Like to welcome the applicant up to the table. So if I may, before the applicant makes his presentation, I'll just give a little background and update on the project and where we are with things. So this is before. Can I interrupt you? Yes, sorry. I just want to disclose that I know Greg in a professional capacity. We work together on unrelated projects, my architecture firm and his engineering firm. You're not working for the same company, however? No, we do not work for the same company. And you want to have any concerns with David's impartiality in this matter? Small town. OK. So tonight we are here to review a planned unit development as a preliminary plan. This was first reviewed by you all back in November of this year as a sketch plan. Comments from that meeting are included, or I actually forgot to include them with the information I sent out to you, so they are the table. And copies were over here on the sign-in table as well for folks in the audience. Basically, the sketch plan comments are non-binding, but they were provided for direction to the applicant to consider including in the agenda. One of the comments that was provided was how this project would come forward. So whether it would come forward as a combined preliminary final plan, or first as a preliminary, and then a second plan later on as a final. At that meeting, you did decide that you wanted to bring it forward as a preliminary and then a final. So tonight is the meeting for the preliminary plan. We will have a decision after this meeting, or once you close the hearing, we will issue a decision on the preliminary plan, and then we will have another hearing at a future date on the final plan. So for the folks that are in the audience, there will be another plan after this meeting that will be reviewed. You'll get the same notifications as you did for this meeting as well. One of the other items I wanted to point out was at that sketch plan meeting, there was a discussion about a possible waiver to the front yard setback in order to maintain the existing dwelling that's on the property. That is still included and there is an additional waiver request to the rear yard setback that I'll let Greg talk about when we get into that. So in your agenda packet were the standards for plan unit developments, the standards for subdivisions because plan unit developments are considered a major subdivision. There was, there's also information about the waivers that are being requested. I believe that is all the table setting that I wanted to do for you all. And questions about what's happening tonight or what you're all being asked to review. Okay, great. Great. Can we bring up the site plan C1.00? Yes. I'm gonna share my screen so that folks can see what Greg's talking about. So yeah, I'm Greg Dixon. I work with Krebs and Lansing Consulting Engineers. I'm representing 802 developments. What we're planning on doing here is the team purchased this property. I think almost close to a year ago, the original intent was that to actually subdivide the property into two and put two single family houses or maybe a duplex and a single family and have two separate properties. After I dove into it a little bit, I noticed that the acreage was miss, it wasn't correct in the town charter and when it was sold to the property, it was labeled as 0.4 acres. After talking with you all and then doing the subdivision that we discussed last time I was here, we actually fell upon, it's about 0.23 acres. So we lost nearly half the property without really doing anything. Where that came from is basically the property to the west of us was originally part of this parcel and was sold I think sometime in the early 1900s, late 1800s and through I think no fault of anybody's it just sort of continued to be labeled as 0.4 but I do believe that is what happened. Additionally, we found that the railroad right away encroaches quite a bit into a lot of the backyards along West Allen Street. As you can see, this property can kind of see those fences in the back that are kind of at the bottom of the bank. All that is green grass, the current landowner and the landowner before that mow that, they use it. There's little figurines out there and some other stuff that they've had over the years but they technically do not own it. It is part of the railroad right away that goes in through there and I don't know if you wanted to bring up the subdivision or sorry, the plat that we created and kind of show a little bit more. Also has a lot of the existing conditions on it. So this is what we found, basically the center line of the railroad cuts through with 44 and a half feet on our side of the railroad and 54 and a half feet on the other side for a total of 99 foot right away. The total slope in this area, the difference is about somewhere between eight and 10 feet that we originally thought that we had the ability to use and then found out that we didn't. So that is the reasoning for the second waiver that I've coming in here to request. We actually didn't even move the building from the last plan we were here. It actually happened to be exactly, pretty much exactly 50% of the 15 feet. So it's about seven and a half feet is that we're now requesting. But everything is pretty much the same to go over it for people who weren't here and for the audience. The plan is to take the existing parcel, leave the existing house which is on the state historical register and then add two other single family homes to the property with parking and garages and kind of make it a little bit of a, it will be a condominiumized sale. So these properties, these houses can be sold separately and they'll be in sort of an HOA together to take care of the rest of the property. But yeah, it's not, there's not too much else to it. Besides that, the reason that we had to do the PUD was because it's three single family homes and not a duplex and a cottage or something along that that would have fit into the regulations without it being a PUD. Happy to answer any questions. I'm sure there's quite a bit and I guess we could just sort of jump into it. What's the square footage on the other proposed units or actually for each of them? For each? I think it's on there but I believe it was pretty close to, I'll get the architect for this one if that helps. So they're 20, they're 40 by 20 and then there are two stories. So quick math about 1600 square feet. Somewhere, I don't think it's that much because the portion of it is the garage. Yeah. I want to say it's around 1600 though. It's what's jumping to the top of my head. So when this was presented to us last time, it was the same configuration of buildings but it was assumed that the property extended to the end of the fence. So the 15 foot setback could have been met. Yeah. Which was our original intent. I think I had to move it like two inches sort of thing to meet the, because as a board you're only allowed to decrease that setback by up to 50%. So that's exactly what we're asking for on this. But the plan really hasn't changed. We just thought we owned to the back of sort of those bunch of fences back in there. Do you think there's any, I mean the railroad's not here tonight. Are they, they're not gonna have any issue with moving closer to their line, are they? I can't speak for the railroad. They were notified of the hearing so, but I don't represent them so I can't speak on their behalf. I will say there are many properties, including my old house on this West Allen street that encroach into there right away. Yeah. They did, almost every single property encroaches with the fence and manicured backyards. There are some garages and other stuff like that. We're obviously not gonna put a building on somebody else's property, right? So that, I guess no, they aren't here, but it is pretty consistent with the rest of the neighborhood to be right up against it. Right now actually the current garage on this parcel is about half a foot from the property line. It's kitty cornered in the, yeah. Oh yeah, yep, the existing garage, right. Is it, can you remind us what a right-of-way is? Is it actually a right-of-way or it's a separate, I thought a right-of-way was usually on your property. It's the right-of-a-different landowner to use that. So this is a separate property, the railroad owns that land. Yeah, it is their property. It's called a, I think you are at the right-of-way, gets thrown around a little bit into different aspects because even the city roads and stuff like that are technically right-of-ways, but the city owns them and operates them. But it is a property, the railroad owns that property. I think typically David, the right-of-way is its own piece of property, but it's generally not used to the fullest extent. So it's the right-of-way basically that the city owns or controls to add more space if necessary. But generally it does include places that people typically consider part of their property, along as Greg mentioned on roads, in particular the area where the sidewalks are and some of that green belt in the front is generally in the right-of-way, but it's typically maintained by the homeowner adjacent to it. It's a very cool railroad, so I had to do a lot of research on it, but used to connect into Burlington through the ravine and bring people from Essex down into Burlington because the main hub of the railroad was in Essex Junction. Now, pretty much the only thing that's on it is woodchips. Oh, that go from Swanton. Yeah, they go from Swanton, where they're all stored up in the Swanton and they come down and go to the Moran plant in Burlington. Fairly confident that's the only trains that use those rails. I have other questions, but I don't know if they're not full-ized, go ahead. So there's no change to the houses. There's no changes to the driving construction either in this? There's been some minor shifting as I better define the property, but I think if you were to take this and superimpose it on what I had before, I think it'd be pretty hard to pick out. We're talking about inches sort of thing because I had it pretty well defined except that back line last time we were here and we weren't getting any closer to that back line because we were trying to maintain that 15-foot setback. So really the only things that have been adjusted is just asking for the waiver in sort of minor adjustments and then also sort of showing more utilities and trying to start conversations with the DPW and Manuski to try to solidify how we're gonna connect everything, water, sewer, electric. I don't believe they plan on using natural gas, but I guess the option is there. And what's the total lot coverage you're looking at now that the green space is short? I'm actually still under 50%. So it's tight, but there's a lot of green space. So we kind of configured it, it's all really tight together and they're using a lot of the same spaces, but it's just barely under 50%. It's on the plan actually, I think it's 49.2. 49.2, yeah. So you had a formal survey conducted? We did the survey, yeah. Yeah. So that's a stamp boundary. We haven't brought it to the city yet to actually put into the town record because we're kind of waiting to see where this goes because we might add the condo units onto the plat to just solidify that. But the shapes for the condo plat are shown on the site plan. Effectively all it's gonna be is half a foot outside of wherever the foundation goes. Will be what the condo technically owns and then the rest will be in an HOA. Were there further discussions with the fire department? I have not been able to get in contact with the fire department. All the buildings are more than 10 feet away from each other, which I know is a bit of some fire code. Aspects, yeah, I haven't had a lot of luck talking to them. I'm showing 12 feet, which is pretty consistent with a lot of the other driveways that I've done in the city as a minimum that they request. I kinda don't expect them to drive down this thing to fight a fire. I don't know if that'd be a safe condition. Maybe on the back house, I think they could probably fight fires pretty easily from the road. It's a pretty small lot. Yeah. Is this air consistent in the past that we're not reviewing the buildings? The footprints are just there for convenience sort of? That's correct. In this case, because it's a plan unit development, we're not the ownership structure of how they, what they do in the future is not our purview with the exception of we would review the legal documents or we would have the legal documents reviewed by our attorney just to make sure there's no issues for the city on any type of responsibilities or things like that. Similarly, that's what we did with the plan unit development at 64 La Fountain Street, which is now the Molly's Way project. We talked about the orientations of the buildings in that plan, didn't we? We did a little bit, yeah. And I think that's a good question. I think you can get into some of that to some extent within the context of the standards of review for subdivision or for the plan unit development since I believe one of the standards does refer to citing of the buildings themselves in the subdivision provisions. So that would, I guess, technically be in your purview if you wanted to get into that information as well. But as far as the ownership structure, whether or not. No, I wasn't. Yeah, okay. I wasn't talking about that. I was more interested. I mean, it seems like the two new buildings are essentially mirror copies of each other. Is it from those? Yeah, I think that appearance is a good word for it. So I have some concerns that seems like the, what's intended as the entrance of the one on the left looks like it's facing the backyard of the property on the right, like the porch is on the right-hand side of that top building. So here's the elevations. So that top right elevation, right, would be facing the neighbor's backyard, the main entrance. I think there would be an opportunity to turn that bay window into a front door if that was the desire of the board. So that was sort of just my lead answer. So the question is, have you looked at or considered other configurations of the buildings? Like, can they do a duplex area as one of the buildings? Like put two buildings together on that footprint or separately can you do like a small cottage that doesn't encroach on the setback in the back? Just, I know that's not what you wanna do, but have you looked at any other options? I think that's the answer is, there are other options that we could do. Actually, if I don't do a PUD, the both the sides and the backyard setbacks decrease. I think they go to five and 10 feet and for accessory structures, they might both go to five. So we could even get a lot closer to those property lines if I did that. But if you don't do a PUD, can you do this many buildings? Not this many buildings. So if, as I was mentioning, one thing you can do on this property, you can have three dwelling units in this zoning district. What that can be a combination of is a duplex and then a cottage is kind of the extent of what you can do per the regulations. But it was a desire of this group to have single family homes. And it's also written into the Winooski plan of getting single family homes. And so that is kind of what we're trying to run with. So it's definitely a project desire to do this 100%. But it's also trying to fit within Winooski code and trying to give Winooski more of that single family feel on these smaller lots without sort of pushing people into duplexes and stuff like that. But again, that's why we're here asking. And it's, yeah. So I'll just put it out there because this is what I'm gonna bring up in the discussion. I've mentioned it before. What I get hung up on is the wording in the, I don't remember if it's the PUD or the subdivision that talks about the intent of this to allow reasonable development of the lot. In one way, it's already been reasonably developed and you have a house on it. And it would be possible to put another house on it, which would be another reasonable development or improvement of the lot. And you could potentially add a third little cottage on there. So my hang up is what's the impetus for us to grant the waiver that violates the setback when there are other ways to add these buildings. That's just what's going through my head now. How I read the ordinance. Yeah, and we couldn't add two buildings as you discussed, it would just be a cottage and that would be limited to a thousand square feet. We'd have to look at turning the existing single family historical home into a duplex to do that. Which was also not something this group wanted to do. They wanted to leave that as a single family home to try to keep the historical aspect of that building. Well, my point is you could add one building. You could add another single family home, right? Or you could add another single family home and a little cottage in the back that's not quite that big. You couldn't add two structures on it. The only thing I can tell what you're doing now is you're adding two structures. Because it's a plan unit development. Right, but I'm saying, can't you do that? No. Why can't you do a plan unit development with a smaller building in the back? Two buildings, just like this, but that footprint in the back is smaller. A little cottage, I call it a cottage, a little building. Because I don't think I'd have enough room to put a garage in it. And that's the only way that I'm getting the parking. Could you have parking beside it, like more open parking like you have for the front building? Anyway, I don't. I guess I don't think it would be possible to do that. And I also think it's a request that's very consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. I don't think it's a outlandish request to get within seven and a half feet of the railroad right away when there's an existing structure that's half a foot. And the majority of the rest of this entire residential street is right next to that right away. I think it's very consistent. I think this plan is very consistent in general with the neighborhood, which is tight single-family homes on pretty small lots. I'm even thinking of my old house, 149 West Allen Street was on .08 acres, which isn't even a, you can't even do that in the regulation. So I think this particular West Allen Street is a neighborhood that has been developed in different ways over the years, but I think that this brings a consistent look to the area. Very good. Do you have the Google Maps? Oh, sorry, sorry. Yeah. I'm sorry. Do you have the Google Maps we can see on the street? I can definitely do that in one second. While we're waiting for that to pull up, those dotted lines in front of the garage, is that representing the overhang on the second floor? No. Okay. That will be the condo. It was a quick sketch in there about the condo shape. So I just box it out. The second floor will overhang the garage a little bit. I think you can see that on the architectural plan. I think it's about a two-foot offset, but it's not a hundred percent. And then if we're having concerns about the property or the houses being so close together, have you explored any options for screening, sort of at the end of that turnaround area of the driveway or along one of the properties and houses? So we plan to put a fence around the entire thing, which is all. I mean like between those three houses with those three actually close together? I think it's, if you sign up to be part of this sort of HOA, you're sort of in it. I think there is opportunity to add landscaping and stuff like that. We're more than open to doing that, but you are so close and especially with pretty much the entire area between all the buildings is gonna be pretty much paved. There's not a whole lot of opportunity for screening between the buildings. I do think there's opportunity to create separate private backyard spaces because of that 15 foot on either side. And effectively that back building will have more than 15 feet because the railroad's not gonna come and put in a fence. So they'll probably continue to mow it, continue to use it. They'll also have 15 feet back there and you could section off and put in some more fences and gates internally and give each building their own backyard space. That would be about 40 feet by 15 feet, which is a good size in the backyard. You don't know that the railroad will come and put in a fence on them, right? It seems unlikely. It seems unlikely, development of the railroad. Yeah, I mean, that's why we're not putting a building in their property or on the property or not, but I think you can see that a lot of buildings are quite close to it. If you keep going down the street, you can even see my old house and I know my neighbor's house is very close into it. The reason why a lot of these houses are close into the railroad is a lot of them, there used to be actual commercial and industrial development on this property that used to utilize the railroad. And so a lot of the buildings are very close to the railroad because they used to put stuff on it. I think maybe this is more of a question for you, Eric, but if the property owners, the condo association or someone down the line wants to repair that fence that is technically on the railroad property, are they going to run into any issues kind of meeting that counting on that additional backyard space may not be a realistic thing in the future? That's a good question. I think, so the city does not require any permitting to do a fence currently, as long as it's no taller than six feet and not located on a property line. So it's possible that a future owner could go in and put up a new fence or repair the existing fence, but that's also possible that the railroad could come in and put up a new fence right on their property line there. So yeah, it's part of the tell. I think that could be more of a risk of the property owner. You can put a fence up and then the railroad can just come and take it down. Eric, would it be safe to say though that the city does not condone putting a fence that is not on your property? I would say that is correct. Yes, the city cannot authorize the installation of a fence on somebody else's property or a structure either for that matter. And just to clarify, I'm not putting a fence on the railroad property. I'm building a fence to the railroad property and there's already existing fences there. So we would just tie into those. Right now this property actually has a fence that encroaches onto Winooski's right away as well. You can see that on the plat, which we intend to fix that. I think my reason for asking that is looking at that plan, are we factoring that that building has a seven and a half foot backyard potentially and that by granting a waiver request, we're saying that's fine. Well, I would contend that they also have the 15 feet on the east side as well as all the community space on the west side of them, that corner of the property that will just be grasped and can be used by all three of the property owners. As mentioned, I think when a person signs up to live in a community, like any other community, like townhouse community, community where you buy single family homes and you share an HOA and shared space, I think you're taking advantage of one you're saying you're all right with where you wanna live and living in this location and you're all right with using some shared spaces. If people have issues with having small yards and shared spaces, they will decide not to live here. I think there's a lot of positive aspects to living in downtown Manuski that would bring people in and I don't think they would care of the fact that they had a smaller backyard. I think they'd be more excited of the fact that they had a single family home of the two-car garage that was walking distance to downtown. I think I saw that you did contact or someone contacted the State Office of Historic Preservation and they were not going to consider the garage as part of the district. So they, Eric was actually on the email. They were very vague. They are very vague. They are very vague, which is fine. I talked to it with the group and we're fine with doing a historical review of that garage anyways. I don't believe it's historic. I do believe it was built sometime in the 1940s or 50s and it also has been pieced together with other little sections. It's not part of the state register. The state register has to do with just the brick buildings on West Down Street and that's because they were built by, I think it was Francis. Francis Leclerc. Francis Leclerc, who owned a brickyard in Manuski and built these properties for the guys who worked in this brickyard. So all those brick buildings on West Allen Street, those are the historic structures. The garage, when you look at our specific property, all it talks about is the building and really all it talks about is the exterior of the brick portion of the building. And I made a comment about the garage. I live across two and I've been living there for years and I know about the garage. There's no historic able to build. Him and I rebuilt the garage ourselves and added the addition. So there's no historical portion to build. Thank you. That all being said, we're still happy to, if it's a condition of this board to do a historical review of the garage, the team is more than happy to do so. And that was mostly just cause we couldn't get a straight answer out of historical preservation. And wanted to leave the city feeling confident that we weren't doing anything that we shouldn't be doing. And from a contextual standpoint, the reason I specifically asked Greg about the garage because as you all are aware, the, well, the church, the property is included as part of the historic district, the Francis Leclerc workers houses. There is a formal survey for the properties. And as we've learned with the St. Stephen's church that just the reference to another structure also means that the structure is listed at least in the eyes of the state. So that's why I wanted to make sure that while the house is listed, if any of the other structures on the property would also fall into that same category, which is why Greg reached out to the state about it. I think that's great. Yeah, I wouldn't be inclined to ask for a survey. I mean, I feel like it's on them. This is just a pet peeve from that church project that they need to be more clear what the survey is. Like, there should be a list. We tried to put it on. I appreciate it. Thank you for doing that. They wouldn't really do that. But yeah, let us know again. And the intent is to, the team does look, want to discuss keeping the existing structure historic and we'll look at keeping that kind of the way it is. Is there a proposed work to it? Renovation? Not right now. Sort of phasing of this project would leave that building as is. Right now it's a single rentable unit and build the other two out and then possibly come back and refurbish that one after. I don't think they have any solid plans yet. Obviously we're still in the preliminary phases of all this. So right now it's a rented building. I think it will stay that way until if and when we decide to move forward on that. I know that they talk to the current tenants and they're discussed even construction happening as soon as it can. And the current tenants are all right with that. Did the team have further discussions with the adjacent property owners? I didn't have further discussions. I know we discussed a fence last time, which we're more than happy to. We've always shown having the privacy fence and working with the property owners to put that up. But I'm not sure if the team has reached out but I don't believe they have. Any further questions from the board? I just want to say thanks for the third one. Kind of, I kind of have a question. So you have the two spaces that are, the outdoor spaces for the historical home that's on the road right behind it. Is there, what's the depth of those? Can you part, if you just had one space, what's the width and depth of that? Is that, could you do front to back parking to kind of pull that back house forward so you don't have to worry about the setback? I don't think we can, those two spaces meet code so they're nine feet wide by 18 feet long. Okay, yeah, I'm working off of small Chromebooks. So I can't really see the, so I can't really see the depth of them. I didn't know if you could do like front to back parking. Just a quick question, I guess. No, no, it's fine. I don't think we could shrink this anymore. I was already a little concerned about turning around. That's why I put that turnaround in there. I also think it's a good place to push snow. So I tried to think of that as well. It's obviously we're just, it's a tight site and so we are trying to do a lot with it but I think it all works I think it meets what the team wants and what the city wants. Thank you. There's no further questions from the board. I'd like to take comments from the public. Three, so we can order. Sorry, if you could come up and state your name for the record. So we, and also so that you're on microphone for the, Sorry, Greg. Folks at home. No, it's fine. Good to stay. Okay. Yeah. Stephanie Hardesty, I live at 198 West Allen Street. And when I first heard about this project, I heard that it was going to be an apartment building to which I strenuously object to. But you keep using words like interchangeable single family home and condo. So are they going to be truly single family homes and act as a condo association? That's the plan. So they are single family homes. We can write into the condo association that they can, they can't be used as duplexes. They can't be used. They wouldn't be able to be used. So you're only limited to three dwelling units at all on a piece of parcel in this zoning district. So this is the biggest build out that you can get. Okay. The single family, I'm saying condo condominiumized because that's more of a survey term because the parcel will be owned by three entities. The condo aspect of it is just the fact that they only own the house. And that's the condo, the condominiumized portion of. So I'll say a few more words about that. So from a land use planning perspective, condominium is an ownership structure. It's often used interchangeably with a townhouse because most townhouses are in some sort of condo association. So people use the terms interchangeably, condo townhouse, but condo is not a type of building. It's an ownership structure. So that's by condoizing this project, it's only referring to how it would be owned in the future, not the actual structures that would be located on the property. Yes, these will look like. Great. Now, they're talking about the original building. You also mentioned that you are thinking about turning that into a duplex, if possible. No. So we are, you can only have three dwelling units on this property. If we build these other two buildings, that's one and two, the house, the existing house, we'll have to say just one single family home. Okay. So how long is it gonna take to build this? Because I live across the street and I like to get in and out of my driveway without huge trucks across the street. So I can back in, that kind of thing. When I realize that this still has another meeting to go through before it's finally approved. So what is your plan? Like, what date are you looking to start? I think the team would be looking to start as soon as they could. Obviously, we have one more plan meeting for this project. Barrington and Crazy Happen, we'd probably like to be on the next agenda in July. So that would probably push us getting answers from the city to August. We also have to get a state water and wastewater permit. You're gonna build during the winter? I think what would happen is that the foundations and the roadways would go in probably late fall and they would build the actual wooden structures as quickly as they can. And probably a lot of the work would be inside by the time winter happened. I'm sorry, as a formality, we need you to address us. Go figure. Oh, me? Yes. It can't work. I did look over your unpointing. It's not supposed, yes. Well, you asked the question to us and he answers them. I know, I'm sorry. He has the answers. Yes, he has the answers. I think I will say a lot of that construction, what I just outlined means a lot of things have to fall in line. It can drastically change based on conversations with the city, it can drastically change with on conversations with other permitting authorities. I think that would be the quickest possible timeline. If they're not gonna pour concrete or do earthwork when it's too cold, you can't do that. So best case scenario, they get stuff in the ground this winter, worst case scenario jumps to an exploit. Okay, that gives me a better idea. I am pleased to find out it's not gonna be apartments. Sorry. I know that people are wanting apartments, but I really believe that the Winooski home ownership should be pushed. It means so much more when you own the property than when you're renting, as you can see on both extremants of the road of West Allen Street. Yes. So I'm grateful for that, so thank you. Thank you. I don't have any other questions. Thank you very much. Thank you. Greg, just so. You've been old, but I wanna ask something else. Oh yes, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth under the Pains and Palaties of Hurtury? Yes. Come on up. Okay. And if you could state your name for the record, please. Jay Grantham. I live adjacent at 197 West Allen, and my concern is I would like to see where you have found the boundary between our houses because there's a two feet section where like I have my tighter lilies, you know, it's shared. We took turns mowing it, you know. This is the green space between the existing driveway on the site and you're to the right. This house here, yeah, on the right side. Yeah, well there's a two feet in between. Yep. I think it's mine. Oh, okay, okay, that's all I have to say. Thank you. I believe the property line is basically almost the edge of the art garage. Exactly, yeah, so that. When we put this into the city, that's what it will look like and you can see the property line runs right along the edge of the garage. Beautiful. Our new fence will be just inside of that. Cool, my tighter lilies will live. Hey, they've been there for a while, you know. Yeah, and I mean that garage will also be gone. They'll be 15 feet of just green space in between that and the porch of the building, so. I'm not sure that's consistent with what's been shown on C0.00. It's consistent. The property line runs right almost to the southeast corner of the existing garage. But it shows that green strip being mostly on your client's property, right? Is it a dirt driveway or a pave? Everybody's there. Charm. She's talking about the green strip that's up closer to her garage. See, we left the space in between the houses so that we could access the tracks because the railroad doesn't take care of it. And people litter, they dump tires, they, everything. And the trees, actually, I guess I have to find out legally if it's the train people, the trees are coming down on my fence. So, you know, it's just something to think about. We were talking about this area, correct? Erin. Yes? Yeah, so I think we were discussing the rear of the property, not up in between the two driveways. Oh, that's all I was talking about, so. Erin, was your question related to or your comment related to Greg's statement that there would be the fence and then 15 feet of green space? No, my question, the property owner at 197 asked about the green strip between the two paved driveways and who owned that land. I see. And part of its mode, and then as you get back closer to the garage, there's tiger lilies back there. So as it shows on this street, or on this view, that property goes with the 205 property, right? And it's kind of a diagonal line that does connect. So it goes right through the tiger lilies. So yeah, as it's closer to the road, 205 owns more than 197. But as it goes back further in the property, you own more of the green strip. So basically the property line goes from the edge of your driveway to the corner of the garage. Is that kind of what we're talking about? Yeah, I knew that, okay, I had thought that the line that's near the garage is where it starts, the line. It does, but it sounds like it's angled to the strip. It cuts through the strip, but at a diagonal, perhaps. Right, it's not quite at a square. So where the tiger lilies are closer to the garage, you can see them on the plan, they were by that silver building, or car, right to the east of that, I believe is what we're talking about. Am I correct on that? If you go to the Google Earth Street View, you can look right down the, Okay, yes. So there's a little green. Yeah, so what I was saying, I knew where the tiger lilies were, and maybe that's why we were having a discussion which we should have addressed the board better. The tiger lilies, the majority of those are on her property and not on ours. This little grass strip in between the two properties are more on 205's property than yours. Hmm. We won't argue about two inches. Not with my new neighbors anyway, you know? It's, I'm sorry. If I can get out of my driveway, you know, I don't want a defense to be where I can't pull out of my garage. Yeah, and we don't need to put it right on the property line either, so we can definitely work on that. Thank you. Thank you for your time and explanations. I'll see you next month. Right, you've seen it July? You'll get a notification of the meeting. I mean, the flag there down in front of the house. That'll happen as well, yep. And what other notifications? Well, if you could hold one moment, why will you? Yes, any other public comments? Sorry, I'm not trying to single you guys out. Ha ha ha. Ha ha ha. Do you have another board comment question? Yes. Greg, when two cars are parked in the outside parking spaces, is it going to be difficult for the north, is it north house to get to the front door of that side? Walk that walkway? It could be. It's something I brought up with the team. They weren't too worried about it. They are providing an internal door from the garage into the building. It's kind of how they intended on solving it. I do think there's opportunities, as mentioned, to move front doors around to maybe you can come off the edge of the, I don't know if it can come off the inside edge of the garage. I don't know if that meets code, but it could go to that corner. And you could have kind of two doors, a front door that kind of enters onto the parking lot and then have just a door that goes out to their porch. We might even be able to do away with that small section of right there, if that wasn't really considered the front door. I think we added the concrete. What was the width of the spaces again? You said nine and a half feet? No, it's nine feet. Nine feet, okay. And they both fit with the original dwelling. Yeah. So each dwelling unit needs two parking spaces. Right. Each of the parking spaces for the new units are the two garage spaces. The two spaces that'll go with the house are the ones outside because that existing house only has the back garage that we're taking down. To get into the left building, is it a direct turn or do you anticipate they have to use that back up? They have to go into that overrun and then back up to drive in. Well, the other reason that we kind of or that I pushed those two parking spaces out a little bit was so you could kind of like drive out and probably back in to your garage. But I do think you'd probably, the smaller cars would have the ability to flip right in there. I don't think we'd be too concerned. If you had a big Dodge Ram truck, this, again, I think a lot of housing drives the people that buy that housing. I think these people will have smaller vehicles. Who rent here, I don't think they're gonna have massive trucks or they're not, maybe this isn't their spot. Hopefully they have bikes. They could very well have, they could use a whole garage bay for bikes. Any more questions from the board? I would also just note that there is no one online. So there's only, sorry, no public online. Obviously Aaron and Jordan are online, but there's no public online for comments. Okay. Well, thank you very much. I'll open the board to a motion to close the public hearing for 205 West Allen Street. Make a motion. Oh. Motion from Elsie and I heard something from online. I'll second. Second from Jordan. All in favor? Aye. Thank you for your time. I'll post. Thanks Greg. Okay, the public hearing is closed. Thanks Greg. Thank you to the public. Hold on a second. So before Greg leaves, just so that you all know, I'm going to be giving him the exhibit list for this item. It includes exhibits A through M, which will be all the items that will be included in the record for tonight's meeting. And also to answer your question, ma'am, for the next hearing, the property will be posted with at least 15 days prior to the hearing. You will also receive a letter via certified mail. I've never received it. Really? I don't know. Oh, okay. Well. I told my dude because of the sign in front of it. Well, I will double check to make sure we have your information correct, but you should receive a certified letter, at least 15 days in advance as well with information on the hearing and how to participate. So. I should have, but they didn't. Correct. We have your, well, we have the property addresses on our list of people who received notifications. It is 198, that's a unit A, unit B. Gotcha. I did not receive anything with the sign right there. I see. So we did send one to 198, but not specific units, unit A or unit B. It's just a 198. Do you send one to unit B? Okay. I'm in unit B. Okay. And one was sent to me. So unit B got the mailing. The address label only says 198. It doesn't list an A or a B. So it was. Because it used to be a one house. Right. I will make a note to make sure that we include both a separate unit A and unit B for 198 for that next mailing. But then you hopefully will get a certified mail as well as the posting of the property. Apologies for not getting that. Can I ask a quick question on when you would need all the final materials for us to be on the July meeting? So you actually won't be able to be on the July meeting because I think there's a requirement that there'd be at least 30 days between meetings for subdivisions, which is close. So yeah, it would be too close and we wouldn't have the decision needs to be issued first as well as well as the appeal. So let me know when you need stuff for the August meeting. Yes. We'll make sure you're aware. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. The next item on our agenda is item six, city updates. So the only update that I have for tonight for you all is that at the June 20th city council meeting, that's a Tuesday because Monday is a city holiday. June 19th is the city celebrating Juneteenth. So we will not be open. I guess that's another announcement. But at the regular meeting on the 20th we will be doing reappointments for those folks who are interested in being reappointed. There's no expectation that you attend that meeting but just so that you're aware that will be happening at that meeting on the 20th. So I will let you know what the decision is for those of you that are up for reappointment. And that's Matt, Elsie, Aaron, and Jordan. That's correct. Are you, I've seen you're advertising all the boards and permissions that are open right now. Are you advertising just because we have term limits up or is someone running right now? That's a good question. I believe we're just- They won't get me up here, Elsie. What? They want to get rid of you. I believe we did that just to advertise. We do have some open seats on our boards and commissions. And I think because we are coming to the end of a term, I think that's just what we do to just let folks know that there are terms expiring. So if there's any interest now would be the time to potentially put their name in. So, and I guess to that point as well, I would just note that all of our boards and commissions serve at the pleasure of the council. So there's no guarantee that you'll get reappointed, but it's usually a fairly safe bet that reappointments do happen for those that are interested. So anyway, that'll be on the 20th. And that is the only update that I had for you all, unless there's anything specific you would like for me to update you all on. Any other business? I would just say and just note that our next meeting is scheduled for July 20th. That'll be the third Thursday again. So I do anticipate that we will have an application coming in. The deadline for that is next Friday. It should be a fairly straightforward case, but just so that you're all aware that we may have a hearing scheduled for that meeting. So please mark your calendars. I will be out of the country. So I will not be here for that meeting. Okay. Well, you can still, there is a remote option if you're interested. Yes, David, I'm traveling right now and I'm on this. Dolly noted. Although I'm not out of the country, I'm just in Massachusetts. Okay, seeing and hearing no other business, I will take a motion to adjourn. So motion. Looking for a second. I'll second. I'll second. Oh, what's in there? I'm gonna give it to Emily for a second. Our first second motion. She beat me to it. Sorry, Jordan, no shade.