 The time is 6.34, June 16th meeting of the Development Review Board for the City of Winooski is called to order. We are a Quadnight Judicial Volunteer Resident Board that upholds standards and procedures as defined in the Winooski zoning ordinance. We review and make decisions on various projects throughout the city, as well as appeals of the zoning administrator's determinations. We have authority through Vermont State Statutes to ensure due process, protect the rights of applicants and the rights of the public to participate in proposals for land development here within the city. Appeals of decisions made by this Board are heard by the Vermont Superior Court Environmental Division and the Vermont Supreme Court. Kevin Lumpkin is our Board Chair and cannot be here today. I am Matt Baselitz. I'm Vice Chair. I will be moderating from here at home over Zoom. We have various members of our Board here in the audience. I don't have everybody, but it looks like we have David, Elsie, Harland, Caitlyn here as well, so we do have a quorum. First up on our agenda is changes to the agenda, of which there is only one substantive item, a hearing on a minor subdivision at 165 East Spring Street, which is a preliminary plan review. Does anybody propose or request any changes to our agenda? Hearing none, we will move on to number three, which is public comment. Vermont's open meeting law grants an opportunity for public comment at every public meeting. If anybody would like to comment about anything that is not on our current agenda, this is your opportunity right now. Hearing nothing, seeing nothing, we'll move on to the approval of previous meeting minutes. I did kind of flow through them a little bit ago and everything looked okay. Does anybody have any proposed changes to the meetings from last month, or I will entertain a motion to approve them? A motion to approve last month's minutes. Harland motions, any seconds? A second. Elsie seconds. All those in favor of approving last month's minutes, please raise your hand or say aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed, say nay, and I don't believe we have any abstentions, so the motion carries unanimously. Next up, we do have our public hearing on the minor subdivision 165 East Spring Street, which is a preliminary plan review. A couple things to note before we get started, you may see pictures that indicate potential building developments. That is not what we're reviewing at this moment in time. We are just reviewing the subdivision and as well as a variance granted to the existing structure on the current lots, I believe. Is that correct? A waiver. Actually, yeah. A waiver. Sorry. Yeah. So that's what we will be hearing at this meeting. We do swear everybody in prior to receiving any testimony from either the applicant or anybody that would like to testify for or against this proposal. So we do ask that you do swear or affirm that you are telling the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury. And we can swear right now, everybody that's in the crowd or online, if you are online and you are offering testimony, please just indicate that you do affirm before you begin. And anybody in the crowd, please raise your hand and say, I swear, anybody who plans on speaking at this meeting. Okay. I believe we've got them all. We've got them all. Okay. Moving forward, I would like to bring our applicant up to tell us a little bit about the project. Yeah. So while the applicant's coming up for the representative for the applicant, Marty Corsel, I'll just do a quick overview here. This is a preliminary subdivision plan for a proposed two-lot subdivision and a dimensional waiver to the side yard setback for the existing structure that's on the property, the existing two-unit building. You previously saw this back in August of 2021 as a sketch plan. So that was a non-binding meeting. There were comments that were provided to the applicant, which were included in the agenda packet. So at that meeting as well, you determined that this would come forward both as a preliminary and then again as a final subdivision plan. So there will be another public hearing on this plan following tonight's hearing, presuming that the DRV renders a findings and decision tonight. In any case, there will be an additional hearing on this project before issuing a final decision before any action can be taken at that point. So with that, we have, like I said, Marty Corsel here representing the applicant and I can share my screen for any of the plans that you would like to see. Thank you. Marty Corsel with Champlain Consulting Engineers. And again, this is a project that you have seen at sketch, but a brief overview. There's an existing 0.43 acre lot that's located at 165 East Spring Street. We're proposing a subdivision for a total of two lots, creating one new lot. There will be a 0.26 acre lot that will contain the existing duplex that sits at the property now and also an existing garage. The new lot will be 0.17 acres and that will be proposed to have a new duplex. The existing duplex that's going to stay on lot one is currently accessed off of a private drive known as, to some folks, as Norman Court. And the access for that existing duplex will remain on Norman Court. Currently, as you can see on this is the survey plat, the cars come in off of Norman Court, go past the garage down the hill and there's a parking area next to the duplex. When we do the subdivision, the parking for the existing duplex will be relocating from that lower parking lot to up by and in the garage. So there will be a slight change. Yep, thank you for showing that. So there'll be a slight change where the driveway comes down and having two parking spaces outside the garage and two parking spaces inside the garage. The new duplex will be accessed off of East Spring Street and the parking, as proposed in this conceptual plan, we were showing that all in the garage. And again, as it was previously noted, the building, the driveway, the retaining walls, that is all just conceptual to show that the lot as configured, something could be built that meets the setbacks, coverage requirements and access. So that's kind of what that plan is showing. After the sketch plan hearing that we previously had, based on the comments, I did meet with both the Department of Public Works and the Fire Chief. Those were both Zoom meeting because that was back last year when everybody was still via Zoom. And we discussed the project with the Fire Chief. We were primarily concerned with emergency access and he voiced no concerns. Really the access for the existing duplex is going to be similar over Norman Court as it is today. And then he didn't have any concerns with servicing the new duplex off of East Spring Street. I also discussed the project with various staff at Public Works. And they also, they didn't voice any concerns related to the subdivision. They did make us aware of that for any actual development proposal for building. There are requirements that would have to be followed. Geotechnical reports going to have to be done. Stormwater, erosion of stormwater. Those are really the big things that we talked about. And then the other change from sketch at sketch, we were still unsure exactly where the water ensured. The water was serving the existing duplex, so we did hire a company to camera the lines and locate the lines so we do now know where that is. I'll discuss a little bit further, but as part of the subdivision at the state level, we are required to get water and wastewater permit. So that's another thing in these plans. There's a little more detail that is necessarily needed for the subdivision here, but we do have the water and the proposed water and sewer shown on here. And that would be part of getting this lot approved, would be getting that state water and wastewater permit. And again, that was discussed with Public Works because they were also kind of very curious as to where the services for the existing duplex was. It's a little strange. There's a... Are those drawn on there? They are, yes. They are on the kind of far bottom right of the screen. Sorry about that. So they leave the southeast lowest portion of the residence and generally head for that south property corner. Here's the sewer line. That's the proposed sewer line, correct. That's the existing that heads out towards the street. It was a little surprising as to where it was. Public Works had assumed it was going to be going more straight kind of above that manhole that's shown, but that's just not what was found in the field. So yes, but that other sewer line and there's a new water tap being proposed on that plan as well. That's right there. So I guess that's the quick overview. I can answer any questions or jump into the staff comments that were provided and maybe address some items that were brought up in there. If that's okay. I have a quick question. Prior to the... Actually, so back in August, this question came up. It also came up on a joining project that was going on. There were some property line discrepancies and we were wondering if that's been addressed. If you've been able to get out and get things resurveyed, remarked, anything like that. Are the neighbors happy right now with where things are surveyed and marked? Sure. Thank you. So we subcontracted out to Latitude's land surveying and they have prepared a survey plat that is, I believe, the last page of this packet. I believe, yep, right there. And there's a whole bunch of notes over on the right side that kind of explains how they determined. Because again, there were two conflicting surveys, one that had done by, I believe it was Warren Robenstein and the other one by Stuart Morrow. So this is the plat that was prepared by the licensed land surveyor that we subcontracted to. I do not know if the neighbors are in agreement with this. I believe they're here and may be able to speak to that. Can you remind us what the discrepancies were and how they changed with the current plat? It was really the lines on the north that there were some different, I believe there were some different pins and the two different plats show that line to the north slightly differently. So I don't know if there were any changes from what were submitted in the sketch, but this is what the surveyor has is. The darker line. The darker line. Yeah, so there's the dark solid line is the existing boundary. And then there's a dark dash line that cuts through the middle and that's the proposed subdivision line. But yes, the the darker line is the existing boundary line as located by the land surveyor. And are there easements that were discovered from Norman Court? Not that I can find no. So just as a little bit of additional background, the previous project that came in for 159 East Spring Street that where we raised the question of the conflicting surveys, there was an appeal that went to the environmental division of the Superior Court, which was settled. I don't know if that included any clarification on the boundary line, but it did at least provide the access to 159 East Spring Street and it confirmed that piece of it. But I don't know if it did anything to clarify the boundaries. Where's 159? Oh, sorry, it's the it's this property here on the on the left to the left. But that doesn't apply to this. That's correct. It does not. But that's that's where the discrepancy between the two surveys was first noted is with that project. So it may be that the boundaries, the greater discrepancy was on their property and not related to this property as much. I think it so the note from the sketch plan was really just to confirm that there wasn't any discrepancies for 165 East Spring Street that would have been reflected from the surveys, the differing surveys from 159 East Spring Street. If I may, I think part of the issue may have been that was a sketch plan. The survey had not done the full deed research. He wasn't prepared to actually prepare a survey plat whereas now he's he's done the deed research and this is the plat he's prepared. So we feel more comfortable with those based on his deed research whereas that sketch it was kind of based on some very preliminary information. So that was I believe why it was pointed out to make sure that we got to this level for this meeting. Okay, thank you. I see Caitlin has her hand raised digitally. Yeah, thanks Matt. So I have a question. I remember when we looked at the sketch plan for this proposed project. And one of the largest questions we had was the access onto East Spring Street. And I understand that the fire chief has been consulted and there aren't concerns with with access for emergency situations but there's been a traffic study or anything conducted, and I realized that we're only looking at the subdivision right now and not any structural changes but my question is, is for a subdivision. Do you subdivide if there's not access to the lot, I guess is what I'm asking so I don't know Eric if that's a question for you also. In order to create a new lot there needs to be access to a public street and there needs to be frontage on a public street consistent with the minimum dimensional standards. They are showing that they have access to East Spring Street for the new lot because that is what's being created. That's where we would look for the access. The rest of it would remain as an existing lot and the access off of Norman Court would remain or what's referred to as Norman Court would remain as the access to that property, since nothing's changing on that side. Okay, but so the access would have to be at least approved locally before that. Okay, and that has not been confirmed for any land development to occur on the newly created lot. It would have to go through. It would have to go through a full development process which would include application and permits from the Department of Public Works to verify that the curb cut is of the correct width and dimensions and that the access actually can be put in. So those, they are on a public street so they have the ability to access it, what the access actually looks like would come in when the property is developed. And so that was one of the items that was discussed when I met with Public Works primarily on this lot concerned with site distances. So one of the plans that we prepared, sheet C3, again, it's a conceptual plan, but it does show the grading that would be required. I believe the one just before that maybe. It does show the line of sight distances showing that we do have, that we do meet the minimum sight distance requirements for a car in that location where the driveways being proposed. And again, that was provided to DPW when we discussed this with them. Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the board? I have a couple questions and I don't know if it's a combination for you and Eric sort of in the weeds ordinance questions. It sounds like the waiver is being requested on the assumption that that's needed to subdivide the lot. Eric? Yeah, so that was, sorry, let me get back to a different plan here. Yes, so the way that I interpret our regulations is that in order to create a new lot, the existing lot would need to be in conformance as well. And so I look at that as meaning the buildings on that lot also. So because it's a preexisting building, it does encroach into that side yard setback just barely or by a couple of feet. So in order for the new lot or for both lots to be fully conforming, I recommend that they request the waiver as part of this process as well to make sure that it's clarified that if granted, that the existing building will is in conformance with those, with those dimensional standards. And I just do want to put that and that's what had been told to us. What we are requesting, it's not because of the new line. So we're not putting the subdivision line too close to the existing house. It's an existing condition on the existing property line. I understand that reading the list of reasons were allowed to grant a waiver. I wasn't convinced that allowing a subdivision of the lot is one of the reasons. It seems like it's intended, the waiver request is intended when you want to do something to the building. So we'll be granting some sort of carte blanche waiver that makes this a conforming lot without them having done any project to it. It didn't seem that, I don't know if we can bring that memo up that has that language in it. Because you had Eric mentioned that you thought it fell under the building rationale. Do you remember which item that was under David? It's this one, if you scroll down I think. I mean sorry, which item? Right there, two A, B, C and D on top of that page. So a waiver may only be granted as necessary to, and you said I think Eric B, allow for additions or improvements to a pre-existing non-conforming structure, but they aren't requesting any changes to this building. What about A, reasonable development? Isn't this reasonable development of a non-conforming lot? I guess they're making it too long. It's already developed, yeah. So in this case the waiver would be granted to allow the existing building to remain in its existing location. If they wanted to make any alterations to the building, they would encroach into that setback any further. They would need to come back before us again to request an additional waiver. This waiver would not grant them access to that setback for anything. It would be written such that it allows the existing building to remain in that side yard setback the dimension that it already is. So just to clarify that question from my understanding, I mean it's kind of, you can kind of view them as two separate things. So the subdivision and the additional proposed parcel is separate from the location and the non-conformance of the existing structure. I mean that's not changing. It would be non-conforming now. It would be non-conforming. And even if the subdivision wasn't granted, we could still issue that waiver one way or the other. So they're separate actions. Is that correct? They are, yes. The waiver is independent of the subdivision, but the way that I view it in order for the subdivision to move forward, the waiver would need to be granted as well to ensure that both the new lot and the existing lot are conforming. And is that sort of an interpretation? It's not spelled out anywhere, doesn't seem that... Not explicitly, but yes, that's my interpretation that any new lot needs to meet our minimum dimensional standards. So because lot one, as it's identified on the survey plot, because lot one doesn't currently exist in that configuration, I view that as a new lot and it would need to meet the minimum dimensional standards. Interesting. Anybody else have any other questions for the applicant? I want to go back to the easement issue. Is there any intention to seek an easement? Or are you just sort of going to let it continue as it's been since you don't really have access to that road? We're not proposing any changes. It's the same number of units that are accessing the road. So we're not proposing any changes. My client did receive a basically a legal opinion before he purchased the property. Or maybe I'm not sure when he received that, but they did say that he had continued access, but I don't know if there was a formal agreement that he found, but that was his legal opinion. I mean, I wonder if we might want to require that since the subdivision requires you have access to it, as we already discussed, right, and they don't have legal access. So it just needs to have frontage on a public street. So which the property would have frontage on a public street. Spring Street. Yes. I don't believe there's a requirement that the access is also off of that public street. It just needs to front on the public street. I think the assumption is that that's where access would come from. But in this case, they have access from an alternative way. So they would not need to create a new access to the property. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the board? So I missed the first hearing on this in August, but I'm just curious if anyone has discussed the grade of the new driveway coming from East Spring Street. Was that was that a concern? Yes. So that is actually we did also prepare on that conceptual. There's another conceptual plan that we do have a cross section that goes through. I believe that sheet C four. And that does show the grading of that, not just the driveway, but the again, a conceptual building. So that does show the driveway meeting the town standards. Okay. Thank you. I mean, am I correct that questions and concerns about runoff things of that nature would be addressed in any meeting that pertains to the actual structure and development of that. That new lot. Correct. Okay. Yes, because we because we don't know what the what the development will be. We we can't evaluate the impacts and that would all be covered when a development when an application for development comes in. Okay. Is the change to the driveway part of this or not? That's also yes, it is. Yes. This application. Correct. It is. So I think one of the comments was about that there was not any specifics about how the the former driveway area would be. And that's that's I will address that. I can address that now or when I get to it. So yes, that will be restored to a natural state. We're proposing a grass slope. I believe if you go to the next sheet, we can at least see. There's this is a pretty busy drawing. So we don't have a hatch on that, but you can see that the old driveway is kind of ghosted under there. Thank you. So all of that would be put back to grass. How many steps are needed to get down to the house? Oh, I'd have to count that. It's quite a few. Yeah. But that's not that looks like 50 steps, but it's not really that many. Right. I'm not sure how many steps it is, but it we did. We could count them. I don't think it's quite 50. But yeah, those actually are shown as the steps that would be needed with with the intermediate landing. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Hearing none. None seeing none. I thank you, Marty for. Explaining what's happening here from your end and we invite joining members members of the public to comment on this project as well. Is it possibly possible for me to address some other staff comments that I think we're looking for some. Oh, yes. Yes. Sorry. Yeah. But you have more. Yep. No, thank you. So I just wanted to highlight it a couple of items. I'll just hit them quickly. So under item. We're 6.2 subdivisions, age, general standards, one development density under relationship to the standard. It is noted that both lots meet the minimum dimensional standards for the RC zoning district. Just discussed item number two under existing site conditions, the restoration of the existing driveway back to grass. Item three, the Winooski municipal development plan and regulations under relationship to standard. It notes the Winooski the city of Winooski adopted the current master plan in 2019. The master plan includes goals and policies to promote affordable home ownership, redevelopment of properties to maximize existing infrastructure and redevelopment of underutilized properties along the gateways. This proposal would support these goals by creating a new building lot in the city that can increase housing opportunities. Under four district settlement patterns, we've discussed a couple times that the any of the development shown is conceptual only. So probably didn't need to mention that again because we've hit on that a few times under. Can I hop in there since it relates to that one? Sure. Where it talks about sidewalks, this new subdivision is only going to be accessible by car, basically. Yes, there is no current sidewalk on that side of the street now. Eric, what's the intention of the language where it says sidewalks shall be provided? I believe that's intended if there's a what I would call a traditional subdivision where you're putting in new roads. Is that a pocket one that we looked at? Correct. Correct. Where something like this where it's fronting on the road and there's no new roads or any additional infrastructure being created that there wouldn't be a requirement for sidewalks. And in my discussions, I believe it was my discussions with with DPW have been a different project. I think it was this project. There there are certain times when it's possible that the city is planning a future sidewalk so they would request an easement for that just to allow it to be easier and no land takings in the future. They didn't anticipate any sidewalk on this side of the road in the future. So that was not part of what they would be requesting. Okay. In our previous comments, we talked about known or mapped environmental features in the immediate vicinity of the subdivision. Why did we mention that refresh my memory? That's a good question. I believe if I remember correctly that was related to any potential future development that might because it's such a it's such a steep slope that it might open up any springs or seeps or things of that nature. In future development, so at least having those identified on the plans. Okay. That's my recollection. Yeah. Challenging site to say the least. Certainly based on the conceptual layout, the local concrete contractors are going to enjoy this project. Yes. It will be quite profitable for them. I want to make sure I hit all of these. In some of these, again, we just, you know, obviously agree with under item seven survey monuments, specific survey monuments or markers will be included on the final plan is required by governing regulations. We recorded as part of the final subdivision locations shown on the preliminary subdivision plan. We certainly agree with that under item 10 common open spaces. Actually, I'll just jump up to nine again discusses energy conservation to the extent possible energy development on the newly created law would need to meet state of Vermont's residential building energy standards standards, including methods for energy conservation. We created that as well. Item 10 common open spaces. There was a request additional information regarding specific slope percentages may be needed to ensure consistency with section 4.8. Otherwise, no natural resource have been identified on the properties. So as we were just talking, there certainly are some steep slopes here. The upper slope is right around 25%. And then the lower slope closer to the road is greater than 25%. And that's why in the conceptual plan, we did show we would have been proposing retaining walls to deal with that. And during any sort of construction, there may be shoring required just to make sure that's all handled properly on a small site. So we're certainly aware that the management of that construction will be very important on this site. So just one additional clarification on this item, my response here indicating that there are no significant natural resources on the property. That is related to the natural resources inventory, not just the mapped information from I forget which state agency does that either DC, DC, I think. Correct. Yeah. So it's that was a review of their mapping, not necessarily anything specific on the site itself. So just to make that clear. Again, we've already discussed this by item 11 stormwater management erosion control. Any proposed development will need to incorporate stormwater management for any new structures or areas of impervious coverage on the property. We're certainly aware of that access and driveways. I think we've already discussed. We're not making any changes to the volume of traffic on Norman core existing duplex is going to stay in existing duplex all of the new traffic. All the new trip ends would be accessed off of East spring street. This question I think was already asked under 13 driveways saying that the driveway would need to be reviewed and permitted through the Department of Public Works. This review would occur in conjunction with an application for land development, which is not included with this request. Again, we did. We just wanted to make sure that this is a saleable law in the future. So there is a little more information in this plan set than would typically be needed for just a straight subdivision. So that's why we did go to the level of showing the site distances with a conceptual grading plan. Moving forward item 16 name signs and 911 locations. It's expected the property, the proposed property will be addressed from East spring street addressing should be reviewed by the state E 911 coordinator and be included with the final plan submission. So we'll certainly do that prior to any final plan submission under item 18 public facilities and utilities. It was noted about says the city has adequate capacity to serve the proposed property with water and wastewater. Again, not a requirement at this time. But as I mentioned before, for the subdivision, we will need the state water and wastewater permit. That's kind of the de facto state subdivision permit. So we will be requesting formal allocations for water and sewer prior to to that application being submitted. And I believe those were the only additional items I wanted to touch on. All right. Thank you. Are there any more questions or comments from the board before we bring numbers of the public up hearing nothing seeing no indication that anybody has anything we thank you and I will I think we'll have Eric probably choose the order of people who want to speak. Sure, we've got three people, three other folks here tonight. So I think, however you all want to, if you are interested in speaking however you want to do it, just come up to the to the table and introduce yourself and provide your thoughts and testimony. My name is Manier Corey. I'm from 26 Hood Street, which he was referring to as north of the of his where his project is. I have several, several, several concerns. Two years ago when this was proposed, the fire department absolutely refused to allow this to happen because of the amount of traffic that is going on the spring street on a daily basis. And it doesn't matter what time of day or night it is. And that's close right to the close to the railroad crossing where thousands of cars go by every single day. And to bottle neck it up right there in front of there is going to block traffic all the way up East spring East Allen Street. And for them to be turning in and out of there, that's going to be dangerous for anybody turning in and out of there. Others and they refuse to allow this to happen two years ago, but it seems like all of a sudden it's okay. I mean, I don't know what they did with the traffic that's still going to be there on a daily basis. And anybody that drives on that road knows that there's, you know, that amount of traffic if not more. And then when and then when there's and then when the train comes by, it blocks the traffic even more. My other question is that the the the Norman Court during the time of this, if this ends up being a reality. How are they going to be getting trucks, the service trucks and the dump trucks and the graders and all the things that they need to do into that project? They certainly cannot use Norman Corp. That is not a viable option for anything. We had to we had to cut trees on both sides of that driveway to allow the fire trucks and ambulance in the event that something happened in the other two homes. And there's no way that there's going to be enough room for any of that to happen. And and then the other thing is that the existing garage that you're looking at on the top, if you look where that checkered line is, that's the that's the line between our property and there. And it's about three feet in front of that garage, maybe four, which means that he can no longer park cars there because we're putting a fence up. We're doing it along our along our property line. And and you know, you know, and then when you're saying something about the granting them a special. You know, if you look at the form there, it specifically said what would it be allowed for if it's a pre exist attachment to a pre existing condition, but somehow your interpretation of that isn't that is not that. Can you explain where the where the fence will be going right where they along that dotted line to the to the north of the you can you can see it right there. No, not that right there. Come down one more to the right in front of the garage. I'm going to get up and point it to you. Somebody seems to not be nowhere. How do I do this? Right there. That's what I was referring to that appears to be on their property. According to this, what's that that appears to be on their property. Well, I mean, we we went with morals assessment of everything. And then they went and then they didn't like that one. So they went and got two other people to do the to do the same thing. So it just doesn't make any sense to me how all of a sudden it's okay to have this driveway come in from East East Spring Street. And when two years ago was an absolute no. So by building a fence there, your intention is not to allow them to use their current garage? Well, I mean, it's along our property line. Is that so that's what you're intending to close off that access? No, we're doing it because we want to put a fence on our property line. The effect will be that they won't be affected right that the end effect would be that. Yes. Okay. Thank you. You can continue. Sorry. I don't that's all I have to say like right now. I mean, I am concerned about all the things that I just mentioned about. And the, you know, if it does end up getting approved that what is the plan putting dump trucks and back hose and and all the excavating equipment that they're going to need. I mean, that's a dirt road. That's not a sanctioned road. It's private road. So there's no way of getting that in that in there or out of there. And the other thing is about, I mean, the, if it doesn't, if everything ends up coming in from Norman court, then they aren't going to have the access to the street, right? If there's no driveway there. Then there either can't be a project there. Or they're going to have to come in from Norman court, which is going to add, you know, dozens more cars onto the property. Or they'll have to reconfigure the way they're, they're going to plant their. But, you know, that's basically all I have to say. I mean, there's a couple of other people who have different concerns whose homes are on the right there. So. Where do you live, sir? 26 hood. It's not on the picture. It's the big house right above the, on the other side of Norman courts. And that the upper property line is all that we have like almost three acres of land. Eric, is it possible to get the house right there? That's our house right there. And we own all of the property back to those back of those homes. And the, all of that all the way down to the spring street. And then the, they have the, the first home on the, on the left is also ours. On the spring street. It's a big lot from a new ski. Yes, it is. Yeah. And we don't have any expenses of doing anything with it. We don't need to do that. So. So you, you own Norman court. Yes. That's your driver. Our family owns it. Yeah. And how does, but, but there's no easement for access to their property. Correct. We just allowed it to happen. So I don't know why the. How long has it been like that? We moved there in 62. And, and was the driveway to the garage there in 62? The driveway, that garage wasn't there in 62. There was no, right, there was no parking there. There was just a driveway going down to the existing home. And that was it. Yeah. And there was a single family that lived there. So there was maybe two or two cars. Sure. At most going up and down that driveway. And now there's a, it's a duplex. And there was as many as six or seven cars going up and down that driveway. And nobody else seems to want to maintain the road at all, figuring that somebody else's road, let them deal with it. Would your thoughts on this project change if there was an effort to reach out and offering easement to come to some sort of agreement for co-management of this road? Probably not. The reason being is that we just don't want to have more traffic going in and out of that driveway. Then what's already there? Caitlin has her hand up here, Matt. Good. Oh, yeah. Sorry. So just thinking about what you were saying about, um, erecting a fence, it kind of, it's because there's not an easement. It doesn't really matter which survey is correct or not because either line, if you put a fence up along it, it would essentially block access to the garage and to do that parcel entirely correct. Like it doesn't matter if it's the dash line that's right in front of the garage or the one that is listed on the current site plan. What are you trying to say? We're not allowed to put a fence up along our property line. Well, I guess, so I'm just kind of, I guess I'm just clarifying. So I understand that Norman court is on your parcel. So are you going to put it up on that property boundary all the way along, um, uh, along all of the other parcels on that side of Norman court? Mm hmm. Yes. It'll be all the way along that whole side of the, um, from, um, the garage, which is, which is, um, 16 hood, um, from that property line all the way back to, um, um, past. Well, up to where our existing, we have a duplex there. It'll be up to that point. Uh, any other questions or comments? I have the question. I'm so sorry. I didn't catch your name and I'm trying to take no. Cory. I'm in here. Me near Cory. Okay. Great. Thank you very much. Uh, we will invite the next, uh, to come up and comment and we will give Marty an opportunity to, uh, reply to all of these, uh, at the end. Oh Lord. Yeah. My name is Chris. Subard. I own the property 16 hood that is directly behind the garage toward hood street. So I put a fence up there too. And that's where he's going to connect to. Let's start with, uh, the stairs that was tried before behind the garage. You will find the remnants of those stairs that people damn near broke their neck going up and down in the wintertime. So that's not a very good idea to start with. Looks like a lot of stairs. Yeah. It was a lot of stairs. The remnants, like I said, the remnants of which are behind the garage. The garage itself is foundation is crack. It looks like it's getting ready to fall down the hill. So if you're going to do something with the stormwater for the new building, you better do something for the existing building because the foundation is caving in. Meredith bushy will tell you the same thing because there's been trees from that hill falling in her yard. And had to have her husband move, remove them. The prior tenants in that existing structure when they went moving out could hardly get downstairs to get anything out of there because with the black mold that's existing because of a spring that runs right down that hill through past that garage on the backside of my property and right into that existing structure. So that's something that needs to be addressed probably before this new building even thinks about going up. Two years ago, like my friend Muneer was saying, there was a talk about where the new structure is going to be an existing parking area maybe for the Parisi house, the 159 and 165. And it was absolutely shot down because there was no sight lines to build a driveway there because it was too steep. Like he says, all of a sudden we're good. Kind of funny. I don't understand that one at all. I don't see how the fire chief can change his mind or anybody else can. I think that's pretty good right there. I think he should fix his existing stuff before he should even bother because I think his garage is about ready to fall down the hill too. And that one big tree right behind it that's holding up has been tunneled out underneath from a woodchuck and it's going to fall once it falls it's going to take out the existing structure in real good shape. He's got a lot of work to do on his existing stuff before he bothers with something new. Okay. Thank you, Chris. Thanks for sharing. Yeah. Anybody else out there? I can't see the crowd, but there's anybody else out there. We would love to hear from you. Hello. My name is Bonnie Ryder and I live at Four Hood Street, which is at the corner of Hood and Spring. And so actually coming here, I didn't come to the first hearing, but I'm really more confused now because am I allowed to ask a clarifying question? Sure. The existing house is up on a hill. The second house is also going to be up on that hill. So we don't have any plans. These are all preliminary as far as any structure or any development of this site. So nobody can speak to what actually will be proposed and that will be in a separate hearing. I see. I see. But the plans as presented right now, which are not plans, they're just a, hey, this is a possibility kind of thing. Show that it looks as though it's being built into the, into the hillside. That's what I, that's what I see. I may be incorrect. Okay. I bring up the same concern about spring street because my driveway comes out of spring street. And I know how hard it is to come out of there on that corner. It's extremely dangerous corner that I know Meredith bushy has been working on as well. But I sit on my front porch. I mean, I joke about it being entertaining, but it's really dangerous and to have more cars in that area. And it sounds like the existing parking is going to be blocked and where are those people going to park and go to make more parking issues or traffic on spring street. So anyway, that's what I wanted to say. I just, I wanted more clarification of where the actual building and parking was going to be only because my property meets his at spring street. So, thank you. Thank you. Great question. Sure. So do you, when you're pulling out, do you feel it's dangerous to get onto spring street from your driveway? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Because there's no light. There's no stop sign. There's, I mean, there's a stop sign going towards the highway, but there's nothing stopping cars from coming down spring street. Do you normally go right or? I back out. I find it, it's, I can back out and go this way, not towards the highway, but the other way. So you cross back out crossing the lane of traffic. I back out this way. And then if I need to make a U turn or something, I, you know, if nothing's coming, I go into that courtyard apartment's drive and back out. It's really dangerous over in that area. And how, obviously it's a different location, but how far up the street can you see? I assume you can see pretty well the other way up the hill, but how far that way can you see? Oh, I can see. You can see. Yeah. I mean, I have a bush that I need to cut down that, that prevents sometimes me seeing from the highway side. No, visually you can see. It's just the traffic. It's just, there's a lot of traffic. Yeah. And they're doing that construction now, which you can really see how bad it is going to be just, just by this construction that they're doing now. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks. Thank you, Bonnie. Is there anybody else in the room or online that would like to make any comments? So I know we had Meredith bushy online. Meredith, you can go ahead and unmute yourself. Hi, this is Meredith bushy. It doesn't not have video. Is it just audio? Yes. Okay. Real quick before you begin, because we weren't able to swear you in technically, we just need to affirm that you are telling the truth. I am. Okay. Thank you. And just to clarify Bonnie's property, she's able to see because she is on the corner and she has not gone around. Her property is not further down East spring street. So further down the visibility is much reduced because it's around a bit of a bend. Just to clarify with regard to pulling out. Just with regard to that, because I, one of my questions was I did not see, you know, a written response in the application regarding the committee's request or the board's request for, you know, emergency services regarding our communication with emergency services regarding, you know, a cut out of the driveway onto East spring street. And the level of detail was reported verbally by Marty, but was not reported in a written form and not sure if that is required from the board. And Caitlin did ask my question regarding safety of that cut out because I do remember that very well from last meeting in addition to no plan to signal eyes. The intersection that is quite unsafe where we certainly watch, you know, a weekly car accidents and very unsafe driver behavior. That is really frankly a menace to the neighborhood. So adding, you know, more traffic in a, it just, it just seems very irresponsible of the city if that were approved. And then in regard to the dimensional waiver request, which encroaches my property at 14 hood street. So it abuts the garage there, you know, it was citing to the waiver sites that there's no reasonable alternative that exists for citing the garage structure in as it is an existing structure and existing property line. And the reason all of the alternative is certainly not be allowed a garage on a property to be developed into an apartment that, you know, closely abuts to single family residential properties that, you know, it's highly invasive, inappropriate and is absolutely considered encroachment. And does encroach into our property line. And then last with regard to the city, when you see master plan, you know, certainly safe adequate housing is included. Your is in line with the current city, you know, you know, master plan and the current duplex as Chris had said, does need attention in addition to the garage. You know, for example, the applicants bank is eroding my property. I've reached out to come up with a plan. He had claimed that the bank was not our property. And now his survey certainly does. And I have seen the survey before because he did send it to me and a plan needs to be put in place to, you know, to prevent further erosion because it is eroding our property at 14 hood street. And no plan to prevent further erosion. He's made it clear that he does not want to place in a retaining wall. It's not in his, his, his plans. However, not only is the erosion on the bank, eroding our property at 14 hood street, but it is also taking out the foundation of the existing duplex residents. Which I have previously submitted photos of. And then in addition to the two flights of stairs, the, with regard to the two flights of stairs accessing, you know, a home from a parking. Accessing the home from the parking will cause, you know, reduced tenant safety with regard to the master plan of safe housing. And it'll certainly increase noise traffic and pedestrian traffic. So, you know, so, so that's all I have to say just so, several comments. Okay. Thank you, Meredith. Any questions for Meredith? No. Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else either online or in the room that would like to speak before we bring Marty back up to respond? There is one other person online Veronica, if you're interested in providing any comments, you can use the raise hand feature or the chat feature. Otherwise, you can just listen in. Are there some comments in the chat? She looks like she did raise her hand. Yes. Okay. Oops. Oh, it looks like Veronica, you're using an older version of zoom. So I won't be able to unmute you at this time. Are you able to put any comments into the chat that we could see? Do you have a workaround for that? No, but I do. Mr. Brunette's wife is Veronica, so he may be trying to get in using her account. Okay. Do you know her last name? Actually, I thought I said that. Nope. Could he call in? Well, actually it's the property owner, so I'll just bring him into the meeting. I think I can do that here. Yeah. Okay. Yes. There we go. Okay. Alan, we have you in the, in the meeting if you'd like to say anything. Well, not at this time. Thank you very much for, thank you everybody for participating and bringing your opinions. And, you know, we're listening. You know, everything we can to address your concerns as much as it's, you know, within reason. And I'm sorry. I'm enjoying the meeting late. I think Marty's doing a good job at representing me here. Okay. Thank you very much. And I don't believe we have anybody else. I would like to bring Marty up while the issues that were brought up previous testimony is still fresh. And is that. Thank you. So you haven't any response to anything that was brought up. Yeah, I just want to touch on a few things. Again, so my, my conversation with the fire chief was over zoom. On October 29th, 2021. That's again, he voiced no concerns. So I'm not sure of any previous, I was not involved with any previous projects here. So I'm not aware of any issues. He just did not bring up any issues for what we were proposing. Just to clarify, that conversation was only about the possibility of an additional structure on new lot. That was for emergency access in general. So he was aware that the existing duplex would still be continued, would continue to be served off of Norman court. So Norman court was part of the conversation. Yes, it was. Yeah, I believe one of the gentlemen that spoke previously did mention that they had worked with the, and they can correct me if I'm, if I misheard them, but I think they worked with the fire department to clear some trees and alleviate any concerns or alleviate some of the concerns that the fire department had about utilizing Norman court. Let's see. There was again some talk about the variants. And I do believe that again, that is a, we're not creating a new encroachment. That's an existing nonconformity. And we do believe that this is reasonable, reasonable development that does qualify under one of the criteria. This does meet the town's master plan. It meets the minimum lot size. With regards to there was a few concerns with traffic. And I think there's two separate, there may be two separate issues that I'm hearing. One is the actual site distance and access of the location of the driveway and the safety from that driveway. And again, currently there is, there is a bank there. So what we were proposing, it's not going to be a steep driveway going up the hill to cut that driveway. And there is some grading that needs to be done. That actually takes away some of that hill that's causing some of the site distance issues. So that's why it wasn't just us showing the line with, oh, here's the site distance that we need. We were showing the grading that would be needed to accomplish that. So that certainly is part of any driveway proposal there. It is going to have to be benched down and cleared so that the site distance is adequate. And then with regards to the increased volume of traffic, there have been numerous residential units approved in the immediate vicinity in the last few years. They're under construction right now. There was a four unit building that was just, they just finished construction in the spring on the other end of East Spring Street. There's the two large multifamily homes that are just out on the main road. So this is a very, we're looking for a duplex, two more units. There have been a many, many units approved in this area that contribute considerably more traffic to the network in this area. So I did just want to comment on that as well. We certainly, at Sketch, we heard the concerns about the springs. That's excellent information and certainly would be part of any sort of design for the new house. And those, you know, if there are retaining walls, again, that's all conceptual, but it is good to know that that is going to be part of the design considerations needed. And it certainly would be a part of any reasonable development there. With regard to the stairs, that's not going to be hidden from the, any tenants. So currently these are rental units. They're going to be made clearly aware of the stairs being the access. So again, any person who chooses to live there is going to understand that the stairs are part of the access or are the access. Let me just see. There was a few comments I just want to make sure. What about the lack of an easement? Not to get too far into the weeds, but how does that play into this whole scenario? Yeah, so I'd either defer to Mr. Brunette or I believe that's going to be more of a legal issue and an engineering issue. I can't comfortably comment on that, but I do believe that an attorney will need to, again, there is an opinion that an attorney issued. We may need something to follow up on that and provide kind of the basis for that opinion. That seems like, again, not in our purview necessarily, but that may be a major factor here in this whole. Certainly agree. That is very important. Let's see. Do you have a consideration for a workaround if that turns out to be an insurmountable legal issue? Well, if there, that would mean the existing duplex is no longer, there's existing tenants living there. So I think if that was, that really doesn't have impact on the subdivision because that would cut off the existing tenants from the existing duplex. So I think that certainly is an issue. I don't think we have a workaround. We haven't really thought of that at this time because the proposal for the newly created subdivided lot is not access off of Norman Court. It is over. It is via East Spring Street. Let's see. And I believe it was Ms. Ryder. She was just curious where the development is as she's one of the budding neighbors down on the corner of Hood Street. And I did just want, I'm not sure if you'd seen the plans. Again, what we're showing for the house and driveway are conceptual, but those are certainly the furthest part of the lot frontage from her house. There is no proposed construction or new law or new structures on the southeast corner of the lot. So I just wanted to make sure that, she'd asked that question. So I just wanted to make sure that that was clear that we're not proposing anything in front of, between that existing duplex and the road close to her property line. And then I think just some of the other issues brought up, I think are good for Mr. Burnett to be aware of with regard to potential foundation issues or some trees that may need to be looked at. But those really are not part of the subdivision that we're requesting. Those are issues that are there regardless of this project. So I just kind of think that's a, those are some separate issues. Again, it's good to be made aware of. But those are not part of the subdivision process. Okay, thank you. Any other members, yeah, any other members of the board have any, any follow up questions for Marty while we have them here? I think it's for Eric, actually. If, if this division were to be approved and you know, owner or the new owner were to propose a duplex for that lot, that would not come before the DRV. Unless they needed relief from some of the standards that a duplex, a two unit development would not be required to come before the DRV. That would be a use allowed by right in the zoning district. Correct. Okay, thank you. So assuming we don't have any more comments. Yeah. Well, I was just kind of, I'm sorry to jump in just like that. I just wanted to ask people from the review board, did you, do you feel like you have the answer that you needed in regards to the right of a way? So the right of a way, I do have an opinion on the right of a way that basically, you know, according to the lawyer, I do have a legal access to my duplex and what we are debating today or what we're talking about today. Really the access to my duplex is not impacted by this since the subdivision would be accessed by eSpring. Is there any questions in regards to that? Or is it clear for everybody? No, but I'm sure it's going to come up in future, in future conversations, I think. At least I don't have any questions on that, but what we are here to talk about today is truly the subdivision part of the whole puzzle. So right away, he's been access all of that stuff is a conversation for the future and likely a conversation between new lawyers and papers. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Marty, did you have something else? I'm so sorry. I thought Alain had something, so I was trying to pause things if he had a question. With these hybrid meetings, I'm never sure who can see what's going on. Yeah. Anything else to add? Thank you though. Exactly. All right. Thank you so much. So typically we do move into a deliberative session. Usually that happens if things move quickly, immediately after this meeting that will be closed. Kevin's here. Kevin. So that will likely be the case tonight, but if there is no more comments, no more questions on this agenda item, I believe we can move on and you will receive an answer. What's the deadline? Is it 30 days? So after a decision is issue, we have 45 days once the hearing is closed to issue a decision and then that decision has a 30 day appeal period. Okay. Okay. Great. Great. So also before we move on, I just want to, and since Kevin's here for his favorite part of any meeting is to read the exhibit lists into the record. Yes. So for this hearing tonight as exhibit A, we have the zoning application with the narrative and the subdivision plans and waiver request. Exhibit B is the notice of the DRB public hearing that was posted at 165 Spring Street. Exhibit C are photos of the public hearing notice that was posted at 165 Spring Street. Exhibit D are is the public hearing notice that was run in the paper. Exhibit E is proof of that publication in the paper. In this case, it was published in seven days. Exhibit F is a memo to the adjacent property owners notifying them of this hearing. Exhibit G is a list of the people receiving that notification. Exhibit H is the agenda for tonight's meeting. Exhibit I is the comments from the August 27th, 2021 DRB meeting on the sketch plan. Exhibit J is the memo from me to you all on the overview of the information for tonight's meeting. Exhibit K is the memo from me regarding the subdivision standards. Exhibit L is the memorandum for me on the dimensional standards. Exhibit M will be the sign-in sheet from tonight's meeting for both the folks in the room and online. And that is the exhibit list for this matter. Okay, thank you. Moving on to agenda item number six. Oh, and I do thank all of our applicant and everybody. Thank you for your time. Thank you so much. Moving on to agenda item number six. We have city updates, which would be Eric. Yeah, I don't have anything specific to update you all on. Other than just the fact that this coming Monday, June 20th will be a city holiday will be the observance of Juneteenth. So city offices will be closed, but no specific comments or other updates unless there's anything from you all that you would have any questions about. I don't think I do. Anybody else? Sorry for missing part of the meeting. I'm still literally still in a mediation, but we're on break. So I just wanted to say hi for my last year. It's good to see you, Kevin. Moving on to agenda item number seven, which is other business. We have other business to attend to tonight. The only other business that I wanted to note is just that our next meeting, if we have any items would be on July 21st. So if you could mark your calendars for that. And the only other other business I had was just to again, as Kevin mentioned, this is his last meeting. So just wanted to thank Kevin for his time on the board and acting as the chair and guiding us forward. So thank you very much, Kevin. Thanks, Kevin. It's been great. Let's get together for quarters. Trivia. Yeah, you gotta get there really early. That's like the most popular night, but we crush it for sure. Yeah. Good luck in Burlington. Yeah, thanks. I'll come back. Maybe I'll just come back and sit in the back and bask in calm city governance as opposed to where I'm moving. You could give the only one to ever give actual public comments. Yeah. Yeah. I love that for any public commenter. All right. Well, we could, we could chat more. We get into deliberative section of the purposes of this current meeting, which is still up and running. We will move down the agenda to number eight, which is a journey. I will entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Kevin moves. Anybody second. Second. All those in favor of adjourning and starting deliberative session in about five minutes, please raise your hand or say aye. Aye. And that carries unanimously. This meeting is adjourned. We will see you in deliberative session in five minutes. I will see you there.