 participants for that item to the Zoom, to speak on Zoom, and we will swear people in as appropriate. We also ask that if people want to be able to have party status and follow-up, they need to give Scott their contact information. You want their addresses, don't you, Scott? Yeah, it comes down to the mailings. Basically the short version of the agenda and housekeeping. Communications, I think there's just new items that have been posted, but everything has been posted at this point. We do not have minutes. Minutes are always included in the prior meetings package that we have available for the last. But there's no minutes attached to this package. Correct, yeah. So we're going to get right into our first item, which is 40 Kingsland Terrace. And is the applicant here? I see the applicant. And I think there's a neighbor or an attorney or somebody also wanting to participate. Is that right? Daniel Richardson is the attorney for the neighbors. Okay, so let's do it this way. If you're looking to testify on this item, raise your hand. So I see one hand raised. I see four. Okay, even more. So everyone who raised your hand, you're now able to speak. It would be helpful. I'm going to ask if people would introduce themselves before I swear you in. I see the first person is Kellan Prumstead. Is that right? That is correct, sir. And you're the applicant. Yes, sir. Scott has your address. Okay. The next person I see is Emily Morse. You are... I am the designer and current project manager for the project. Okay, and Scott, you have her address? I am part of the applicants team. We don't need it. Okay. Next I see Doreen Palmezano. That's actually Dan Richardson. I apologize. I'm logged in on my paralegals account. Okay. So you're the attorney representing... I'm representing Mark Stevenson and Linda Jones. Okay. And I see Mark Stevenson is here. Right? Yeah. And Linda. Yes, I am. And there's one other MSK attorneys. Who is that? That's Liam Murphy. That's our attorney, if you could. Okay. He hasn't been allowed in, I guess. So I'm going to say ask all six of you to swear you in that you would swear to tell the truth and hold truth under pain and penalty of perjury. Do you say yes? Yes. Yes. Okay. I'm assuming everybody said yes. Okay. So we will start with the applicant. And this is recommended for approval. And if you want to have anything you want to say or present on this item. My first, my apologies. It's 5 p.m. And I got both kids at home right now. So there might be some shouting. I'll try and be quick with the mute button, but just a little disclaimer. They're two and four months old. So not exactly the most responsive. We are building, trying to build this project to have space for my wife's parents who are currently tied to the Atlanta region because of a illness in our, my nephew and their grandson about half the time. And because of their split resources, they are not able to financially buy a place up in this region. And so we are building this essentially to have our family as close as possible. It's been a dream of my wife's for a long time. It's a dream of mine to, my family is in Vermont and it just would be wonderful to be able to share our kids upbringing as they smash blocks in the background with them. And that is the main purpose of this structure. We've explored a lot with the folks at Lewis Creek about how to make this happen and financially with banks and all of that and really have come on to this design that we're really enthusiastic about and think it ticks all the boxes, financial family and code and all of that. We are excited, nervous about this process and this endeavor. Again, it feels like we're taking steps towards making our home what it will be for the next 20 years, which is us and our kids and the grandparents out back. And a lot of the design was specifically designed for an agent place. So the stairs are wide enough for a stair lift. Everything's got the turn radius upstairs. Like in the bathroom is a rolling shower. So we really have designed this as much as possible, which Emily can talk more to. To allow Katie's parents to stay here and be a part of our kids' life and for us to be able to help take care of them moving forward. And that's really what we're going for. Emily, is there anything you want to add to that? I mean, it's a very sweet design. I have a few questions on it, but if there's anything you want to add at this point? Sure. I'll give just a really brief kind of explanation of why we got to where we got. The existing garage that's currently on the property is too small and too crooked to fit a modern-day vehicle in unless you drive a Mini Cooper or something along those lines. We had a structural engineer out to the site to take a look at it. And while some of the actual structure of the garage may be salvaged, the real problem lies with the slab foundation, which is beyond repair. So looking at it from a cost-benefit analysis, the structure really isn't habitable. It's not rehabbable in a way that would make any sense. So what we tried to do with this structure is meet all of these goals in the smallest footprint we possibly could. So the new proposed structure has a footprint of 660 square feet. About 420 of that is for covered parking. So pretty small for a garage, but enough to get a modern-day family vehicle in there with enough storage for skis and a stroller and a lawn mower behind it. And the rest, the second floor and about 64 square feet of the first floor is dedicated to living space. Again, designed with minimalism in mind, but enough that it is habitable for a long-term guest, age-in-place tendencies in that, having a wide enough and a shallow enough stair to be able to put in a stair lift. Again, the roll-and-shower, a straight shot for the kitchen countertop so that if mobility becomes an issue, you could still use your kitchen with some type of walking assist. So really trying to make it as comfortable as possible, but also maintaining it be as small as possible. One of the big things we've been kind of going back and forth on is the roof lines. The original garage structure has a very traditional hip roof style. That wouldn't necessarily give us any usable head height for this new proposed purpose. So we went with a more traditional gable main roof line with dormer-like structures on each side, allowing us to keep it as low of a ridge point as comfortably possible while still allowing enough usable space upstairs where someone doesn't feel like the ceiling is coming down on them. I think it's an important point to note, Katie's dad is six foot seven, so that was something we also tried to grapple with here is how small can we make our knee walls without making it non-usable space for the person it's actually designed for? So all in all, 660 square feet felt comfortable to take all these boxes without having really an extra square foot space to spare. I know just ask if the board has any questions for the applicant at this point. I have one question I think for Emily. Looking at the grading, it looks like, I'm not sure I know the direction, but from the east side, grade is just coming right down towards the building and it would seem that some grading or something is needed to maybe have a swale or something around the building. I'm looking at a grading plan. It will have to be some type of grading rework in there that the section of lot that the current garage sits on is pretty flat to accommodate the current garage, so we'd want to expand that flat spot to fit this new structure. We're trying to keep it on the existing footprint as much as possible to avoid having to do as much grading and site work as possible, but it is a hilly site that slopes towards the lake. Right, so the grading as shown would not work, I would say. So that's all I'm commenting on is you have grading that basically has water running into the east side of the building, and I imagine that you're not going to be happy with that. That's correct. I think we'd want to definitely look at what we can do to mitigate water in that section. I think if I remember from the site photos in my last visit, it's not that extreme right up against the house. My rendering program kind of takes measurements every 10 feet and just connects the dots, so it doesn't necessarily account for some of the finer details within that 10-foot section there. I'm just stuck with believing what you present. Okay, okay. There's no other questions from the board at this point. I'm going to just ask, Liam, do you want to say anything now or should I have the neighbors go first? Yes, I would be here just to comment on the neighbors. Okay, so either Mark or Linda or is it Dan, whoever wants to speak next? It is Dan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The way we're planning on presenting, I think, to the most efficient effect is that I'm going to have Mark, Stevenson, my client, speak on some of the historic development of the neighborhood issues that inform some of our objections to this proposal. Then I'm going to have Linda Jones talk about the impact of this project and then I'm going to discuss the three issues that we have with the project that's currently constituted. I want to be clear in introduction that my clients are certainly sympathetic to the applicants in this case. They certainly do not want to prevent the applicants from having their parents come and age in place and be close to them. Their objections are really about making sure that the scale and size of this accessory use remain consistent with the character of the neighborhood and certainly they're here to work with the applicant and cooperate to the extent that that can be reached. But we want, we believe that as currently constituted, this application is similar to what was put before the DAB and ultimately recommended to be rejected by the DAB. So I'm going to let Mark go first and both Mark and Linda's testimony tie into the document that we submitted this afternoon that was added to the packet. Mark's going to be speaking particularly on the first three images. Just a point of clarity. I don't believe that DAB rejected this application. It was my understanding that they voted recommending that it be lowered I don't believe that's correct. I believe that the minutes reflected a motion against the application was passed three to one. I think you can read Mr. Chairman the results of three DAB meetings for this project and they were recommendations for redesign and they were tabled. So in Mark's presentation, he's going to focus on the first three images that you'll find in the attached packet, which are survey plots that were done of the area that date back to 1919. And Linda Jones is going to speak on the images that she's taken that show what the proposed structure will look like as viewed from the neighboring historic property. So I'll turn it over at this point to Mark to allow his testimony. Thank you, Dan. Mr. Chair, if I could just ask, I'm looking on the website and I don't see any additional materials on the website. So I don't know what we're looking at. And also, I don't know, with your process and most hearings I've attended, we can view who is making a presentation with all I can see are the members of the board and the staff. I don't get the I can't view who's making presentation and what they're showing. So I don't know if there's some setting that I'm missing. Nobody's showing anything yet. Okay, but yes. But is there a way that I can look at what was submitted today? It is on the website. It's at the very bottom of the list for today's hearing. Liam, it's not in order with. Yeah, the last one is says neighbor email 22221. No, if you go to the bottom of the list, beyond below all of the other matters, the very end, the last item says communication regarding 40 Kingsland Terrace. Okay, it's not with a Kingsland Terrace, but that's what that's right. Now I see that. Thank you. Is it possible to do a screen share? Yes. Okay. Yes, it is. I just need to know who is looking to share. Okay. Is it you? Why don't you have if you allow me to share, I will be happy to do that. All right, just a moment. That might make it easier for everybody, I think. I did not post, Mr. Chair, the minutes of the three DAB meetings, but I did summarize those in the staff report and the applicant's desire just to move ahead. Right. I am sharing, I believe, you should see what's entitled photo one 1978 plot of Kingsland Terrace neighborhood. Does everyone see that? Yes, we can. Okay. So, Mark, if you want to go forward and just let me know when you'd like me to switch. I think this drawing really tells the story that I'm trying to point out. So, my name is Mark Stevenson. I live at Two Tower Terrace. Our neighborhood is part of the South Union Historic District, which is part of the National Register of Historic Places. The city's Sanborn map of 1978, I believe, shows this neighborhood from an overview. And in this, you see two distinct patterns. The first is the occult of Victorian, the early expansive lots, large structures, large lots, and carriage barns. The second that this was, these are developments that occurred in the, as you know, in the 1800s and the early 1900s. The streets and the outlines, the major corridors were established at that time. In the 20s and 30s, when there was a push from our homes, the terraces were developed. And if you look in the middle of this development, or in the middle of this neighborhood, you'll see the terraces. And their characteristic of this development is very different. It's tighter density, one car, one-story garages, that's all anybody had at that time, smaller houses and smaller lawns. There are no two-story accessory dwellings or outbuildings in the Terrace neighborhood. They only exist in the surrounding areas of the large Victorian neighborhood. To approve this project would forever alter the historical elements and design characteristics that make up this portion of the neighborhood. The terraces are unique and distinctly different from the rest of the neighborhood. They would establish a precedent that would radically alter the scale and the architectural integrity of the terraces. We're not opposed to an accessory dwelling next door. We're opposed to a two-story structure that feels like a round peg in a square hole. That's my, that's my presentation. Can we get your mailing address for the record, please? It is two-tower terrace. Okay, thank you. And now, Linda, if you want to go ahead, I'm going to move forward. I just simply would note that we've included the two earlier plats, one from 1926 that shows the development of Kingsland Terrace that Mark testified to, as well as the 1919 plant. And it just shows how these homes originated from these longer pre-existing lots along Union Street and where the location, and as noted, the red highlight is the two-tower terrace. And you see how these larger parcels were broken up along these terraces. And I'll, is this, can I jump in now at this point, Dan? Go ahead, Linda. Right. Okay. So, and our house is actually the carriage house for the bigger, if we were looking at the map, for the bigger house up on Willard Street. So, we are the accessory building. And this was the view today looking out of my window and towards the lake from the living room. And if you looked at the next slide, I'll go just to the next one, if you don't mind. And this, so that's part of our deck. And we live, this is basically our deck, which is off the living room. And you can see the shed and we're looking directly at Kingsland Terrace from our deck and from our living room. And if you want to go to the next slide too, I'll try to go through these fairly quickly. So, as you can see, our whole house is oriented towards the west. Our living room, which is our kitchen and our dining room is all one room, the great grand room. And we just, in fact, we just did some major renovations and put in a steel beam to support the foundation of the house. And we're very interested in keeping the integrity of this building. And along with that, there's a historic document that discusses the, when the people first converted this from a carriage house to living quarters about the historic view of the lake from this area. And anyway, so we've been living here and opened up the house and have been investing a lot of money the last six months. And with every hope of preserving the house and everything that goes along with it. And with that is the view for me. And for 27 years, if you read my earlier documents that we've lived here for 27 years, our second child was born in the house, a home birth here. It's everything emotional, it's a very emotional thing for me because this, if you go to the next slide, then you'll start to see what the impact will be of that second story building. And again, we're not at all opposed to Kelly and Katie's or Katie's parents coming. We've met them, they're lovely. And we would love to have them as neighbors. And we enjoy Katie and Kelly as well. We just think that a one-story building would be enough. And especially, I don't know, I mean, it's not my place to say, but for people aging in place, you would think you would want one-story anyway, but I know they're addressing that with the stair thing, the lift thing, whatever. But you'd have more room, I would think, on one story. But anyway, be that as it may. So that's one of the losses, but I just wanted you to see that this has been our whole living area. And right below the deck is a small yard and a small garden. And as again, if you looked at the map originally, which you can ever go back to, I mean, another time, but you'll see our lot is tiny, our actual lot coverage is so small. And anyway, and this is really the west view, the west side of our houses are only real livable gardening and yard area, which is right next to the hedge, right next to where the house is going to be or the proposed building. So if you keep on going, Dan, so there just would be a huge negative impact for us. And this is a view this winter, a lot of beautiful sunsets and fireworks and all kinds of things. And you can keep going, Dan, if you want to. And then this is what would be lost if that building were to be two building, two-story building were to be built. So this would be the view from our living room. And yeah, you can keep on going, Dan, I'm just thinking that I'm letting these pictures speak for themselves. And this is from our bedroom. We just, I just designed a whole beautiful set of western view windows from the bedroom. And then you can see what that impact is going to be from our bedroom window. As you can see, the impact is big, just I'm a visual artist and space. My place is very important to my very being. And you can keep on going if you want. Dan, I'll wrap it up in a minute because I know we got a lot. So this is the view from the first floor, beautiful sunsets. And then you can go to the next. And then that would be what would be, that's what we would be seeing through that one window. And there's a word that I didn't even realize that I was talking to my friend Cammie, a fellow painter who teaches up at UVM, a dear friend and colleague who also works with, teaches a interdisciplinary art and environmental studies. And there's a word for this called solastagio, which is a form of emotional or existential distress that's caused by environmental changes or loss of long familiar and comforting places. Australian philosopher Glenn Elbrecht came up with this, with this phrase and it accurately describes for me how this would affect my or our psyche and our existential, creating existential distress. And I just, I, as I say, as a visual artist, and I've designed a light and all throughout my whole house, light coming in, but especially the Western view and light coming in is so important to my very being and the time spent in the garden. And that's just really all I have to say is just the negative impact for a two-story building would be enormous. And, and I really, that's all I really have to say. And I, I, that's all I have to say. But thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk. I really appreciate it. Thanks. Thank you, Linda. So if I may have a few minutes, just to try to be succinct to the chair's earlier question and I apologize, I may have overstated unintentionally. But if you look at the February 23rd Design Advisory Board, the motion was to request the applicant to redesign as a one-story structure to be in scale with the neighborhood, even slightly larger to allow for additional storage. And that was a final recommendation. And I was not present at the meeting, so I would certainly defer Mary to her characterization of that. But that's the understanding that we had going in is that the DAB had certainly not approved or recommended the plan to go forward and that the language that they proposed was a one-story in keeping with my client's concerns. There are three issues that I want to talk about. First of all, the use, the idea of an accessory use, and this invokes sections 4.4, 0.5, D3, which also call sections 5.1, 0.1, and 5.1.2 of your zoning ordinances. And it talks about accessory use, and I would focus the board in on the fact that it talks about accessory use in a singular. The application before you today is really for two accessory uses, a garage and a dwelling unit. And while either of them are certainly acceptable, independent, together when they're pancaked and layered as they are, it creates the issue that you're creating two accessory uses here. And it's oversized for this particular neighborhood for these lots along Kingsland Terrace and for the neighborhood. As my clients testified to, this is both historically inconsistent as well as creates a visual impact. And I'll speak about the visual impact at my third point. But if you look at the ordinances, they really talk about a single accessory use, and they don't talk about multiple accessory uses. And so this building that they're proposing, I think either component is certainly acceptable, and my clients would certainly welcome the idea of an accessory dwelling consistent with what the DAB had recommended, or keeping it as a garage, an expanded garage. But the idea that they're taking two of these uses and putting them together creates this larger inconsistent use that starts to get beyond accessory and starts to swallow up the backyard, both primarily vertically. And I don't believe that the ordinances as written really contemplate the idea of these sort of multiple accessory uses. Really talking about one, and we would urge the board to require the applicants to essentially reduce to one accessory use rather than the two. And that a one story accessory use, even if it was a slightly larger footprint than the existing footprint would certainly be consistent. The second point I'd like to make is on the point of the character of the neighborhood. And the evidence that you have before you is that, you know, this is a low residential neighborhood. This is not a high density neighborhood. And the language in your ordinances that talk about this low density residential neighborhood, in which it discusses the difference between low residential density and medium density and high density makes a distinguishing the residential density is intended primarily for low density residential development in the form of single detached dwellings and duplexes. This district is typically characterized by a compact and cohesive residential development pattern. That's respective of the neighborhood's development history. And in each of these each of these lots you have single car garages or single story car garages that are historically consistent with the way the property was developed. They have not gone to these larger sort of secondary structures where you have second stories on these on these structures on Kingsland Terrace. The larger lots as you move away do have these carriage houses, but they reflect a different historic development pattern. And you can go back to our first exhibit that really illustrates that that these larger bigger lots that were developed first that might have had a larger house and that servants quarters, you know, would have had those accessory dwellings. These were more modest middle class dwellings and don't have the larger buildings. The and so in keeping with the character of the neighborhood that you are charged with following in this we would suggest that and recommend that this is inconsistent. But the third and final point that I want to make is on historic nature of this and particularly I would draw your attention to section 5.4.8 and subsection D2 which talks about the demolition of these historic structures. It's uncontested that this is a historic contributing historic structure. It's uncontested that the actual structure itself apart from the foundation is actually in good shape and is not in danger of failing. It does need a new foundation but then again so does this new building that the structure itself is largely intact and in good shape. And what your bylaws require is that, you know, if you're going to tear down a that you are charged with preserving and maintaining historic character scale and architectural integrity. And that the current garage structure right now has a scale and an architectural integrity of a certain character that's being replaced by a very different type of building and a different type of scale. It's going from one story modest garage carriage barn to a two-story residential structure and garage. It goes from a hip roof to a gable roof. It goes from something that's consistent with the historic character of the main building to something that is of a different character. But looking at subsection d2 and that's in the language of 5.4.8 and those are the charges and we would recommend that this is inconsistent with those charges that the scale is enlarging and the historic integrity is changing. But even looking at subsection d2, subsection d talks about mitigating the impact on other historic structures. And that's really gets to the heart of our issue here today, which is that it gets to the point of what impact does this have on the neighborhood. And we would suggest that this has a broader impact on Kingsland Terrace and it obviously has an impact here on Tower Terrace on my client's property and that it alters the fundamental relationships between these properties. It puts a large two-story structure in the back where none has existed above the hedge row. It changes the view. It changes the relationship of the building and it has an impact as you see from the slides that Linda showed and her testimony. It's going to have a substantial impact on anyone residing in two Tower Terrace, which is in of itself a historic property. And that all of this can be mitigated simply by lowering the height of the building to one story, to removing the garage structure or making it a garage structure, but either way making it one story as opposed to this layer cake of two uses. And finally, subsection F talks about the historical integrity. Again, there is not a historic tradition of these sort of secondary apartments and structures on this type of property in this neighborhood. This is something where it's always been very modest and something was either attached to the house itself or kept to a one-structure carriage barn. And I've dealt with a number of DRB type issues similar to this and this often comes down to a choice between a car and an accessory dwelling. And we believe that it's consistent with your bylaws and ordinances to have that limited use here, that if they want to build an accessory dwelling, they're more than welcome to, but it shouldn't be something that's layered on added and built up to an existing neighborhood inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood and historic integrity of the neighborhood. So I appreciate your time. I'm happy to take any questions and I thank you for your attention to this. We get your mailing address? As sure. It's 44 East State Street, Montpelier, Vermont. Okay, great. Ian, did you have something to say? Yeah, I just, so maybe this question is for the neighbors and maybe this is for Mary, but how have we traditionally defined what a neighborhood is? Is it based on the zone that it's in, or are we looking at just the street? Are we looking at the neighboring streets? Because when I'm looking at the plat that they provided, it looks like, I guess this is photo packet exhibit A. It looks like there are other, and there's testimony, there are other buildings behind the sort of larger buildings, and I'm wondering, are we supposed to sort of take like a myopic view of what a neighborhood is or do we expand out? Well, I think neighborhood means different things to different people. There's different ways that you can slice this up. The neighborhoods by, that is, that are defined by the historic district, the neighborhoods that are established by different times of development, or in general, wards are considered neighborhoods. So I think it's, really comes from the person who's viewing, viewing the, the controversy. Mr. Chairman, can I answer that question? Delia? Yes. That was going to be part of my presentation, and I'd be glad to answer it now. The statute is actually clear. It got changed as a result of a whole series of cases before the environmental court over the years about what is, what is the neighborhood? And actually, the statute 44072A says that you look at the zoning district within which the project is located. It's very specific, and that is also reflected in your ordinance. So when you look at a neighborhood, you're not looking at is it within that street? You're looking at is, is it in the R7 district and what's typical for that, that district? Not necessarily the very narrow point of view that it's just the houses around it. And you know, that is in your section, it's 3.5682 says that you look at the character of the area by the purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located. Keenan, did that address your question there? Can I also just say that in terms of a neighborhood, I, you know, I've close friends for many years that lived on Kingsland Terrace and our kids, you know, kicked the can. There was a lot of back and forth between before some fences were put up. And so that was my feeling of what the neighborhood is as well as, you know, Kingsland Terrace and Terror Terrace because our kids were the same age. So anyway, that's, I mean, that's a very personal level of what a neighborhood is as the potlucks and the kick the can and that kind of thing. If I may just quickly respond, you know, I certainly understand Liam's point, and I think it's consistent with our argument as well, is that, you know, this, these terraces within this district, this is how they have developed. Okay, I think I understand that this is a challenging neighborhood issue. As development happened as the whole, basically the hill section of Burlington, which cascades down to the lake and has all these views and they're so, that's so inherent to so many properties and how people build west of one property affects the properties to the east of them and affects a substantial quality of that property. We understand that that's a real impact. I also understand that this property is also at 33% of lot coverage where they're allowed 35. So, you know, one story is I understand that, you know, the Dan's point that if you didn't have the garage, you do one story, as long as you didn't try to, you know, build another garage someplace else, but yes, it's a challenging issue on all sides. Other questions from the board at this point? Yeah, Brad, if I may just to get a just to do some clarification on the scope of this hearing, and I feel like Liam's going to have a response for me. So let me just go through my line of questioning for staff. So the scope of the hearing pertains only to the demolition of the garage. Is that correct? Because the ADU and accessory structures, that's all by right, generally. Yeah. Okay. I think that was Mary's project. Is your project Mary? Yeah. So is it right be correct there? Well, the DRB has review of the new newly constructed structure because it's a level two over 25,000. So, okay. Okay. And so within this two has the the DAB made a determination that the that the that the demolition should be recommended to be approved. Um, and has the DAB also recommend also suggested or recommended that the project that comes out of this would provide an economic benefit as outlined in the zoning bylaws. The first DAB meeting October 27 2020. The motion was to table the applicant to application to allow the applicant to return with the following design revisions. The following recommendations are made. Number one was add an entrance to the north front facade facing the street and revise the facade. So it reads as a primary elevation. Number two was eliminate a retaining wall and three was consider moving the top floor of the proposed addition. What they did support and they formalized in their review on November 24 was that the request for demolition of the existing garage is supported as the applicant has shown that the existing garage lacks sufficient structural integrity. The second point was they did not request the original request for a backyard setback variance or rear setback. And they the third point was the two-story gamble roof design which came in originally was not supported as it created a false sense of history and is incompatible with the main building. The board recommends the applicant revised the design with a roof ridge of approximately 20 21 feet height maximum at the third hearing. The recommendation was to table for redesign as a one-story structure to be in scale with neighborhood allowing even a slightly larger footprint for additional storage. And I'll remind you that we had differing board representation on those three meetings and that's reflected in the design in the in the decisions. And the current 23. They currently meet the rear yard setback and the variance request is no longer under discussion. Robbie did do that more to add at that point. I think that satisfies me for now. Thanks. Okay. Okay. I'm still asking the board if they have questions. Obviously this is going to be something that has some discussions at deliberative. Before we close I'm going to ask if the neighbors either Mark, Linda or Dan has anything to add at this point? Excuse me. Brad, Liam Murphy. Yeah. To make a presentation. Yeah. I was going to do your next. Yeah. Okay. Sorry. That's okay. So before I get to Liam, Dan, Linda, Mark, anything to add? You can get back to your point. I was going to say him do his. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Nothing more at this time. Okay, Liam. Thank you. I would like if I could to be able to share my screen. Okay. I can do that, Liam. I need to press a couple of buttons. Okay. Hold on a moment. So the two areas that have been raised by the neighborhood, the neighbors are first that this is inconsistent with that two-story garage or building as an accessory unit is inconsistent with the neighborhood and that the neighborhood is limited to Kingsland Terrace and Tower Terrace. That's their definition neighborhood. And the second is really that it's going to spoil their views. On the first issue, it's really quite ironic that the neighbors who are living in a two-story accessory converted building is claiming that that's inconsistent with the neighbor. They're saying, well, our building is okay. We live here. We're in this two-story building. But guess what? You can't have one next door. You know, it's really quite ironic. And are we ready to share a screen? Once I press the button, it's going to cut you off for a moment, Liam. So I was waiting for a pause. I'll do it now. So Liam, you should be able to screen share and speak now. You're on mute as well. I don't know how I got muted, but can you hear me now? Yes. So this is just Google Earth map photo. This is the property here. This is the neighbor's property, this two-story converted accessory dwelling that looks to the west. The issue is, you know, what is the neighborhood? The neighborhood isn't just the street or that street. It is the entire R7 district, which is in this area. And as you can see by just any map that there are all over the place, various accessory dwellings, garages, converted properties in the backyards, all over this neighborhood. And that the law is and was changed to deal with this issue of just limiting the very small scope of neighborhood to dealing with the district in which it is located. So we have to look at the entire R7 district, not just this neighborhood as to the issue of what is consistent with the historic neighborhood. And, you know, we believe that this is consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods that have many different properties in them. You know, Kellen went out and just went around and photographed some of the properties that are just, you know, around the streets that are nearby. And let's see here, you know, just here, all of these properties here have these two-story accessory buildings. The second point I want to make is that the concept that a garage by itself as a second use would turn the zoning in this town on its head. It would make if, you know, Dan is arguing that a garage is an accessory use and then another dwelling is another accessory use. I've never heard the expression that a garage is a separate accessory use from a house or a building or any sort. It is a part of the element, the parking is part of the element of any uses that we have, and it's not a separate accessory use. This city and the state has spent the last couple of years trying to encourage accessory dwellings. And the neighbor's position that if you add an accessory dwelling above a garage you've gotten two uses and you can only have one, it would turn on its head all of the efforts that the city has made to try to increase the use of accessory dwellings. They have now been made as a matter of right. There's a matter of right and the state actually just recently passed a statute that they felt so strongly about here that says that, I apologize, let me just get it here on my screen. There is a new statute that says that there can actually be no private agreement covenant or other agreement that restricts accessory dwellings. So you could not on your property say, hey, I'm going to sell your house and you can't build an accessory dwelling. And that just has reinforced this view that the state and the city has wanted to encourage accessory dwellings. And the thought that if you have put one above a garage that you've got two uses and you can't have it is just so outside what has been the encouragement through the town and the state. The second element is about the view. With all due respect, as the neighbor has said is, they're living in a converted accessory dwelling building from another property and that they live on a lot that's almost fully covered. And what they've been doing really is they're borrowing the neighbor's backyard. They've borrowed it for their green space, they're borrowing it for their view. They didn't buy it, they're borrowing it. And now somebody is saying, sorry, you know what, I want the right to use my own backyard in accordance with the zoning. And you know, that there is nothing in the zoning ordinance or in land use that says that a neighbor has a right to a view. And that just because they have been borrowing somebody else's backyard for their green space and for their view for years doesn't mean that that's a legitimate reason to prevent an applicant from constructing something that's fully in accordance with the regulations. And something that we've been trying to encourage are these accessory dwelling units. We have a big problem here with housing and there's just not enough of it. And if the board makes a precedent that you're going to prevent somebody from adding an accessory dwelling in their backyard because it's going to affect somebody's view, it really will have an adverse effect on the ability to increase housing in the city. The views just not belong to the neighborhood. I mean, you know, if the owners chose they could go up and put a 20 foot high green hedge there and neighbors don't have anything to say about. So it's no different if they have the right to put up a building in accordance with the ordinance. So and I'll leave it at that and answer any questions. William, we know this, but for the record, your mailing address for follow-up. 275 College Street. Great, thank you. Any follow-up questions from members of the board? I don't want to keep going tit-for-tat on this thing, but if there is a brief response, I don't think it was necessary, but Dan may have or Linda or Mark just to keep it brief. All right, I do just want to point out that Emily Morris has had her hand up for a while now. Do you see that? I don't see it over here. Emily, does that... I would just like to make one quick statement. Sure. You know, mostly speaking from the design perspective that, you know, this project has adapted at every request and every curve from the DAB to make this structure, which in itself right now is within compliance of all codes, more tolerable for the neighbors and all involved, you know, not having windows along their side of the wall where we can avoid it, keeping our ridgeline height below, well below what the max allowed is. But I think one of the most important quantitative pieces of information is that, you know, subject to what is the neighborhood, there have been two specific COA level two zoning permits granted for almost identical structures in the neighborhood. In the last couple years, there was one for 138 Spruce Street granted in April 2011 to demolish the existing one-story garage and build a two-story structure with the living space above. And then there was one granted in August of 2019 for 132 Spruce Street, which I believe you can actually see from Forty Kingsland to do the same thing, demolish an existing historic garage, put a garage with an accessory dwelling above in a very similar style. So in terms of precedent, there are actual two very similar precedents in the last five years for a project that's very similar. And those lots are much bigger, just saying. Linda, wait, wait, please. Sorry. Thank you, Emily. Okay, so if, like I said, I want to keep going back and forth, but if there's something that the neighbors want to add, then we'll be done. So. Brad, this is Jeff. Can I ask Mary one question that Dan may want to respond to that answer, just so we don't do a lot of tit for tat? I would like Mary's perspective on the neighbor's argument that only one accessory use is allowed. And whether the garage is a separate accessory use for residents, I'm not aware of us having interpreted that before that way. And I think the applicant's correct, there are similar projects that have been approved. So I'm just interested in staff's perspective. Well, a garage is associated with the residential use as the principal use on the property. The structure may be considered an accessory structure, but the garage as parking serves the primary use. So I mean, well done. Okay. Okay. So Dan, Linda, Mark, is there something you want to add at this point? Dan has his hand up. I assume that means he wants to pipe in. Okay. Okay. Dan? We're no longer, you heard it. Okay. He's still in the meeting. I don't even see him in the meeting anymore. Yeah, yeah, he is. I just, I put him back as an attendee. Okay. Dan, did you want to say something? I did. I'll try and keep understanding the chair's direction. I'll keep it brief. We'll avoid tit-for-tat. The one point I would make, just to respond, the few points I would make to begin with, my client's property is a separate and freestanding lot. It is not an accessory dwelling. Before the concept of accessory dwelling, it may have functioned as such, but it is long beyond that. So I somewhat just ingenuous to refer to it as such. I will point out that your client referred to it as an accessory dwelling. Well, I just want to be clear that it's not accessory to anything else. Secondly, you know, this is a balancing act that you as a board have to perform. And the zoning bylaws, your ordinances, you know, when it defines what accessory structures and uses are, does call out garages as a separate item. And, you know, these are about hard choices to keep the integrity of the neighborhood. And I want to be clear that my argument about this is twofold. One is a character of the neighborhood argument, which I would argue is still valid in the fact that, you know, a neighborhood will develop in different ways and different lots allow it. I don't want to be rude, but I am going to say that we do listen. And we listen to the arguments made first time around. I don't feel it's helpful to us to have the same arguments made a second time around. Understood. I just simply wanted to link both with that and with the historic integrity argument to be clear. And to simply say that you're balancing between housing. And I don't think that this decision would prevent housing because that's what's driving. Almost more than garages now. People want housing for all of these purposes and for the reason the application is before you today. So I certainly appreciate your attention to this and to our concerns. Thank you. Sure. May I just ask just one comment? Sure. I think it's very important to distinguish between accessory use and accessory structure. Clearly a garage is a separate accessory structure, but it is not an access, a separate accessory use. As Mary said, is the parking and the parking in the garage is a part of the residential use. And that, and that's the distinction. There's not going to be two different uses of the property. There is going to be, there's two structures and the second dwelling is a second is an accessory use, but the parking isn't a second use. So thank you. I'll close the public hearing at this point. I believe that we will probably deliberate at the end of the meeting, but we will not know that until we get to the end of the meeting. So we'll leave it there. I thank everybody for participating. Okay, so we're going to move on to our next item, which is 195 Archibald Street is the applicant here. I see Deb Lyons is here. Is there anybody else from the public who wishes to speak on 195 Archibald Street? Brad, I just want to also reference that I'm unrecuse now. Okay, welcome. I've been here a while. Good. So the only person here to speak on this project is the applicant, Deb Lyons. I take it. It looks like it. I'm here. Okay. Deb, I have to swear you in. Do you swear to tell the truth and hold truth on the pain of penalty or perjury? Yes. Okay. So this is an application for change of views to a bed and breakfast and requesting a parking variance. And it is recommended for approval. Do you have anything you want to say in presentation of this application? Me? I think it was, it's well stated. I'm requesting exactly what you just said. Thank you. Okay, good. I have one, as before we get into it, I have a question for Scott. You say this is asking for a one parking space waiver. Is that because it's one space more than would be required currently even though there's some number of spaces currently? Correct. Yes. That's why it's not three spaces. Right. There's a little funny math of the parking, but the short answer is the two space non-conforming is legitimately non-conforming. So they're increasing demand by one. So, and I guess I'll ask this now only because it's a theme of the day. I think it will be a theme of the day. Bed and breakfast definition is three is within the dwelling unit. Isn't that how it's defined? No, it refers to unoccupied dwelling. Let me, well before I start grasping for the wording, let me just pull it up on the code. The owner has to live on site, not in that particular dwelling unit. And it does need to be the owner's primary residence, and such is the case here. But it can be a separate apartment, a separate structure. So bed and breakfast, the definition says an owner-occupied residence or portion thereof in which short-term lodging rooms are rented and where only a morning meal is provided premises to guests. So a full apartment qualifies? Yes, and this board has approved similar in the past. We all know this is a short-term rental, and the planning commission and city council ordinance committee have continued to talk about this for a year and a half. We have a proposal going to hearing later this month of the planning commission. But for right now, they need to fit inside the BNB box. Keenan, did I see you with a hand up? Yeah, I just had one quick question regarding the parking. So I noted in your, in the staff comments that it's very rare, but there sometimes occurs where you do have two cars visiting. And I'm just curious, does that create a parking issue? What happens to the other car? Or, you know, do you have like a way to juggle the traffic so that you're not impacting other nearby properties? Oh gosh, I can count on two hands how many times two cars have arrived here in the last six years. I work, I have an office, it's about a block and a half away. So if it were a problem, I could park there at my office. Any other questions from the board on this alliance where we will close this hearing? And we probably will deliberate later, but we will see. Thank you. Thank you. So now we're going to 92 Farrington Parkway. And is the applicant here for that one? I believe so. I see Ray. So we're going to assume that's Ray Hingram. Okay. And is there anybody else in the public here for that application? If so, raise your hand please. If you're on the phone, raising your hand is Starneye. All I'm seeing is is Ray. Okay. Ray, is that Ray Hingram? Is that you? It is me. Okay. I need to swear you in. Do you swear to tell the truth and hold truth of the pain and penalty of perjury? Yes, I do. Okay. So this basically comes down to the 15 year statute, right? Which you're aware of. Correct. I filed for the 15 year application and was denied. So I appealed it. Right. And was this house, did this belong to your father? It did. And then you moved in to help out. Hey, Brad. Correct. This is an appeal of a city NOV. So maybe the city goes first. The city goes first. You're right. Okay. Thank you, AJ. And the city is presenting for the city. I'm presenting for the city. So it's actually not an appeal of a, of an NOV. It's not an enforcement action. But isn't there a compliance letter? What's the trigger here? Well, look up the ball rolling here. AJ was an informal warning letter from an enforcement in response to a complaint. But we never went as far as a formal notice of violation. In response to the complaint is what led the applicant to seek this determination in an attempt to remedy it. So yeah, I'll keep going with that back in October. October of 2020, we received a complaint about the front yard parking between the driveway and the neighboring property line. Followed up and indeed there's parking occurring there. So we sent the warning letter. The owner responded and long story short with that, rather than remove the parking or widen the driveway some way else with the permit. The owner sought protection, I'll say, under the 15-year statute of limitations for zoning by way of determination. And so I'll point out here that the default position is that it's a zoning violation. It sits in the setback and it doesn't have a permit. So it's up to the owner to demonstrate under this provision that the parking has occurred for at least 15 years continuously and without any discontinuance. So as you saw in the packet, the original determination request included a couple of photos. One was pretty darn blurry. The other was clearer and some neighbor names. So that struck me as pretty far short of the bar demonstrating continuous use for 15 years. So adverse determination was issued. The owner appealed that and provided some additional photos. And about half of the additional photos are clear and about the other half continues to be pretty blurry. So from my standpoint, it really boils down to insufficient evidence to show that this has occurred continuously for 15 years. Right? That's the bar that we need to meet. What about the testimony that he's now filed with this application signed by many of his neighbors saying that he has been using it for 15 years? Well, let me pull that up. I think if they were sworn after David's, Brad, that would certainly carry him or a weight. That's not what actually got submitted. Are the neighbors here? No one's in attendance, AJ, but the applicant. And the process of a sworn after David, how does one do that, Scott? It's what it sounds like. It's a sworn statement, a sworn notarized statement. Notarized. People who have direct experience. So a neighbor who's been there for, let's say, 20 years or 16 years can swear that, yeah, this has been occurring continuously for 15 years. What's missing from that statement is a notarized seal from your point of view. No, Brad, I don't view that letter as a statement by those neighbors. It's a list of neighbors. Right. I understand. It's not a particularly good legal format the way he did it. Correct. Right. Well, I guess beyond that, it's unclear to me as to whether, when those people signed that letter, they were stating that's been there for 15 years. It just looks like a list of his neighbors to me. Right. Did you hear that comment? I did. Do you understand what the issue is right now is you have these affidavits or something that you submitted and I believe you submitted them with the intention that they were people certifying that you had been using it for 15 years. Is that correct? Yes, they've lived here for over 15 years. They lived here before I moved here. So they've known it's there. Right. But the format that you submitted in it is not really clear that that's what they're certifying. Okay. Go ahead. Right, Adrian. I don't know. So, Mr. I think it's Ingram. Um, what, when did you or why did you start using, give us some context as to what's going on here that looks to me like there's a box truck parked next to your driveway? Why is it there? When what did you start using it for help us understand the context of this? Um, well, I was helping my father late term life health issues back in 2003. I did it for a year and eventually I had to move here and I was carpenter. So I just parked the van there and then use it. I didn't hardly work at all and it broke down so I couldn't move it. I've got it fixed since then, but that's actually how it started. When did you move here? I moved in here in 2005, the spring of 2005, I officially moved here with all my stuff. So does the van move now? It's in the driveway. There's nothing parked on the yard now. So there's nothing on the yard now and it's in the driveway? Correct. So why do you want the determination that it can be parked on the side yard? I'm struggling with, because I looked, I went by, I went by, I was in the area the other day and I went by and it wasn't anything there. So I'm struggling with what's actually before us. Okay. I guess you could say I'm trying to take advantage of the 15 year policy since it's been near that long. Something I'd like to do is even if I get rid of it, I'd like to be able to park a snowmobile trailer, a boat trailer, or some other of the middle class toys that people get. And there's really no place to park them on my lawn. And my neighbors don't seem to complain so. So is your request a general ability to park next to the driveway? Yes. Park any vehicle next to the driveway? Yeah. I guess I don't know if the 15 year means any particular vehicle or just any vehicle. Nothing that can be parked on the lawn, according to our ordinance, I think that's what I've found out since this happened that we're not allowed to park anything on our lawns. It's not a particular vehicle. It's about the parking and the compacted dirt in the parking space. Scott, if the van's not there, wasn't that the city's request just to move the van? Yes. Scott, is there sufficient lot coverage if he wanted to file a permit to expand the parking? I believe there is, Jeff, but expanding it towards that sideline is pretty tight because it's closer to that sideline. It would have to be going towards the house. But this has a garage, so we allow parking on the driveway in front of a garage as a space, right? Yes. I think we had that argument in this zoning district about parking in a driveway in a setback, right? Yeah, years ago. Yeah. Okay. That was the front yard setback. Right, front yard. Yeah, no, I remember that one. I thought that driveways and parking were allowed in the side yard setback. They have a five-foot setback, Caitlin, as opposed to a 10% of the width that would apply to the house. It's a five-foot setback? Yes. I thought it was four. There's another problem now that I've been measuring it. My garage is three-foot-six from the property line. That's grandfathered in. You'd have to move your garage. Yeah. If you put a driveway in front of the garage, if you look at the photo, the driveway just goes to the door, not to the edge of the garage. Yeah. I was thinking of putting pavers over there, so one tire wouldn't be on the grass and have grass in between. Mr. Ingram, can I ask you one more question? I'm looking at the photos you submitted and thank you for your efforts trying to look back and provide us some of this info. When did the van still operate? Like you can drive it? No, it's not registered or inspected. You can't drive it. It looks like in some of the photos you provided, the van is parked in the driveway. In some of the photos, it's parked off the driveway. Is that consistent with how you've used that space? You haven't parked something there permanently, consistently for 15 years, but you have from time to time parked your van there? My van's pretty much been parked there. I haven't been able to drive it for quite a while. The photo that I believe I showed with the truck next to the van, that's after I had moved it after the complaint, I started working on getting things moved over. The 2012 photo you provided, the van is in the driveway? That's probably, that's the last year it was registered, but I wasn't driving it. I don't know why it's, yeah that's right, there was one photo. I don't have those in front of me, I'm sorry. Okay, thank you. So I guess it's, I'm not sure where we go from here. This is all new to me. At the moment, I think we're gonna, this is something we will deliberate on, I guess, and determine if we're gonna uphold zoning determination or come up with some other. Okay. Any other questions from the board? There's one more thing I'd like to say. Yes. Thanks for reviewing my application. Thank you. So with this, we will close public hearing and again, probably deliberate later. See how we do at that point. We have two more items tonight. Okay, the next application is for 90 Ethan Allen Parkway, request for a four-unit hotel bed and breakfast. The applicant here. I see the applicant. Well, now the list just changed down. Let's see if I can find them. All right, got the applicant, Charles Danielson. Hi. Anybody else who wants to speak on this application for 90 Ethan Allen Parkway? So raise your hand please. I'm seeing no hands, Brad. Okay, so this is Ralph Danielson. I'd like to swear you in. Do you swear to tell the truth and hold truth under pain and penalty or perjury? I do. Okay, this is recommended for approval. And if there's anything you'd like to present or comments you want to make at the start here. And now I guess I'm hoping that the application answers most questions. I did want to mention that in designing these structures, I look to incorporate the architectural details of the main house. Are the colors that you have in the renderings, is that intentional? Yeah, yeah, they are. Okay, they're sweet little buildings. I have a question to start. If I understand the parking right, you've got parallel parking on one side of the driveway. That's right. Does everybody have to back out? Yeah, they do. It does get wider towards the end. I think it's approximately 30 feet, but not a lot of room to turn around. The end being away from the street. Away from the street. Do you do a turn around there or someplace? There's not a lot of room for that. Right now, the existing driveway requires people to back out as is. It is. And these are short term rentals, so people who don't know the area come in and back out. I'm looking at that you do have sort of a turn around between units three and four. Was that just a pathway there yet? That's a pathway to lead to all of the units. And then there would be a grass courtyard between all the units. Originally, I had thought of a fire pit, but then I decided against that with knowing that you had to go with gas and I just felt that it just seemed a little too ridiculous. Well, that's the only concern I had with it was people backing out. I tell you, people do drive here. You expect people to be driving. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. I mean, some I mean, I would imagine some people may take flights and stuff also, but you know, fly in and then, you know, hire a cab or Uber. Okay. The board have any questions for this applicant? Is there enough space if there's a car parked in the first spot? Can't tell from your site plan. Maybe that's just a path. But is there enough space for someone to back out past that car? So the those spaces that put our nine feet wide, the space between the fence or the actual new fence that's going in, and the corner of the building is about 19 feet. So that would leave 10 feet between the space and the house? Yeah. Depending on how wide a parking space was, I just, I actually wasn't sure how wide a parking space would be. Nine feet. Or should be. It seems awfully tight if you're also backing up to Brad's point. It's like that could lead to some conflict in the future. Right, right. And you have a sort of a pathway along the side of the house there too, don't you? Yeah, I guess it was my understanding from this zoning or Ryan that the units in the back needed a pathway to access the unit. It's a walkway. Now, there is the other option of putting the walkway just on the other side of the house. Sort of the north. On the north side and then putting up a, you know, another picket fence along to delineate, you know, that yard of the main house from that walkway. Seems like that might be a safer bet. Yeah, yeah. And looking at it, I was thinking the same thing. Originally, I was thinking of just using the driveway. I don't know that I expect a lot of people to be walking in and out. I expect most people probably to be driving, although there is the park across the street. But a lot of, I would imagine a lot of people would be driving, you know, to downtown or areas to restaurants and stuff. Right. And Brad, if I can chime in. Yes. There was a condition put on this one to ensure that there's at least separation between the walkway and the parking spaces identified in the plan. And if that walkway has to go away in that section, I think it still meets the intention of the pedestrian access to the back. I mean, there's a walkway essentially from the parking area that he's providing. So at some point, if it's good the way it is, great. If it has to be removed and the walkway starts the back of the house, then so be it. But it would meet that intention for the pedestrian access. But I think it was turned up in the walkway on the north side of the house. Oh, I missed that part. Okay. If there's a need to access the sidewalk, but I anticipate the walkway would be to the, to the parking areas, mainly. I mean, I don't anticipate a lot of people, you know, although there is the park across the street. And so I do imagine there will be some people that want to go and access that park and would be walking through the driveway. Brian, can you can you clarify then is, is it the intention for that requirement? Is that the access to the units and the walkway be between the units and the parking or between the units and the sidewalk? I think it's both actually with the way Article 6 is worded. It wants pedestrian access safe and unobstructed from vehicular traffic flow. So it would be to provide access to each unit in the main front house as well as the sidewalk. Yeah, that sounds like the north side might be the better option. And they can do that without having to worry about setbacks for walkways because walkways can go inside of the normal five foot setback. I have a question about parking as well. That first spot closest to the picket fence. I don't see how that would be feasible to park in if you were the last car. You can't parallel park like that. How long are those spaces? How long is each space you have drawn there? 20 feet. Parallel parking space is 25 feet. And you need room in front. You need to be able to pass the space to be able to back into it. You can't you can't pass that space and back into it. You'd never be able to get a car there. So I mean removing that front spot and to be honest, I also need somewhere to put snow. And so then there would be a spot at least for each structure. What's the parking requirement on this one? I think in that 120 feet that you have, you only have legitimately four parking spaces for parallel parking. So I think they're 25 feet each. Am I right Ryan? That's 25. I think the space is 8 by 18. Let me just double check that. Parallel parking I think. Parallel parking might be a little different. I'll take that part. I'll take a minute. I did wonder towards the back if there could be some sort of diagonal parking. But I didn't know because it does get wide back there, but I don't know if that's possible. So Brad, the Article 8 for parallel parking has dimensions of 8 by 18. That's the parking space itself. I didn't talk about maneuverability. So there is a maneuverability section. Let me look at that. Oh, there isn't for parallel. I don't see anything for parallel for maneuverability. I think spring is right about that last space. It's going to be hard to get into it or out of it depending on how people park there. But it may simply be moving that picket fence closer to the building or something. Closer to Unit 3. Yeah. Do you have six units all together? Is that what it is on the property? There would be five. There's the garage is just for storage and garbage. So there's five units? Yeah. So the main house and then the four units. So you have six spaces for? Well, the anticipation was the house has more rooms. And so that maybe two spots for the house and then one for each of the units. If I can clarify again, the permit for the house, the existing house was permitted for four guest rooms. So we'd actually look at that as a total of eight units on the property with the new proposal and no and required for no parking spaces. That's correct with the new multimodal mixed use that was created. There's zero parking requirements and six is the maximum. Correct. Okay. Design things on the fly here. But I guess that's part of what we might do in deliberative a little bit is to give some response to how that parking works. Any other questions from the board on this one at this point? And Brad, should we leave it open and ask him to come back with a revised parking plan to address those issues rather than us designing it for him? I think it's a good answer to be moving the pedestrian walkway. I think is what's going to have openings on the next hearing or something like that. Brian? April 20th fall, you're looking at May 4th, I believe. First meeting in May. That's the applicant. If we wanted to come back to rework the parking and the pedestrian access and that would be in May. Is that a conflict for you? Sure. No, that's fine. Okay. Well, do we have a motion and I think to table this? Be May 4th, Brad. I just confirmed the date. Jeff, do you want to make a motion? Sure. I'd make a motion that we recess the public hearing, leave it open and reconvene May 4th for additional information on the parking and walkway. Second on that? I'll second. Okay, let's second. Thank you. Any other discussion? Okay, all in favor? Opposed? Okay, so you're invited back May 4th to look at you for discussing what we're concerned about. And so I think maybe you can work with Ryan a little bit on that and address those concerns. All right, thank you. Okay, thank you. Okay, so we have one other item on the agenda on the other business which is invited back. 81 Dender Road is the applicant here for that one. Hey, Brad. Yes. Just before we begin, I want to make a disclosure. One of the neighbors, Tom Walsh, who I know as Judge Walsh, is a judge who is a judge superior court and I regularly practice in front of him. I don't think that bias is me on this item, but I wanted to disclose that to the board and to the members of the public. If the applicant or Judge Walsh has any concerns with me hearing this application, I'm happy to listen to those. Okay. And I would echo that as well. AJ and I spoke briefly before the hearing just to discuss this and we both agreed that a disclosure was appropriate. Okay, thank you. Is the applicant here? I see Jonathan. I assume that's Jonathan Heller, the applicant. And Scott. So you can't hear me, right? Yes. Before we get started. Under other business here, is this not a hearing, right? It's not a public hearing. No. This is driven by permit condition when the board approved this to basically see how it's going and whether it continues to be in compliance with the permit. And is that our option at this point too? We have what are our options at this point for having somebody come back to us with an approved project that we're going to listen to to see how it performed over time? You know, that's a good question, Brad. I don't know that the board does anything. I think depending on how this hearing with lower case H goes, we'll either figure out that this is in compliance with the permit and life is good or life is bad and it's out of compliance. If that's the case, then we'd probably follow up with enforcement staff. Okay. Scott. Yeah, okay. Because I remember this application and so I'm curious, can we ask, we can ask questions of Mr. Heller? Yeah, correct. Okay. So, Mr. Heller, you're here. Yes. You're also aware that we've had some letters from neighbors? Yes, I read them. Okay. Yeah, I read too. Okay. And some of the concerns that were raised in those letters are concerns that were raised when this application came before us. And those were concerns that we were hoping would not be present once you had this bed and breakfast happening. So, I'll leave it to you to maybe address those concerns. Well, I propose that they're not. I would recommend everybody read what I wrote. I could read it to you if you prefer. Or you can give me specific questions, but I'm in full compliance. Tom Walsh really has a personal issue with me and he has made it his personal vendetta to close down my Airbnb. And there's a few other people in the neighborhood who just think this street is too good for an Airbnb and so they're willing to join forces. And honestly, everything in Tom's letter is misrepresentation and falsehood. I have some questions because I remember this application quite clearly. And what I'm struggling with is I see the plans you submitted for the application in 2018. And they don't show a hot tub. They don't show a kitchenette. And it was represented as essentially just a bedroom. That's not true. Actually, I represented it as it is. Okay. Well, the plans don't show it. And that's what I recall. Those plans that you're saying that don't show that? Yeah. Yeah, I'm looking at it. And it just is a 16 by 34 foot room. And it was guest room, 16 by 25, not correct. And it was described as a room, not a dwelling reference. So I'm struggling Jonathan, can you let AJ speak please? Yeah, if you're gonna look, I'm trying to understand how, because I remember the concerns very clearly. And I remember your representation that there'll be no impacts and that there'll be no parking on the street. And there'll be people will park in the driveway and that your guests will be, you know, limited to when they come and go. And so what I'm also looking at are photos of what is clearly a essentially accessory dwelling unit with kitchenette facilities, which is inconsistent with what seemingly inconsistent with what those plans show. So when was the kitchenette added to that room? Is the question I have for you? Um, I added a microwave oven to it. Well, it looks like there's more in some of the photos. So what's there now? So everything was done before I purchased the house. There was a kitchenette there before you purchased the house? I can't hear what you're saying. There was a kitchenette there when you purchased the house? Correct. Well, there wasn't the microwave. What was there? A sink and a mini fridge. And a gas burner. You added the microwave. Correct. Your plans don't show a kitchenette. I brought somebody in for inspection on the room. So they saw it. That's that's different than the zoning board than us. Yeah. Did you see me? We just had to go by the plans that were presented to us in our approval. All right. Well, I'd need to see those plans to understand what the problem is. Well, they're yours that you submitted. Okay. Well, I'd need to see them. I don't recall them. But anyway, it has a kitchenette. I guess what we're concerned about is that the impact on the neighborhood is more than was discussed in the beginning in terms of outside activities happening on the property. I disagree. And I could actually get testimony from the neighbor to contradict Tom's testimony. If that's necessary. Yes, it wasn't. How often are you using the B and B? My occupancy rate is currently 61%. What does that mean? 61% of the days of the month are rented. So 61% of the year? Well, you can't really make yearly judgments about housing and lodging. At this point in COVID. So I can really. How about last year, 2020 COVID? 70 some odd percent. And how many guests? Let's see. On average. On average per year? No, on average per one per rental. Two. Two. How many doesn't sleep? Depends how many people want to sleep in two beds. That would be a question for the fire marshal, I suppose. Well, I'm asking you how many. What is it listed as? Yeah, what is it listed as? This is listed as three guests. I don't allow three adults. I only allow. I prefer couples or, you know, two people, but I allow three because for babies and kids. I mean, by the way, I'm looking at your permit history report on the on the city's assessor database, and I don't see a permit for adding a second kitchen. So. Well, that was here when I got here. Okay. AJ, I pulled up the plan that was submitted with the permit application in 2018. Yeah. Yeah, that's the plan I'm referencing. Can you see that, Jonathan? Yeah, hold on. Let me take a look at it. Yeah, so that is the guest room. It has a kitchen in it and it also has a bathroom facility. Your feeling is that nobody's using this outside at night making noise that might disturb any neighbors? Not to my knowledge. I have a Google Nest cam with audio surveillance. So, you know, you know, Tom has really chosen to be antagonistic. There's more than one letter. Tom chosen to be very antagonistic. He's never contacted me once via text. He chooses to confront my guests personally. I do just want to note that we did receive public comments from people besides Mr. Walsh or Judge Walsh. And what were those public comments? Were those the people who don't like me for 20 years? I don't really want to... I don't know what their history of personal opinions are towards you, Mr. Heller, but they were not happy with the use... with the parking situation. I have reported... Well, people park in the garage. I mean, in the driveway, excuse me. The people never park in the street. And honestly, if you look at the photographs on Dunder Road, there's never an issue for parking. There's got to be no street in the world that's easier to park on. Process Scott is that we're supposed to review this application at this point in time to see how it's faring relative to what we approved, right? All right, and that's basically what the condition says. Again, the board isn't taking action here tonight, but depending on the outcome of what we hear, maybe there would be enforcement action or maybe there wouldn't if everything's fine. So there are a number of folks, Brad, in the attendees' list. At least one has their hand up. Well, who is that? Well, let's do it this way. If anyone who wishes to speak to this item raise your hand, I see a few people. And Brad, shall we just go in order? Yes, please. So Tom Walsh has his hand up. And I'll ask people who speak to introduce themselves and give their mailing address for Scott. So, Tom, you're up. And you're muted. Thank you. I'm Tom Walsh. I live at 97 Dunder Road, so that about immediately to the south of 81 Dunder Road. I tried not to be involved with the bed and breakfast approval and rental. And I am here tonight because what I've experienced over the last two years with impacts and I believe they relate quite significantly back to the discrepancy between what was reviewed by the DRB and what is actually being rented. So if you look at the application in the floor plan that was up earlier, it shows a single room. The DRB's notice of the 2018 hearing said change of use to bed and breakfast, quote, in one room. The staff comments for that hearing state, the request was to permit a bed and breakfast use in one room in the existing single family. And then the DRB's March 26, 2018 decision says the review was to consider a proposal to convert one bedroom within the existing single family dwelling to a bed and breakfast. What was approved by motion of the board was a bed and breakfast in one bedroom within the existing single family home. I've provided a letter of my observations in the impacts as well as a review of the Airbnb listing and I believe what is being rented is a separate accessory unit. They have vastly different impacts. The more people, the more impacts, the way they're set up with a separate entrance along my property boundary. People come and go and it's a direct impact on me. The DRB did not review those impacts and that is why I became concerned and when this matter came up for a hearing for an offer of what are the impacts, I decided to file this letter. Now I want to be respectful and when Mr. Heller says that I make this personal, I kind of disagree with him. I have not reached out to him. Mr. Heller is difficult to deal with. Many of the neighbors have had troubling experiences with him. I felt I had to file a letter to identify the impacts and in return yesterday, Mr. Heller filed a retaliatory enforcement complaint against me. I'm not here to be reviewed. I was here to provide neighborhood impacts and I'm concerned that Mr. Heller mischaracterizes my approach. I would like to be neighborly. He asked me if he could remove a tree on my property when he had the whole crew ready. I said to him, look, put up a fence. You can remove the tree. That was two months ago. I'm not aware of a design. I'm not aware of a contractor being retained. I'm not aware of an application being filed. So I'm doing everything I can to be neighborly. I'm not making it personal and I want the DRB to be aware of that and I'd appreciate you looking at my letter and considering what I offer. I will note that in 2018, neighbors brought the question and concern forward about whether the request was to rent one bedroom or a separate rental unit. Mr. Heller was asked directly, do you have tenants? Do you rent to people? He said, no, that simply isn't true. He had a tenant, Christine Hart. She gave my builders a hard time regularly. What I learned recently is that Mr. Hart took Mr. Heller to court over a failure to return her security deposit. The city of Burlington Housing Board of Review in a decision dated October 2017. Mr. Hart, I think I'm going to just say we want to keep this sort of on point and not too historical, if I may. But it is on point because he represented under oath to the board that he didn't rent this unit out. He did. And there was a decision against him a few months in advance of that hearing. Thank you. Okay. And Scott, there's others who want to speak. Yes. Stephen Klinsky. Stephen, you're up. You almost got it right. Stephen Plussinsky, there's a sin in the middle of it. One of my students pointed out one day. We live at, my wife, Susie, I live at 267 South Cove Road, a corner of our property backyard, about Mr. Heller's backyard at one point. And so I wanted to ask the question of the board because I'm new to this. What are the major conditions and limitations with respect to an Airbnb or a bed and breakfast? I don't know. Tough question to answer. There's several and many and they each, to some extent, differ based on the permit issued. You know, in general, it has to be owner occupied and there has to be adequate parking and in certain areas it has to meet. There has to be density requirement met and all sorts of other things. Is there a specific concern that you have? No, more it's a lack of understanding. So I understand this non-hearing is to reflect on whether the conditional use permit met its original standards, the standards under which it was granted. Is that fair to say? That's fair to say, yes. And it was granted with the expectation that I would have minimal impact on the neighborhood was the discussion at the time. Okay, fair enough. I do appreciate that. And how often, if I may ask just one or two more questions and move on, how often is a conditional permit reviewed? Is there a standard? This is not a standard process. Okay, okay, very good. And then, so finally, this centers around, if I can make a stab at it, whether the conditional use standards were met and whether or not there has been a nuisance experienced by the neighborhood as a result of that usage of the property with respect to the conditional use permit. I think we're here to understand what the impact is at this point. Okay, I'll take my hand down now. Thank you for the opportunity to speak and for your service as board members. Are there others, too, that wanted to speak? Yep, one more. Susan. We almost got it right this time. Placinski. I thought I was going to get it right. So can you hear me? Yes. Okay, so the one thing I was concerned of when I looked at the documents tonight was that Mr. Heller has installed these blue lights all around his house, which I assume help him use his cameras all times of the day and night. And I was quite concerned to see my property being photographed on his cameras when I looked online to see the documents that he had provided. I don't really appreciate being photographed on my own property when it's his cameras. My coming and going should be my business, not his. And so I would like to say that that's a nuisance to me. Thank you. Thank you for hearing me and thanks again for listening. I don't see any other hands up in the moment. If you'd like to speak, raise your hand. Last chance. I don't see any, Brad. Okay. Oh, nope. One more. Oh, one more. That's second. Spruce Peak. I'm going to guess that's not really their name. Spruce Peak, can you introduce yourself and give your address? Hello. My name is Albert St. Amand. I live across the street. I'm not impacted in quite the... Can I get your address, please? Excuse me. 96 Dunder Road. Thank you. I just have one issue which I'd like to bring up. And that's about the blue lights that Susan talked about. I won't even try with their last name, but those blue lights are very annoying in the neighborhood. And if those were put down, it would address a lot of our concerns. My wife and I, that is. That's all. Okay. These lights, they're visible from off the property I take it. Oh, absolutely there. North, south, east, west. North, south, east, and west. Okay. Okay. Thank you. We have another hand up, Fran. Okay. From Sandy. Can you introduce yourself and give your address, Sandy? Sandy Bossick, 285 South Cove Road. My home is directly behind Mr. Heller's home. And yes, the blue lights are very annoying. They are... They just shine in my house all night long, even with shades down. So yes, that would be a problem for me also. Thank you for your time. Thank you. So Jonathan, the light's probably our zoning violation. It sounds like... I'm happy to remove the lights. I had no idea people didn't like them. It's a design choice. I thought it looked really cool. It may look cool. I know some others. But it's... I think it's a violation. Excuse me? It's a violation of zoning. Okay. They're out. Okay. Go ahead, Brad. AJ, did you just say something? Oh, I have a question for the applicant when you're done. Go ahead. Do you live at the property full-time? Yes. Do you have any other renters there? No. Did you have other renters there? No. Well, when? In 2018, when you applied for this. In 2018? Yes. I believe so. Did you... If not 2018, definitely 2017. Did you live at the property full... Have you lived at the property full-time? Yes. Okay. I'm quite sure. So this is something we can deliberate on and then see if any next step exists, Scott. Is that something of the process? Well, you know, again, it's not necessarily an action item. It's follow-up for the condition to get input from neighbors how it's going and whether it remains in compliance with the permit. I've heard some information that maybe it's not in compliance. Okay. So we can talk about it. Yeah. Sure. Okay. Okay. Mr. Heller, anything you want to add at this point? I have some questions. What issues are not considered in compliance? I think it's something we're going to talk about and deliberate of what you're going to listen to. I would love to because I want... My goal is to be in compliance, to be a good neighbor, to stay here, live in this house, raise my daughter, continue with homes schooling, continue with my Airbnb and have as little impact as possible. Now, if Tom were to communicate with me clearly and tell me things instead of just like looking for trouble... Yeah. I think we're... It's not just him, but I think part of the concern that we have... Yes. Anybody is welcome to text me and call me. Anybody could have called me and said... Let Brad finish. Thank you. I think basically this is not truthfully actually just your BNB, but it's an issue that's come up with BNBs in general, which is... And this neighborhood, the whole thing coming into here seemed a particular concern. And this is something we're tracking on BNBs in general to understand how the impact these single family neighborhoods where they're an aberration in the neighborhood. Agreed. And so the fact that we have neighbors who are testifying that there is an impact is part of what we're determining. Even if it isn't... Is or isn't something that causes us to take any follow-up on your property. Okay. Well understood. Thank you so much for clarifying that. Yeah. Okay. Is there a question for me that I can clarify? No, we need to talk about what we've heard today, I think. Great. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We'll close this item. This is the last item on our agenda. Our people. Okay. Sticking around a little bit for some deliberative. I'm seeing sort of weird answers. Brad, I unfortunately have to jump off. I am late for a meeting. Ah. Okay, Ravi. We will miss you. I think we're okay. Two, four, six. Can you still have a quorum on the first item? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Ravi. Thank you, Ravi. So the first item is Forty Kingsland Terrace. You know, this is the B&B. I think it's a fairly sensitively designed structure. It's 23 feet high. And the whole thing with ADUs in the zoning ordinance really allows them to happen like this. And I know that it has impacts on people's views and things like that. That's not really something that is written into the zoning ordinance. Yeah. I don't have a lot of concern with this project. It seems like, you know, we've got, we've approved two other, you know, similar projects in the quote unquote neighborhood, which, you know, the statute as Liam testified to defines and as Mary pointed out is, you know, the zone. So, you know, it seems like it's, they've done a lot of good work to try and accommodate, you know, their project to try and minimize its impacts. And I don't really have a lot of concerns. I don't have concerns with it either. I think that, I mean, it's complying with the zoning rules and it doesn't seem out of character in any way. And even ones that we haven't approved, like there was the one on, I think it was the Forest Heights, a couple meetings ago, we didn't approve that one, but it was for other reasons. No one, like it was not even in discussion that there was an issue with it being taller out of character. That wasn't something that we even considered on that one. It was just that it was out of the setback ordinance. How's the board feel about not having the DAB approvals already? At first, I think I'm okay with that. I mean, I think I understand that they might have wanted it to be a one-story structure that would have eliminated the garage component, because they don't have a lot of coverage to. But that was the second meeting that they, like I feel for the applicant on that, but that was feedback they should have gotten on the first time that they went. That's a pretty dramatic change to request the second time they're going back, trying to take into account all of the DAB feedback. It seems like in the end, they don't have a specific recommendation either way. I have a question, Jeff. I'm just about a process question. Will they have to seek DAB approval for this, or once they get an advisory board to us? So their approval is not required. It's their approval, as I can say, is an advisory to us for us to respond. Mary, does this need any not stormwater, yeah, I guess we stormwater review from DPW. Yes, they have provided plans and revised plans that reflect the revisions that they made to their original submission, based on DAB recommendations. But do we have copies of those plans? You have copies of the most recent. Do you want the stormwater submission as well? I'm just I'm concerned because the plans that before us, to me, are a problem in terms of stormwater because they don't have a swell on the east side of the building and they just have grades going into it. Now it's I understand it's a design drawing and yes, it's their revised stormwater application is in front of the stormwater engineering program right now. Okay, so they are reviewing, but that's not a condition on the approval on the recommendations. Well, gauging the level of disturbance that stormwater approval will be a requirement. Okay, okay, so we can add that to the list. Does anybody want to make a motion on this one? Sure, I will move this is on ZP 21-0358CA-CU 40 King'sland Terrace that we approve the request certificate of appropriateness and the conditional use request and adopt staff findings and recommendations and conditions with the added condition that the applicant obtain review and approval of their stormwater plans. Caitlyn seconds. Okay, any discussion on this one? All in favor? And it's five and AJ is recused. Correct. Okay, thank you. And now we have 195 Archibald Street and this is requesting a creative one parking space waiver. Sure, two spaces at the moment. Any concerns or discussions on this one? Other than expressing frustration that we're still being asked to review these under the bed and breakfast requirement. Yeah, I think this one meets the standards we've set for issuing these under the bed and breakfast but it still doesn't feel quite right. Yeah, we need to do that. We need to do something about that. It's just going to get to three bedrooms. Yeah, it's a three bedroom detached unit. So, you know, I think Scott's right to interpret as being consistent with the broad reading of the bed and breakfast language but I don't think that's what bed and breakfast intended. I mean, that's a lot of what we're talking about with these. Yeah, I mean, it just is so dependent on how it's operated and what's going on in the neighborhood. I mean, you can have this with the three bedroom. It could be fine. It could be what everybody's talked about with student rentals throughout the city that it could be a party rental but the zoning and how this thing is approved has no doesn't reflect any of that. I mean, I think this particular application is caught up in questions we all have about the Dunder application. Yeah, right. And one of them is just how do I mean, knowing that these things can at any instance become a problem after we review them. I mean, obviously just having them come back and report in a year is not very helpful because we can't really take any action at that point. I don't know if there are suggestions for other conditions we could put on these applications that would give us some ability to withdraw the approval. Yeah, I mean, those sort of continuing jurisdiction conditions have been, if I'm remembering some of the cases correctly, I guess, not look so fondly upon. Yeah, I mean, I hate to go to the line between enforcement and granting an approval but I'm really struggling with these. You know, maybe it's an issue of much tighter conditions. And it's still dependent on enforcement and like. Yeah, but if we're very, maybe if we're more clear about the very specific box that's appropriate. And one question comes up is our outside activities part of what happens at a B&B. So I just want to hop in here. I don't really think it's fair to this applicant for us to sort of play out what conditions we want to put in as we didn't hear any testimony about that. No neighbor has testified. And I don't think it's fair to this applicant. I don't disagree with you, Keenan. I don't know we're putting it on this applicant. I think this is just. Why don't we make a motion on this application and move on? Me? Why don't we do that, Keenan? Yeah, for, we are on 21-0723CU195 Archibald. I move that we accept the conditional use application and prove that with, I don't think, were there any conditions within this staff? Yeah. And with staff recommendations. Good. Second? Keenan, any discussion? Yeah. Can't see my hand. Sorry. Camera on the other side. Okay. So this is 6-0. And actually that unless, because 92 Farrington is coming back on that, that we know it's not. You moved it along. You said come back. Yeah. No, that was 90, is an Allen Parkway is coming back. No, Farrington we have to decide on. Farrington, we have to decide. Yeah. AJ, your questioning was enlightening, I suppose. I just don't know. I mean, the truck's not there. So I'm worried what we're actually deciding. Is it not an advisory opinion? It's also, if it's not there, it's not continuous use. Well, I mean, obviously it can, that's a question. You know, like, obviously if there's a parking and someone's been parking in a certain area for 15 years, I don't think we require the car to be there 24 hours a day, sleeping days a week. I mean, like if it goes to work and comes back, I'm thinking of Ben Travers' issue on the corner of Pine and Home there. But I like, I don't know what he's, if there's a live issue for us to decide at this point, he's moved the truck. Well, was he just moving, I mean, he was moving the truck because that was, he's like trying to do what's being asked, but he still ultimately wants the three spots that he's been using for, I mean, it seems pretty compelling that it's, he's been using it for 15 years since he's been living there for longer than 15 years. I guess I think we do need to decide, I mean, it's an application for 15 year determination. And the appeal is simply of the staff's determination that it didn't meet that requirement. So we're being asked whether it meets the 15 year determination or 15 year period. Okay, I just was a little confused as to what I agree. For me, the neighbors signatures does, does do that. And I understand that they would carry more weight if they were more formalized in a legal way. But I think with the applicant's understanding of the process and that was the intent, it fits for me. I agree with you, Springer, that, you know, I mean, the neighbors signed it with the statement up above. I think they were verifying that they weren't just saying they were neighbors. So the need for it right now is questionable. Yeah, I guess I disagree with that. I mean, that may have been the intent, but it's really not clear that that's what those people knew they were saying when they signed that. What do you think they thought they were signing? I have no idea. It just says below are the names and addresses for my neighbors of 15 and a half years. I mean, did they think they were just signing to say that, yes, I've been your neighbor for 15 years or? Are they saying that you've been parking there for 15 years? Can I share that with you? Can I try something? I'm wondering if my sense right now is these are complex questions with 15 years that we're asked to answer. I'm not sure the neighbors, I'm not sure Mr. the applicant, I forget his last name, Ingram, necessarily understood what level of proof he'd be asked to demonstrate. It's not clear in the zoning regulations what level of proof is necessary on this 15 year statute of limitations. And I try to give everybody the full opportunity to quote unquote prove their case. So I'd like to reopen and continue and give the applicant an opportunity to come back with either affidavits from those neighbors, more clear photos, or ideally the neighbors themselves to testify about parking in that area. Anyone got a prop? Anyone think that might be beneficial to us? I don't have any objection to that. I mean, if we voted on the record we have right now, I would tend to it through the staff. I view the 15 years as a very high burden and it has not yet been met. But I'm not opposed to hearing from other witnesses. And the reason I'm saying that is there was a reference to neighbors and there were some signatures and maybe they knew what they were signing. Maybe they didn't. Why don't we see if the applicant can't clarify that for us and document it one way or the other? My only thing is the letter does specifically state his van in 2005 and it states that I wasn't able to get photos from 2005 and below are the names. I mean, to me it may be missing one sentence that says you're saying that I had the van here in 2005, but to me that is what I read this and I see that these neighbors signed that there was a van there in 2005. That's the way I interpret it. There's also the letter from Art and Jenny Barner who said that the van has been used to the extent of its garage for more than 15 years to store tools. Right? It's not just what he submit with the application. There is that secondary letter. True. That's a good point. I don't particularly need the applicant to go through the extra help or to go through extra work to do that. Yeah, I'm with I'm with Springer on that. If this is if we say that he's got that parking space, can he pave it or does it have to stay grass? It's grass now. Yeah, it's it's parking. It's the use, not the structure. So it stays as grass but he can park on it. I think that that's what I understand the request. You don't have to come back. Brad. Yeah. Hi, it's Kim. If you're listening all this time, Kim. I have been listening to you guys all this time. And on this application, actually I didn't see this application until reading it tonight. Well, you guys were listening to it. But I did want to if you would allow me to give a little advice as your attorney on these applications. Yeah, yeah. I would just I found the letters to be concerning as if you're taking them to be the evidence that they should be. I mean, a determination for the 15 years is basically a statute of limitation, a determination that the city can't enforce against it. I think if if you take information that it should actually be very clear as to a statement that they are understand exactly where they're talking about, like the dimensions of a parking space, and that it was continuous and not discontinued. You know, I don't read those letters of saying that, but I think just in general it is there should be sufficient evidence for this. And I'm not sure that what was submitted. I'm not saying he can't get there. I don't know. But just reading those statements, I would have a concern that they are not giving the clarity that they should for such a claim. I mean, is the issue not necessarily not necessarily on this application, but by doing this we're setting precedent for ourselves on what is required for 15 year determination. And I think there's just a standard that you should be looking for for evidence. And I don't think that this generally is meaning that standard, but. I think I think our member of the Charter Committee, what's it called? The ordinance. The ordinance committee may want to document in our next CDO revision what is required on a 15 year statute of limitation. I always think this should be a form to let the public know this is what it would take to prove this is what an affidavit looks like and this is the kind of signatures you need. Because we get a lot of these and we're often in this place with people who are not attorneys trying to document something that is legally very complicated. They may have a document. They may have met the requirements. They just don't have the form. Which is sort of why I'm hesitant to vote on this without giving the applicant every opportunity to understand and prove the case. If we did table this, is that something that you can help educate him as to what would be required to be proof? Well, we could put it in our reopening request. Okay. That emotion you want to make? AJ? I'll try it. I move on, sorry, I don't know the application number. Let me try to get it again. On application, what's it? 2106. 2106, sorry, I've cleared the wrong thing. 2106, 29 DT, 92 Farrington Parkway that we reopen the public hearing at the next available DRB date, the next one that we have an open slot and request that the applicant bring forward either signed and sworn affidavits from the neighbors, stating that the parking has been continuous for at least 15 years and not discontinued for a period of greater than six months or bring those neighbors to the hearing to testify as such. AJ, discontinuance is 60 days. 60 days then, sorry. Is there, is that it, AJ? That's what I got. Okay, is there a second on AJ's motion? Okay, never mind. I can second that. No, I can do it. 30 seconds then. I actually think it's a good motion. Okay. Where's everybody else at? Discussion. Maybe I'm overthinking this, but I don't know for telling him what to put me off of David, isn't that a problem? No, we have forums all the time. Tell him what to put in the forum. Well, then I'm happy to revise it to bring out sworn affidavits from the neighbors as to whether the parking has been continuous. Yeah, I might be just overthinking it. I hear you though. I don't, I mean, we can question them. Sworn under the pain and penalty of perjury, I hope they're not going to lie. I mean, I think that all that's good. I also think that he really doesn't even have the need for this anymore. You know, I mean, he's just trying to park more vehicles, so many people want to do more vehicles on their property. So if he doesn't need the third spot or decides he doesn't want to do this work, I want to make sure I understand what would then, is this matter then just over if he says no? Yep. Like there's no, because it's not there right now. That's kind of it, right? Well, they're not there right now, but he could still have a defense to an enforcement proceeding action if he's not gone with beyond the 60-day period. No, I was more saying like if he doesn't think it's worth going through this effort, that this matters, but there's no other steps at this point. He's just stopped parking there. Yeah, because the state doesn't have an active enforcement issue pending. I want to point out we have a motion, and there's more discussion on the motion. Maybe we can vote on that motion. Controversial. All in favor of asking him to come back with the so-described affidavits all in favor. That's an opportunity for us to educate the public as to what would be acceptable. If anyone's watching. Everybody's watching, okay. No, they're definitely not. Kim was watching. Okay, I'll take your help, Kim. Thanks, Kim. Welcome, thank you. Well, Kim, you might want to stick around. Hi, hello, I'm... Oh, are we going to do anything on Dunder Road? Well, I don't know what we're allowed to do, but I mean, I remember this application, and I remember it being described as a room. I heard nothing about a kitchenette. I didn't hear anything about a side entrance. It's not on the plans. There's no hot tub in the plans. There's no pool access in the plans. That wasn't described. It was like I'm renting out a bedroom in my house as an Airbnb. And this is like renting out the property whereby people stay in a full living facility. And that doesn't ring true with what I heard in 2018. I was reading through briefly trying to skim through the minutes from that meeting when the application was there. There wasn't a ton of questioning on what was being rented. It was so much more focused on, are there tenants there now, or are they roommates? And that was like, we don't. Because it was a parking issue. Yeah. The question that I have on all of these Airbnb's is like, if a neighbor complains, then that means that we don't approve. Like, what's the line of whether there's a negative impact or not? And it's just the squeaky wheel gets the grease? I don't know if there needs to be. No, I agree. And part of it is like what level of review we apply. Is it conditional use where we can attach all these other conditions to it and there's the character, or is it some lower standard? I just, what's there and what I recall being represented to us don't seem to align up. But the real issue isn't really, I don't think are those kinds of things. It's how does it, how does a Airbnb get operated? And all those things could be there, and it could be operated in a way where it has no impact. And I hate the neighbors and that's fine. Or somebody could be operating in a way where it just, it impacts everybody. And those are things that don't show up in how we approve something or the conditions of approval even. Yeah, AJ, so some of your concerns, I think if he had presented that there was a kitchenette and there was a bathroom there and provided more detail based on what we have approved, probably still would have been approved. Yeah, but we might have attached other conditions to it. I mean, and then putting a hot tub in, there's not what requirements are there, that what level of change requires coming, I mean, that fact, the hot tub fact would have been relevant to my consideration of the impact on the neighborhood. I mean, that is the kind of thing. Isn't that cool? The pool was on the plans, original. Yeah, the pool, but not the hot tub. Yeah. There's no way for us to retain, not retain jurisdiction, but to grant these for like one or two years and then have them. I wanted to ask Kim, I wanted to ask him an exact question. That's a good point. Kim, do you have thoughts? I mean, in the past, we've just done this 12 months, you know, or some defined period of time, come back and report. But that leaves us in the position right now of not being able to do anything other than say, to the neighbors, if you think there's a violation, you know, go to code enforcement. I don't know that we would want more authority over these, but is that something we should be considering? I can definitely look into it more for you. I do hear like AJ's raise that there was some issues, and I am generally familiar with the issues with, you know, like the continuing jurisdiction over conditions. So certainly I can look closer into that for you. We're making approvals for some of that runs with the land, with the property, you know, having it be temper. I mean, as long as somebody lives there, they get to have it as the BNB if they move out. Well, I think that's a good point too, Brad. You know, just a few meetings ago, we talked about that and saying that having someone who's there and having it be their own property, lends the person to managing it better because they are concerned about their neighbors and they are concerned about their own, you know, livability standards. But what we did in fact or into that conversation is maybe someone has different standards, and they don't, and that there isn't anyway to, you know, create a standardization there. So it's, you know, we just, we just talked about that. Here's the other side of it. Yeah. Well, I'm just thinking about, you know, what we had talked about before and what can we even do on this and it's, what code enforcement would do is an investigation, correct? That's it. So. And the only thing I could think of is we impose really stringent conditions for a year or two, kind of like a trial. Like you can only rent to one person at a time or two people at a time, something that really limits the amount of use. And then if they want to use it more, they'd have to come back to us to ask to revise it. Yeah. I mean, we can certainly put in those like escalators, which is you can rent one weekend a month for the next year and, you know, something like that. It's like a level one B and B, huh? Yeah. Right. Or like a trial. Like you're on a trial period in which you can rent only the following amounts. And then you have to come back to us. But I mean, I'm not saying that's a good idea. I'm just trying to think of ways we could to have them come back to us. I almost think that has to be in the ordinance. Do we want them to come back to us or do we want the ordinance to provide Claire? I mean, it's sort of really coming to the state. The state and the city really have to get this together and they have to set the organizational structure up to deal with this. Correct. That's correct. So Scott, where are we? I know where are we in getting the new revision approved? So the short-term rental package is going to public hearing with the planning commission a week from tonight. And from there, you know, they can decide, they can decide to hopefully refer to city council. They can decide if they want to talk about it some more or they can let it die. Would that be helpful to any of the things we've been discussing tonight? I don't know if helpful is the right word. This is headed in the direction of not requiring a permit for short-term rentals in the case of... And I think the state, yeah, the state's heading in the other direction where they want to put together, you know, a full short-term rental task force. Well, to be clear, there are standards and those standards have simply been shifted in large part into Chapter 18 as opposed to the zoning code. Well, the other interesting thing about this is that the building code is different for short-term rentals. And that's really not enforced. Exiting and everything else and fire rating, all those things have to be different in a short-term rental. I mean, barring any changes to the CDO or the statute, in my mind, what I would like to see is an ability to say, you've got this for six months, we're going to give you a trial run or however much time we want to give this person. And then they come back and we hear this kind of testimony from neighbors. We can say, all right, nope, or we can modify it. They can't even say the testimony from the neighbors is all that clear. One neighbor really was upset. The other ones were more upset about the blue lights. Which like was not even... That's not relevant to what the check-in is. Like that's what I mean about... So if they come back to us, if three neighbors complain, then they're out. If only one does, it doesn't really solve the problem. And I think that it's understandable that homeowners want to protect their neighborhood feel, but there's nothing... It's just unclear on what we can or should do because there's nothing for us to look at and what the intent is because we're stretching this. Scott, is Tom Walsh, is he in the house that was not completed forever? Yes, yes. That was another fun neighborhood thing down there. And we had no ability to get somebody to finish the house for how many years? 13, I think. 13. That started in the 60s. What? It started construction in the 60s. So that's more than 13. So it sounds like we're in agreement. We don't have any action to take on this report. Right, other than the lights, that's a zoning violation. Well, but we don't have any action to take. We have no action to take, but... Well, could we issue a recommendation to code enforcement or something like that? I don't think so. I don't know, just take a look at it. I mean, I think they should. And I'd love for Kim to take a look at it. I think that's about as far as we can go with that. Yeah, I mean, it seemed like there was evidence presented that it's not consistent with the plans that were submitted. Sorry, go ahead. But I think that's about all we can say from what we heard. And it's up to zoning code enforcement to review that and see if they'd agree. I do wonder if something that we can consider, because even I think the other one that we approved today didn't include the level of detail of kitchen and bathroom, like what level... They're renting a whole unit, a whole apartment. That's a three bedroom separate apartment. So it applies as a kitchen and in there. Well, in those standard conditions that are cited, don't they include being operated consistently with the plans? Yeah, they have that casual presentation that are provided. The detail of the plans provided. And I don't know, maybe we were back in 2018 when the application was there, the board read it as this was providing all of the detail, whereas it wasn't. Well, I'm going to say, we're not going to take any action on this. I think that that's true. And I've been saying this for the past couple of years, too, is the Airbnb owners, a lot of times, don't want to hold themselves out there as business owners, but they are and they're making an enormous amount of money. I mean, simple math on this one can show that this one's made upwards over $75,000, probably closer to $100,000. Many people are actually running decently successful businesses. And if you're going to be a business owner, then there are additional standards to that. And I think people should hold themselves up to that standard. You can't make them, but the applicants, even still watching them, you should have that standard for yourself. Well, we have things about hours about when people come and go on those things or when they arrive and depart in terms of saying it. And by applying for a bed and breakfast, I mean, you are holding yourself as an innkeeper. You're putting yourself into an industry. Look at what your peers do that actually run bed and breakfast. Okay. I think it's an interesting philosophical discussion at this point about deliberative. You like it? Okay. Well, until next time, good night, everybody. Okay. All right. See you later.