 My name is Matt Basowitz. I'm the Chair of the DRB. Harlan Miller is not here. He is our Vice Chair. Elsie Goodrich is also not here. She is our Secretary. And our current members are Erin Gayats, David Weisberger, Jordan Matt, and Emily Morris. I actually have them in that order in my form, which is impressive. Votes and recommendations are always cast in closed, deliberative session that will take place as soon after the hearing takes place as possible. We will ask anyone participating in tonight's hearings to swear or affirm that all testimony is entirely the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury. And if it's just the three of you that are planning on possibly speaking tonight, we could do that right now. We also, Matt, we also do have a member that's joining us online as well. Correct. Yeah. So we will ask them, once we're done with all our testimony, we'll get to the online people and we'll have them affirm as well. But for now, for the people in-house, if you don't mind just raising your right hand and say, I affirm. Thank you so much. Online participants will be asked to testify after all in-person testimony is complete. Vermont State Statute allows for public comment at every public meeting. If you have something that you'd like to discuss that is not on our current agenda, this is your opportunity. Hearing nothing, saying nothing, we can move on to our next agenda item, which is the approval of the previous meeting's minutes. I did have a chance to flip through. I didn't see anything glaring. I did actually have one item correction. I have listed, excuse me, I have Emily listed as being attending that meeting and I don't believe you attended that. Is that correct? I was virtual, but not part of it. Okay, that's right. You were online. Okay, that's right. So scratch that. Okay. Emily was at that meeting. Okay. If there are no other changes, I will entertain a motion to adopt the meeting minutes. I make that motion. Second. Okay. All those in favor of adopting the minutes, please say aye or raise your hand. All those opposed say nay. All those abstaining. One abstention. Abstention. The motion carries. Next on our agenda is a public hearing on a waiver request for a property located at 70 Hall Street. We will typically ask the applicant to come up and describe the property. Then we will ask people to come up as well. So, if you don't mind coming up and giving Mr. Nain, please. My name is Jerry Myers. Jerry Myers. So I'll do a quick introduction and overview here for you all and then I'll let Jerry make his presentation. But so this is a request for a waiver to the setback, in particular to the rear yard setback for property located at 70 Hall Street. The applicant, the owners are proposing to build a two-unit structure on the property. The two-unit is a permitted use in this district. So we're not reviewing the use that's proposed at this time. We're simply reviewing the request for the waiver to reduce that rear yard setback by, I believe, seven feet. The Development Review Board has the ability through the waiver process to reduce a setback up to 50% of what the required setback is. For this zoning district, the required setback is 15 feet. So this would be less than the 50%. So this would fall under the requirement for a waiver or the provisions to allow for a waiver. Included with your agenda, I provided a memo to you all outlining the standards that waivers are reviewed by and my perspective on the relationship to those standards. So you have that before you as well and also Mr. Myers information to provide. So the only setback that they are looking for relief from is that rear yard setback. The side yard setback, front yard setback are both being met with the project as they have it proposed on the site plan. So it's just that rear yard setback that they're looking for relief from. So any questions about kind of what you're all looking at? Okay, with that, Jerry? Okay. Are you going to put a comment? Oh, yeah, sorry. I'm going to share my screen here. You want the site plan first? Yes. So this is a proposed, we took, took down a one story, call it a mini on small on the property. It's gone. If you haven't been by it's, it's, it's an empty lot right at the moment with a cell at all, a bunch of trees in it. We've done that in anticipation of building this proposed duplex to bedroom to store it. And we've trying to put a lot truthfully a lot on a small property is what we're trying to do to make it cost effective and to get the housing that we need. So right now, this is what we're proposing. What happens is with such a small building footprint, and you're going vertical, you have to have staircases with the proper regresses to try to make code is the hardest thing to do on this lot. So we right now, our engineers are telling us the smallest building we could put in there to make it work is 24 by 54. With that being said, if we put that there, you can see in the upper right hand corner of the building as we're looking at it, that's the eight feet that we're talking about. That setback doesn't make meet the requirements of 15. As you can see, it's a, it's a really different lot. Okay, it's trapezoidal, if you wish. And that is again what causes us to go up. Again, if this was a square lot, like many of the lots that we have, and it would not be an issue, but because of the way it goes. Now what we're looking at is only the two backyards of properties on St. Peter Street. And these are, I don't have it to scale, but those yards are 100 feet long in the backs of those properties. Yeah, actually, let me, I'm going to switch screens here real quick. So just a, I meant, I wanted to mention this at the beginning. This is the lot we're talking about right here. This is 70 Hall Street. It is, it is considered a pre-existing non-conforming lot because it does not meet the, I don't believe it meets the minimum square footage, and it also doesn't meet the width or depth. So it is a pre-existing non-conforming lot, which is allowed to be built upon under our existing regulations. So that's a little bit of context for what's going on. You can see the lots, kind of the general layout around here. The properties on St. Peter Street are, these are approximately 150 feet deep for context. And the buildings on St. Peter Street are up against the street. It's all backyard and we're not infringing on their property, and we will be putting up a fence behind there for privacy purposes. Yeah, so. Really what we're here for, the owners, you know, what are the options make the building smaller? If that happens, then we're back to the drawing board because we're not going to get the footage we need to be able to meet codes as far as stairwells and entryways and providing privacy. So this is what we came up with on this site. Have you explored other orientations of the building? I do, and then you don't get your parking with a duplex. As you can see, better than 50% because of the way you've got to come into the property, better than 50% of the property is being used for parking and setbacks. So this, sorry, just to add, this request would meet all of our other standards. As I mentioned, it'll meet the lot coverage requirement and the other setback requirements as well. And to your question, Matt, I worked with the applicant probably, we probably looked at seven or eight different iterations of how to orient this on the site. And this was, I think, the best option that they were able to come up with and meet our minimum parking standards and other requirements of the code. Okay. Excuse me. Sorry. If I'm going on a war, I apologize. Is this something else? It is. Yep. You'll have an opportunity to speak as well. Can you bring up, Eric, your memo with the waiver wording requirements for the waiver? Yep. I feel like I brought this up at a recent meeting. It's a little vague and leaves it sort of to our discretion as to what's reasonable development of this lot. It sounds like you're saying that it's not financially feasible to build a single family home on this dwelling. That is correct at this point with where we're at with it. That's correct. We've got demolition costs. We've got a lot of things going into this project. The intention was when we knocked it down and started having these conversations that would be a duplex. I mean, it's hard for us to evaluate, you know, the market conditions. You know, we don't have your perform or whatever, you know, the calculations that you've done to know. I guess I just, I want to say the fact that you knocked it down without knowing that you could build a duplex is not necessarily on this. I'm not putting that on you. I'm just telling you where we're at right now with what's designed to be working with the city to try to put the best willing we can on this site. Right. So, Eric, can you find that part that you want? Yeah. Do you know which one it is? I think it's 2A. Maybe allow for a waiver under this section, maybe granted, only as necessary to allow for the reasonable development and use of a preexisting nonconforming lot. And then in your commentary on it, you said this is the one that you had some doubts as to whether that it met that criteria. Is that further below? I think it's actually maybe under number 4A. I think so, yeah. No reasonable alternative exists for setting the structure outside of the required setback area. And I guess to that point from my commentary, the question about a reasonable alternative, they, I'm only looking at it from a land use perspective. So, as an alternative, they could put a single unit dwelling on this property that is an allowable use, but a two unit is also an allowable use. So, some of this is predicated based on what they're requesting, but also predicated based on the fact that it is a preexisting nonconforming lot. Now, I do see, I don't know if I have a side view of it. It does look like it's going to be a two-story structure. And on that end that does impede into that setback zone. It's two stories. It is two stories there. What's the privacy situation as far as that end of the building? Again, what was existing there was a fence, but again it's built, it's hard, if you haven't gone by, it's right at the base and part of the property has already started up on the hill. So, the back side of this building, because of the orientation, will be looking into a very small home that's in the adjacent lot. And then the other side, again, what I put up an eight foot fence for privacy, but in the second floor, like anywhere in Musky in the second floor, you can look into somebody else's property. That's part of what we're doing. Okay. So that butt end there will be a bedroom upstairs and a kitchen or a living room on the bottom, but the ones on the bottom will have no privacy issues that won't be any because of the fence and the way it's oriented. But anybody on the top floor can look down into the backyards of the St. Peter Street properties. Okay. So you're proposing a fence on the on three sides on the property? That's correct. Eight feet for the entire? The fence, it's existing. It needs to be repaired and replaced, but yes, there's an existing if you want to, there's an existing stocking fence there. Okay. We would only allow a six foot fence though. Six. For this zoning district. That's the maximum height of a fence. Okay. Any other questions for Jerry? I'd like to bring up the property over, I think. I have a clarification question, still kind of new to what the requirements are. What's the parking requirement for this structure? So for in the residential zoning districts, the RARB and RC, we require two spaces per dwelling unit. That's why you see so much asphalt. And you are planning on doing asphalt for? Yes. Okay. And even with asphalt that still meets the impervious? Yes. Yep. Yeah. It's I think right at 50%. They're allowed to do 50% lot coverage in this district. Okay. So and I think it's the on the calculations that are on here, I believe are at like 49.9. So they're right. Okay. Really close. And no concerns about having to move. I know the curb cuts up on the other side of the lot. So that would be permitted through public works. If they can do that. Yeah. I don't think there would be an issue with it. Since it still meets the, it's still below the maximum width of a curb cut that we would permit. And there would, it would still just be one curb cut for the property. So I don't, I don't foresee any issues with that. Okay. If there are no other other questions for Jerry, we'd like to bring up the property owner to chat for a little bit. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. The adjacent property owner. Yeah. I'm sorry. Are you adjacent property owners or? I'm 58 halls. So I'm like literally right next to the, the whole. Yeah. And you sir, you're, you're adjacent or? I'm directly behind. Okay. Awesome. And you already did affirm. So if you can just give me your name. My name is Jennifer Irwin. All right. So tell us a little bit about where you're at and why you're here. Well, I live at 58 Hall Street, which is adjacent to 70. My concern is that, you know, it's going to be right up against my house. Looking at this, it looks like it's turned so that it then, you know, I'm not even sure how much room there's going to be between the end of my house and where the new duplex is put up. You know, I'd like to have some assurance that, you know, my property is not being infringed on as well. And that they've done the proper measurements because it feels like when they have the machinery in there that some of my side yard was dug up a little bit as it is. You know, I'm a little concerned about having a two-story put next to my house and, you know, being able to look into my backyard from the upper story. You know, so there's those concerns. And then also that is such a small lot size that, you know, to potentially have four vehicles. You know, we have a lot of younger kids on that street, you know, when people come up that street so quickly as it is. And then to add four more vehicles, it just raises safety concerns for me. Well, there's probably a better question for the representative. It's hard to tell with the way the placement of the graphics for the new structures versus what's underneath it. Is that an accurate representation as far as the footprints existing versus new are concerned? Is it that close? It looks like it might be just a couple feet closer. I would say that it's actually the eastern wall, if the property is that side, that it's the backside of our building. I don't believe it's that much closer, any closer from what the original building was. The building is something. You can't, because of the setbacks, even the original house that was there. If we could, we'd try to achieve the setbacks. Yeah. And it looks like 58 would be non-beforming, I'm guessing, because that does not look like a 10-foot setback. Potentially, it's, you know, the aerials are always a little hard to judge by since it doesn't match up specifically with what's on the ground. So it's probably close, I would say. Yeah, it does look cozy. Any other questions for Jennifer or Lou? Okay, well thank you so much. So we did ask everybody to swear or affirm that you're telling the truth. Trying to be a Zoom and I couldn't, I couldn't assess it. Okay. I can, I can pull up my other map here to show. Sorry, what address did you say that? 123. 123. So that would be this property here. Okay. In relation to the, yeah, so I just had similar concerns where I know it's a really tiny lot, but with the the duplex, I feel like there is a good chance that there's a lot of invasion and privacy just with my backyard. I know it's just that little corner, but I didn't know, and I know there was a lot of trial and trying to reconfigure, but is that the minimum amount of parking that you can do there? For a duplex, yes. Yeah, I'm in a similar boat where there is, I just, I feel like the privacy piece and just the kind of some of the potential property damage was just a bit of a concern for me. Sorry, I'm just pulling up something. I'm going to make a period. Yeah, it does look like you might be set up a little bit higher. Yeah, their property is quite a bit higher. Okay. So it is sloped. Hall Street is, is that what I was going to say? It's a huge hill. It's a huge hill. Okay. Even my property is up a little bit from there. So it does, it's more just, it is directly looking out into my property. Okay. Which, you know, it's, it's exciting to have more housing, but just something that I was kind of concerned about from a privacy perspective. Can I get your name? I'm so sorry. I'm sorry. Shawna Colony. Shawna. Okay. I have you on my, my Zoom screen here, or at least your name is on there. I couldn't figure out how to talk to it though. So, okay. So you're, you're not going to be joining us online to provide comments. Okay. So you may have missed, there is talk about that they will be continuing the six foot fence and repairing or replacing whatever has, was either damaged or needs, needs replacement. So that's already happened. I put it six feet up like on the hill, so it's higher than that. That is not up to us, unfortunately. It's up to geography or geography and other things. Any other questions for Shawna? Any other concerns, Shawna? I just didn't know. It didn't seem like there was a lot of wiggle room to modify it. Yeah. Okay. Well, thank you so much for, for, for speaking. And welcome. We will ask you as well. I didn't get your name either. I'm sorry. David. David. Rolls, R-O-W-L-E-S. Not even close to what it sounds. Okay. And we will ask you to swear or affirm that everything is the truth from the pains and penalties of perjury. Okay. And tell us a little bit about why you're here today. Okay. I wouldn't be here if it was adhering to the 15 foot setback and one other thing. So my property being the one to the right and back is the lowest of all the properties that have been discussed. Mine's the place where all the water and that entire hill and on that map to the, everything to the upper right, yeah, where that cursor is, is my property. And that's a deep place. Very old. If somebody knows the history, somebody told me it was a country store there once, but anyway. Ever, all that hillside basically drains into our yard and I have water problems. I'm concerned about the increased area, square footage of impermeable surface, specifically the parking lot, if you could flip back to the design map again, is going to be five feet from my fence. To me, that's not acceptable. That is something that needs to be mitigated. It is downhill. If you put a straight line from the curb cut to that point and you put a bowling ball on it, it would break my fence potentially. That's my estimate. I'm a mechanical engineer, so I can guess that, but I didn't measure it, didn't calculate it. It's downhill. And it's downhill for 123 St. Peter Street as well, even more so actually. And I don't know if there's any way to mitigate the water runoff, but that's a huge concern for me. I heard that the calculation of the impermeable area with the building and the parking lot is almost exactly 50%. That is the regulation. I'm in the real estate world. Real estate is all about calculations. I don't believe it was demolished personally. It's my own opinion that's all, that it was demolished without an intent to build a duplex. I think it's a matter of timeliness that it had to be purchased and maybe demolished. I don't know. That's not my world, demolishing buildings. But my big concern is the water runoff and the invasion of privacy or the impact on privacy, because I believe that that is so close it will actually reduce the value of 123 St. Peter Street and my property. Because all of a sudden, looking out from my window, which looks straight at that property, I'm just going to see a duplex that is a large and in-your-face house with windows facing as you saw, the majority of those windows, all of the windows in the front of the house, can look right in our backyard. And some of them look down on our first floor. So it's a strong issue for me on the invasion of privacy thing, or that's the wrong term, excuse me, privacy issues. Don't go to these very often, sorry. That's about it. Well, thank you so much, David. Any other questions for him before? No. And I'm pro development. I wish a duplex could fit there, but with two spaces each. Okay. Well, thank you so much. I would like to have Jerry come back up and address some of the concerns that were brought up, if that's all right. We do have one other person online as well. Excuse me. So, Bryn, I'm not sure if you wanted to provide any input. If you do, you can use the raise hand feature and we can recognize you seeing none at this time. Okay. Jerry, so David did bring up a question that I had. It was kind of alluding to when we were talking about the impervious coverage on the lot already. And maybe this is more of a question for Eric. At what point does stormwater mitigation come into play and designing and engineering something like that? So our land use regulations are pretty limited on stormwater. Specifically, it talks about disturbance of, I think it's over once you disturb more than .2 acres. So this property would not qualify for that. With that said, I do believe we have a requirement that says that any pre-existing water needs to stay on the site post development. So they can't allow new water to run off the site. Okay. And do you guys have a plan in place for potentially dealing with an increase in stormwater runoff on a slope like this? We would flow the water to the sewer system and then we're separated here in the city to the stormwater system and it would flow out of the driveway. Most of the water in that driveway would flow off that south corner. And again, we can mitigate, we can put a curb on that side, which would keep all of that impervious surface, putting the water into the street. I mean, if that would suffice as far as stormwater. Other than that, we haven't probably been putting more impervious surface there than what was there before. You can follow me on that. We haven't done anything with the old building footprint and anything else. We haven't changed a lot. The only difference is we've gone back a little bit, but we haven't created any additional stormwater. We're downhill of everybody. Everybody would agree with that. We're downhill of your property. We're downhill of all the properties that are north of you. We can put a curb so that the driveway that we put in there will take all of the water we're creating. If it will flow, we can flow it to the street. We can't flow uphill. No, we're not going to flow it uphill. We're going to put a curb as a barrier and the water would follow the barrier. Just for reference, this on the map here, this contour here is 240. This other major contour here is at 230. That's 10 feet of drop across that distance of a couple hundred feet, probably, would be a guess. But the property itself in that band looks pretty flat to the street. It's slipping this way. It looks like it's sloping. Looking at just the Google Earth view, it's hard to tell, but it does appear as though from haul, it does slope to the back of haul, the back of Shepherd Street. That's just my perspective of whatever the Google Earth camera was doing that day. Is there a more detailed elevation line somewhere? Let me see. There's some intermediate contours in here as well. So you've got 235 here, 234, 232, 231. And then 230, basically, the property boundary. Okay. You can see where it's at by haul street. Yep. And then down at haul street, here's 235, 234. This would be presumably 233, 231, and 230 down here as well. So it's, yeah, 231, excuse me. So this is a foot of drop to away from haul street across these two contours in here. But then it also chases down this same contour. Basically, this whole area is between two contours. So it kind of shifts along those two. Right now, funneling to the right as we're looking at it. Correct. That's correct. So I think everybody can agree that the amount of impervious space on this lot, surface on this lot is increasing dramatically. Do you have any other plans in place if you can't flow water to the street? No, as Eric has said, our engineers and our primary project manager came in here and did other alternatives to make it something that could work for us. And at this point, we couldn't come up with anything. So are we back to the drawing board? I don't know. If I know the engineers and the owners, what we will try to do is make the building footprints smaller, then the setback doesn't apply. And these discussions, it's an approved plan. The only reason we're here is for the waiver to be setback. Right. So your understanding as of now is that you can regrade the property or put a curve and have the driveway flow towards haul street? That would be my anticipation once there. It's a very flat site right now. If you drive by it, if you've been there, in fact, it's not flat, there's got to be a hole in it. But we don't believe we've added, we want to add anything to his back property as far as that goes, as far as for us. That's crazy. Nope. That's all right. I just appreciate all comments to be at the table in front of the microphones to people watching at home can see into here. Does the parking requirement change if the size of an apartment is or size of a unit is dropped? Nope. You go from a two to a one? No, it's still, it's still two, two spaces per unit. Okay. Regardless. So even if this was a single unit dwelling, it would still be two spaces. So because it's a two unit, they need two spaces for each unit for the four total. Okay. I heard some concerns about encroachment on neighboring properties. Has it, has it been surveyed? Do you have markers of property? I'm not sure if there's a, I don't think it's new. No, not to my knowledge. Any other questions for Jeremy? The water is going to run on the back side. It'll run into the hill and then it's going to have to come around on the front side. It's going to run onto those two porches and down to the driveway. All right. Thank you so much. Did anybody else hear anything that they would like to hear more about? It wouldn't be required. No, no, they wouldn't be required to do a survey. So we would utilize, basically we would utilize the drawings that were prepared by the engineering firm and presumably they've done some work as, as an engineering firm to, to, to identify where the property boundaries are to the best of their ability and then cite it, cite the building accordingly. All right. We have, I believe all the information that we're going to get. Thank you so much for being here. I will entertain a motion to close this hearing if we're ready. Oh, we have one more, one more question, sir. I saw in the letter if it were approved and we chose to go to the next level. Is the, is the environmental division we have to appeal to? Yes. Yeah. And Eric can, can give you all that information. Yep. Yeah. Appeals of the development or view board are heard by the environmental division of the superior court. All right. So we want to take a motion to close this hearing. Okay. Second. Seconded. Moved and seconded. All those in favor of closing this hearing, please say hi or raise your hands. Carries unanimously. This hearing is now closed. Thank you so much for being here. We will meet in deliberative session, usually night of and we will go to provide you of our results as soon as we're able to. Certainly well within that 40 day window. You'll get a, if you sign in, please, so actually please sign in. If as long as you've signed in, you will get a, a certified letter with a copy of the decision. I'm sorry. He's actually not online. No. There was nothing else from Zoom participants, right? There was not. No. Okay. Oh, sorry. Well, just one last thing while Jerry is still here. I provided Jerry with a copy of the exhibit list. So the items that will be included as the formal record are listed as exhibits A through J on this matter. And like I said, he has a copy of that list. So those will be entered into the record. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Next up on our agenda is city updates. So two items for, for city updates tonight. The appeal of 401 Main Street that you may recall. We talked about a while ago, the proposed Duncan Donuts up by the high school. That was heard by the environmental division of the Superior Court. They made their ruling on that just recently and they, they also denied the appeal. So basically generally speaking, the reasoning that was included by the Superior Court was that the information used to do the traffic study by the applicant was not accurate because they were showing Norman Street as a two way conversion rather than just a one way street as it is now. And so basically the judge said you were using bad information and therefore your appeal is denied. So what they do with it now, I'm not sure, but it was also denied at the, at the Superior Court. The other item I wanted to update you on, I believe back in February you heard a variance request for, for Winooski Falls way lot nine as it's commonly known, the parcel out in front of the Champlain Mill there. They are, I received word earlier this week, last week that they are appealing that decision to the environmental division as well. So that will be going forward to, to appeal. But I don't have anything else for updates at this time. Okay. Any, well go for it. Yeah, good question. So the, the actually there, the zoning permit, they never, so you all heard a variance request to extend the, the expiration of that permit or to allow them to resubmit as it was previously done. You denied that they did not appeal that decision. So that permit has since expired. So anything that will happen on that property has to come back through the process and meet our current regulations. Does it have to go through the National Historic Registry again? That's a good question. I would guess it does not because they've already mitigated or they already have an agreement in place with the state to mitigate any impacts of that. So I would guess that they would not have to go back through that process. Okay. And speaking of historic register and the charge. Yeah. Yeah. Good question. So I have, so that the property was posted within the original 45 day window. So it's, I believe that expires on the 27th of April. So I've not heard yet whether or not the church is going to appeal that decision. But as of now they still have a, they still have a few more days to, to determine that. Okay. So awesome. Next on the agenda is other business, which is also Eric. Yeah. The only thing I had for other business is I would like to cancel the May meeting of your May meeting. I will be out of town. So I would prefer to not have to try to find someone to, to, to run that meeting. And I figure we've been doing a lot of work lately. It'd be good to give you all a month off. So without any objections, I will send out notice to you all canceling that meeting. What am I going to do on that Thursday? We just got here. Don't worry. We will have a June meeting. So, so be ready for that. Build a few of them. I did see a notification about terms expiring and yes stuff. What is the deadline for letting you know where, where? So yeah. So generally we go back to council in June, typically to, to do reappointments. So if you're not intending to, to be reappointed or requesting reappointment, we would need to put out a notice that we have an open seat. So that would be good to know. Otherwise, I believe everybody has responded. Not everybody. There's only, I think there's three or four of you that are up for reappointment. So I reached out directly to those folks. So if you did not receive anything from me, then you're not up for reappointment. This, your term is not expiring this year. But I think everybody responded back that they're interested in being reappointed. Although if I needed to respond, I didn't. I know that much. I thought you did. But we'll chat. We'll chat. We'll chat and deliver. Okay. Sounds good. So thank you so much for the other business. Last on our agenda is a, a motion to adjourn. Seconded? Second. Moved and seconded. All those in favor of adjourning, please raise your hand and say aye. Okay. That carries unanimously. We are adjourned.