 that we will get started with the Development Review Board for Burlington for June 7th. And I will note for those who are attending that we take up items in the order they are on the agenda. And when we call each item, we ask that people who are going to participate either as applicants or the public to indicate raise a hand and Scott will admit them to participate in the meeting. And at that point we ask them to provide mailing addresses for follow-up notices. And communications, I think everything is online. Minutes, I actually did not know that there are whether or not I will take a look. Maybe everybody else can take a look too if there are minutes posted. Yeah, the draft minutes are always posted with the meeting they're associated with. Okay. Now there's one item that was taken off the agenda. Is that right, Manhattan Drive? That's correct. Manhattan Drive has altered their application so it now can be reviewed administratively. So if anybody's here for 425 Manhattan Drive, it won't be happening. Okay. Then we will get right into the consent agenda. We have 58 Hyde Street is the applicant here. Don't see the applicant here yet, Brad. We do have the applicants here for 11 Flynn Ave. So maybe you wanna skip to that and come back to Hyde Street. We will go through 11 Flynn Ave then is applicant here. Yep. Is that John Adams? I'm accused on this item. Okay. That was Jeff. And so I see two people, John Adams and Sophie Sauvay. Is that right? Yep. Yep. And this is on the consent agenda, which means the city staff is recommending it for approval. And I assume you were probably okay with that recommendation. Yes, we're good with that. Okay. Does anybody on the board object to treating this as consent? No. Is anybody in the public here for this, Scott? I don't think so. I just see applicants. If you'd like to speak on this item, raise your hand. Hi, nobody. Okay. Does somebody wanna make a motion on 11 Flynn Ave? Make a motion, Brad. Okay. Thanks, Berks. You know, on ZP 22, 251, 11 Flynn Ave, I move that we approve the application and adopt staff findings and recommendations. Second on that, I see Kayla. Thank you. Any discussion or approved? Okay, unanimous. Minus. Jeff, who was recused. Yep. Okay, so that is approved. Thank you very much. Go forth and park. Thank you. Okay. So Hyde Street is not here. We'll- No, not yet. Just keep going. Move on to the public hearing. First item we have is 69 Orchard Terrace. Change of use of existing residents to short term rental. And I see the applicant is here. Is anybody else here to speak on that application? That's Brandon Salimi, Scott. Yeah, I see two Salimi's and both didn't speak. I see both applicants. Yep. The audience wants to speak to this item 69 Orchard Terrace. Raise your hand and we can enable you to speak. Yes, this is Bijan Salimi. Can you hear me? Yep. Okay, my son is here, go ahead. So I was just gonna say, it looks like there's only two people here who are going to speak on this and it looks like you're both part of the applicant, Brandon and Bijan. That's correct. That's correct. So I would like to swear both of you in if you would swear to tell the truth and hold truth under pain and penalty of perjury. Yes, I do. I do. Okay, so I think the city has recommended approval on this and there is, I guess some question about how the parking would work on this one. Yes. Yeah, Brandon, you wanna comment that? Because I don't see Brandon. That's why I can't tell whether he's going or I'm going. Sorry about that. I have been in so many zoos, but this one is a little different. Should I, Brandon, can you hear us? I don't know, can you guys hear me? I have my hand raised. Yeah, yeah, we can hear you, Brandon. You can go ahead, go ahead. Yeah, no, I'd spoken with Mary about this and get a face with the name here, but I recently just graduated from MBA program of State of New York and I'm moving back to Burlington, Vermont to this to be my primary residence and I travel for work as I work in consulting for a large biotech company. So when I'm out of the house, I was hoping to not only be able to utilize it for a short-term rental with the two parking spaces in the two bedrooms that Mary and I discussed, but when I am there as well, being able to rent out the other bedroom as well via short-term rental. So that is the intent behind it and just looking to clarify that with you all. And how does the parking work? It is a, it has two spaces for a vehicle in the driveway and it has a detached garage as well. But I think Mary had mentioned that you're not able to utilize the garage even if it is remote operated. So there's two full parking spaces, which is why that two bedroom idea is what we kind of landed on. Is that you guys on the same page with that? And the comment is that I believe that you're gonna have to have somebody move cars. Yep, I think there was an attendant that would be there. So we installed basically security throughout the security cameras around the perimeter and have a, what's it called? One of those ring operated doorbells. So we can kind of really interface with whoever's staying there, but also kind of communicate with them verbally through that. Sorry, could you say that again? My apologies. Excuse me about that. So we know who's there is what I'm kind of getting at. And we know who's in the parking lots. We know who to kind of interface with. But yeah, that's not an issue from my understanding in terms of how that would be addressed. Well, you have to move a car. That's how that has to be addressed, I think. Yeah, so in the event that there was a car parked there, it would, you know, from my perspective, if I wasn't there, involve getting in contact with the guests to have it be moved so the guests could leave. But if I was there, then I would be in charge of that. Yes, I mean, if I can just add to what Brandon just said, let me certainly we can tell them, I mean, as you know, there's so many parking, public parking, I mean spots in that area that there is absolutely no problem telling the guests that they need to have only two cars on the driveway. And if they have three cars or whatever, please park it in these areas, designated areas. We can certainly provide actually a written, if you want to call it statement to that effect. So we can put it as a part of the basically short-term rental arrangements. We can certainly do that. You would also. Yeah, I'm sorry, one question is, what is the reason that the garage is not permitted or is not appropriate for the guests to go into the garage? The garage is a complete in good shape and everything. It's a one car garage. We allocated towards the single family residence. Scott, that's correct, right? Yes, that is correct. In the staff report, we acknowledge there are three parking spaces, but they're stacked. The first one is in the garage. There would be a limit here on a one room rental because two parking spaces are dedicated to the single family home and one to a room rented. If either one of these gentlemen are away and they're still claiming this as they're still making this their primary residence, they would have the potential of renting their bedroom. So it's a one bedroom bed and breakfast unless they're traveling and then they could rent a second, but there's adequate parking as long as they can jockey cars. Yeah. And it would also be the case if you were away and the other unit was being occupied and the cars were stacked, I guess the two sets of tenants would have to get in touch with one another. Yes, yeah, that would be a consent that would be communicated with the prospective guest in advance of that just to make them aware. And just to give you guys context, if you can't visualize what this driveway looks like, I believe it was an attachment in one of the files that was kind of added to the agenda here just if you want to pull that up to view. We do have a copy of the plan. Yes. Sorry, what was that? We have a copy of the plan. Excellent. I have a question just with the way that we're kind of talking about this in a little bit of complexity. Is your intention to rent the two bedrooms separately when you're away or would that be a one rental to one? Yeah, ideally it would be under one as in like the same person or same family coming would be able to utilize those two bedrooms or in the event that there's one place, just the one bedroom for example. I think that's why it would be a little bit too confusing. And I hadn't factored that in in terms of needing two people, two different people to communicate. So the intent would be to have it under the same, relationship of whoever is staying there. Jeff, do you want to make a comment? Brandon, this is not your fault. It's we're dealing with an ordinance that does not have an Airbnb provision in it. So we're stuck with trying to approve these as bed and breakfasts and of course, unfortunately the ordinance says very specifically that you need to provide a written guarantee ensuring that an attendant will always be present when the law is in operation. That's the zoning ordinance requirement for stacked parking for a bed and breakfast. And I think what I'm hearing is that while it may be a reasonable plan as to how you're gonna coordinate it, you aren't able to provide a written guarantee that there will always physically be an attendant present who is designated to move cars when the law is in operation. I would agree with that in the sense that they wouldn't be living in the residence if I was removed, but I would have a dedicated person that could be there within a 10 to 15 minute timeframe if that was a requirement, basically. And again, I'm not sure how to navigate that just because I wasn't too privy to that ordinance, but I'm happy to accommodate that as needed. And who would that be? So if I was gone, who would be either not Bijan who lives within 15 minutes of the property or I would find someone that, one of my close friends in context in the area that would be able to accommodate prior to allowing someone to stay there just to make sure that they'd be able to accommodate that. I'm sorry, is there a time limit for movement of the cars? Meaning it has to be done within, because these are interesting points that everybody's bringing up, which is very interesting. Be like 15 within 15 minutes. Is there a time limit or within 30 minutes or we understand it needs to be done, but I'm just not clear the time limit associated with it? Because you mentioned it. Somebody living on the premises is really how the ordinance is written. So all of this is sort of going beyond what the ordinance says. Okay. I think the concept is a valet, to be honest. It's stacked or valet parking is described the same way. So they're physically imagining, the ordinance says we'll always be present. So I take that as physically present to be able to move the car. I mean, if it's a requirement, obviously, then we have to go by the ordinance. I mean, we can't argue with that. I mean, that's as simple as that. I mean, that's what the law says. That's what the law is gonna be. Yeah. That's clear to us. I just, we're trying to understand the mechanics of it. It's like a meter, right? You're not there. 50 minutes past fly, you're gonna get a ticket. Okay. We understand that. Yeah, I think the challenge is that we're putting uses into physical spaces that they may not have been intended or designed for. And unfortunately, we're working with an ordinance that has not been updated to address appropriately all the issues that come up in these kinds of short-term rentals. So I've been pretty strict in the past in applying this in stacked parking situations. And it's what we have to work with. So if you want something different, I'd encourage you to talk to your city councilor. Yeah, of course. And just one thing that if they don't want me adding here, is it potentially feasible to make it a requirement that if there are two vehicles there, that they have to be from the same family. I'm just wondering what that looks like. I would definitely be helpful. I mean, that was the intent initially. It was never the two separate. It was more so if they had a family or kids and like that traveling, that they could stay there. But if that is a requirement, then I'm happy to make sure that that, because is fulfilled essentially because you are able to approve guests that are staying there. So I could make it so it's not anyone could book freely, essentially, that it would have to go through me approving it obviously ahead of time. Does that make sense? I mean, that would be a helpful condition. Yeah, absolutely. But yeah, I wanna see it that it's feasible though. Okay. We can discuss that during the deliberative. Caitlin, did you have something to say? Yeah, I just have one more question, more for Mary. Can you remind me why the use count, it's both a single family and a bed and breakfast and why it's not just a bed and breakfast when it comes to the parking requirements? Bed and breakfast is associated with a single family home. So it's always both. It's owner- If you wanna talk about the standard, Caitlin, it actually says, what is it one for bedroom, but it also says in addition. In addition to family. Got it. Okay, well, I think if the applicant is comfortable with that, that would be a helpful condition that we can discuss during deliberative. Yeah, of course. Okay. Any other comments from the board or comments from the applicant? Okay. We will probably deliberate at the end of the meeting today. And at that, I will close public hearing. Thank you. So Brad, we have the applicant for 58 Hyde Street. Okay. Well, excited. Let's go to 58 Hyde Street. Okay. And that applicant is, is that Mac? He is, Mac. Atkins. Okay, so this is on the consent agenda. Mac, have you seen the staff report? Yes. And are you okay with those conditions? In regards to signing the agreement that someone will always be present? Yeah. Yes. Cause we live full time at the, in the bottom residence. Okay. Is there anybody on the board who objects to treating this as consent? Anybody in the public, Scott? I just see applicants. If any of you want to speak on this item, raise your hand. All right, nobody. Okay. How about a motion on 58 Hyde Street? I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm sorry to, to do this, but I, I feel, I feel, I feel given the other applications and various things, I think it would be good to discuss this in, in our deliberative session along with other, I, I, I, yes. I don't, I don't, I don't think that this should be consent right now. But if it, but if it met, like, has all that- Mac, Mac, this is just the process that, if he wants it off consent, it's off consent. So we will discuss this. So Mac, I have to swear you in. Do you swear to tell the truth and hold truth on the pain and penalty of perjury? Yes. Okay. So I think what Leo is talking about is how the parking arrangement works. Is that right, Leo? I am. And I think that I am not necessarily in favor or opposed. I think though that we have several applications that, that have similar issues. And I think it would be worth it to include all of them in our discussion as, as to give us a chance to, to be most consistent. I guess now, now that we're off of consent, I guess I've got a clarifying question either for staff or for the applicant. The, the staff write up suggests that it, there's space for stacked parking, but then also says it's tandem parking. And I guess the way I read the ordinance is only stacked parking needs an attendant. Right. Tandem parking, parking does not need an attendant. So what is this plan proposing? So in this case, Jeff, so this is a little bit different twist than what we were just talking about. This is actually a case of dealing with non-conformity and preservation of that non-conformity. And in this case, the non-conformity is actually dropping. The, the long story short, I suppose we can get into the long story if need be, but the long story short is we only recognize two spaces, tandem, one or probably the other in this instance, right? And you're right. We only get into attendance when we have stacked, so three or more. In this case between the tandem arrangement and the degree of parking non-conformity decreasing, I recommended a green light on that. The question amount of non-conformity was less. Yes. But the use was changing. So it was changing which triggered the reduction in parking requirement, which reduced the non-conformity. Right, but I guess part of my concern about the stacked parking is you've got, even if you had a non-conformity of four spaces, you're now introducing a rental or short-term rental component where the parties are not directly related and one has responsibility for ensuring the parking for the other. If it was a non-conformity of four spaces that would translate to they have no on-site parking and I'd make the same recommendation if they were switching one of the units to a B&B with the reduction in required parking going from four to three. Okay, so it is gonna be stacked three in a row, but your view is that that's a reduction in non-conformity. So you're not worried about the attendee. Three in a row. I'm not entertained the stacked at all. I didn't go there at all. I left it with tandem because that's how we recognize right now. Yeah, my driveway currently can hold two cars on both sides. So they're tandem. There are two sets of cars on each other. So the people who lived upstairs, they could fit two cars on the left side. My girlfriend and I can fit both of our cars as well. I don't have a problem reducing the other side to one car. It's only gonna be a B bedroom. So it would only allow up to two people. All right, that's helpful for understanding the context. Mac, you're saying you can get side by side down here where it's wider? Well, no, it's on the right actually, because that's all stone. So that whole space or close to it, there's two window wells that the stone goes up to, but the cars fit side by side. So four car up to four car, suggesting. We just have to go by what the geometry says, Scott, right? Yeah, I mean, if the driveway is a bit wider than this site plan shows, we need to. That's an old, that's, yeah, I think that's an old drawing. The parking doesn't extend beyond the back. Yeah. Okay, this is the most recent approved site plan, which is why I showed it. If it's different, then we should clean that up as part of this application. And if in fact you can get two pairs of tandem, you know, I think that's better for your application than just a single pair of tandem. Yeah, yeah, the ladder is what it is now, and that's, and my apologies for missing that left part. So it would not be stacked. I'll say that the current Google Maps photo has essentially space for four total cars. There's no extension in the back, but there are two side by side cars. So in this case, then there is no parking on conformity if they have two pairs of tandem. Well, they don't have approved two-grid tandem. They don't have approved yet, but it sounds like they would have to include that changing the site plan with this. Does it make sense to table this and have them come back with an actual site plan that's accurate? Well, I don't have a problem with only one car because again, there's only up to two people out there. So two cars are unneeded. So delaying it just to add another car, it fits four cars right now. I have no problem reducing that. I think the problem is you're still saying the three cars would be tandem. So you'd have two on one side and a third next to it, not three in a row. Yeah, to do that, you need to amend this site plan so that you're showing the actual parking area for tandem parking, because this dimension wouldn't allow for tandem parking. Okay. So that's something that Mac that you can do is get this corrected and then bring it back to staff. Okay. And we can put this on to another meeting, Scott. Yeah, we're looking at July at this point. Yeah, if everything works out and this is a pro-format review on the fifth, we could probably do July fifth. If you think it's gonna be more involved, we should do the second meeting in July. Well, if he's coming back with- What, the 19th? Yeah. Mac, do you have a preference for the fifth and 19th of July? I'd prefer the fifth. I wish you for that, Scott. Do we need a motion on that to- Yeah, you do. I remember when I make a motion to- So moved. Okay. Was that, Jeff? Yeah. And second? I'll second. Caitlin, all in favor? I can't see everybody, so it was- Yeah, sure, everybody. Yeah, okay. Good. So Mac, we will see you on the fifth of July. Sounds good. Thank you so much. Okay. Now, continuing on the BNB quest, we are on 13 Lakeview Terrace. And- Yep, we are the applicant here. Oh, let him speak. Is John McGuire? Yep. John, if anybody else here to speak on this besides- No. So John, can you hear me? Yeah, what am I on? John McGuire. Yep, we're about to start your review of your application. Would you swear in that you are- You would say the whole truth and- Nothing but the truth on the pain and penalty of perjury. Oh, shit. Obvious, honest, zoning is. How's that? That's not actually an answer. Yeah, it is. Anyways, yes, sir. Okay. Oh. Yeah, you heard that, right? Is it a yes or a no? Yes, sir. He said yes. Okay, so what is it that you would like to say, John McGuire? I don't want to say anything. I mean, you guys have a problem with parking. I guess you've- But I guess my whole staffing is affirmative. So I guess I don't have anything to say. Okay. There is a requirement for attendance parking again here. And you, are you okay with that? Yeah. Huh? Like, I heard everything was affirmative. With that requirement that you have an attendance available, I believe that's the case. I'm remembering from the staff report. So there's two units there as a duplex. There's duplex before I bought it. Zoning maybe put in one space when I renovated it in 2006. It's a bloody terrible experience, Mary O'Neill. And there's still two spots there. No one has a problem with parking. I live there on the second floor. First floor is a short-term. Second floor, I rent short-term whenever I can. I have a bunch of properties around. I'm a developer. I don't do any development in Burlington. When Mary O'Neill leaves, I will start to develop in Burlington. Mr. McGuire, can you keep your comments to stuff pertinent to the application and not disparage your staff, please? No, I'm gonna tell you the truth right now. You wanted me to tell you the truth. I said, yes, you've got the truth. Okay, let's talk about your application. Shoot. So tell me how you're arranging parking for this request. Well, I got two parking spaces there. I give one to each unit. No one has a problem. And you live on site? I do. Unless I got a rental there and then I'll go out to one of my six other places. How many days are you on site? I don't know. I don't count. What is your primary residence for tax purposes? Burlington, Vermont, 13 Lake Butaris, apartment two. I think I had Ms. Redman. Mary, am I correct that this is not recommending a attended parking? Am I right about that? This one's mine, Brad, and that's correct. We're sticking with just like the last one that had the existing non-compliant parking. Right. They need four now under the duplex. They, with the current proposal, they either need three, which is a decrease in non-conformity or four when the applicant is present in his unit. So there's a, it breaks even with one conformity. Okay, we're good with that. We've got this not increasing non-conformity. But Ryan, is that stacked? The site plans show a pretty narrow driveway. So are the cars side-by-side or are they stacked? There's two spaces, tandem. And it's one in front of the other. And that's it. That's it. That's the area right here. driveway on the other. There is an actual site plan too, Scott, if you want to. Yeah, that's one. Okay, so we're going with the not increasing non-conformity, but still is. Ryan, isn't it time to go for a better purchase if the owner's not on site? With the parking issue? Is that right, Ryan? I can't understand there's some background noise going on, I think. It is muted, John. He's coming from his... Okay, what was that, Brad? When this is a B&B and the owner is not on site, that's when we have to deal with the idea of two cars stacked in front of each other and need an attendant. Is that right? Well, we didn't get into the attendant part in this discussion. I was sticking with the non-conformity. So that would be the idea, yes. The attendant would be ideal. So both you and Scott are looking at the idea that decreasing the amount of non-conformity is a bonus and not worried about the attendant parking in that instance. Is that right? Yes, yeah, but the attendant comes into play when we're doing stacked. And here we're not talking stacked. We have one in front of the other pretend them. And I guess it's a little bit wonky, but parking non-conformity either remains unchanged or decreases depending on the use of the B&B. Okay, well, sounds like another one we can discuss very deliberative. Any other questions from the board? Any other comments from the applicant pertinent to the application? Sounds like no. Okay, we will close the application and we will probably deliberate at the end of the meeting today. Next item is 84 Chase Street. All right, the applicant here, I'm getting Zoom's telling me she has an older version of Zoom, so give me a moment. This is Colleen Scott. Are we going back to, are we skipping 83 Central? Oh, no, 84 Chase Street is next. After 13 Lakeview Terrace, 84 Chase Street. Documents weren't in the same order. That's it, that's it. Okay, so I had to bump the applicant to the panelist because of an older version of Zoom, so here she is. So Colleen, and I think that's the only person to speak on this application. I would swear you in, do you tell the truth and hold truth on the pain of penalty or perjury? This way you say yes. Colleen, you're muted. Can you unmute her, Scott? I can ask her to unmute. There you are, okay. So that was a yes, Colleen. Yes. Okay. Yes. So this was recommended for approval by the staff. And I don't know if you have any comments you wanna make on this. Me? Yes. Okay. Well, I talked to Mary earlier today and she said I might have to explain some parking. We've been talking about that, so I drew a picture. So I think what they're saying, this is another one of those instances where for a bed and breakfast, there has to be somebody on site to help move the cars. And that was something that you were agreeing to. Yeah. Well, can you see this? I think we have a copy of the site plan on the application. Yeah. I have four spots and usually, whoops, there we go. So I have four spots and the right is for the left. The left parking two spots are for the lower space that gets rented out. So for the most part, I'm gonna be here. Otherwise they'd have their designated spot. And I can't imagine renting for more than like two people upstairs and two people downstairs because it's just one bedroom. Upstairs, one bedroom downstairs. So they can, I think, manage their own parking. Besides that, we have parking on the street, but... Mary, is this your project? It is, Jeff. Sorry, Mary. So I'm still trying to understand. It is recommended for an attendant, but it seems like this is tandem, not stacked parking. That's correct. I mean, among the plethora of divergent plans we've seen for bed and breakfast, we frequently have adequate parking, but this concern about having different renters there begs the question or how are people going to get into designated places? So this is tandem parking, yes. And the issue would be two parking spaces for the home owner and then two for the two bedrooms, depending upon how they park, one might pin in another car. So it is not stacked that demands attendant, but we have to be cognizant that there's the potential that if these are different people, one might pin another car in there. So it doesn't allow free movement. There is adequate parking there, but it's the management that becomes the question. I thought Colleen said that there's one bedroom in each of the two units. Is that incorrect? Is there two bedrooms in one and one in the other? No, there's just one bedroom on each floor. I mean, to me, that kind of mitigates the issue because I think the way the staff report is, there's only one bedroom. I don't see how this one is worse than some of the other ones that we're not recommending an attendant for. Yeah. How many cars do you have, Colleen? One. So you've got two bedrooms that you're renting out, basically, and you live there? No, actually, if I were to rent both, it's really just one place that I'm looking to rent, and that is one bedroom. I live in the loft upstairs. So you're really just looking to run out of one bedroom downstairs? Right. If I were to rent my place out, it would be like if I, I haven't even thought about it, but I just wanted to get the permit just in case because I might want to, they have traveling nurses and I might want to go to Florida where my family is to say hello in the lunch of time. So that is either short term or bed and breakfast. But I, this was just for Airbnb or BNB. Well, the application is for two bedrooms. Yeah, so then it would be my loft and then it would be the bed on the bottom floor. Colleen, I think what you're explaining is that you want the application to be for both in case you want to rent out your own space, but not the important part of it. You would like to rent the one bedroom unit where you're not living, most importantly, but you're looking to get coverage with this application for your own unit as well. And those are the only units on the property, the only ones utilizing these four parking spots. Correct. But the property would remain your primary residence. Yes. Okay, I think we have a sense of what this is and I guess the question is if Mary, is if both bedrooms are rented out and the applicant is not on site, then that is when the attendant parking is required. Is that the intention? Without stacked parking, there really isn't an attendant. I mean, I'm thinking functionally and factually, we don't want anybody to be pinned in. The specifics of this is these two units are in most close proximity. I imagine that you could knock on the other door and ask somebody to help you. This is, you know, this has been going on for months. Each one of these is a different story. That we're really not well equipped to manage right now. So we're doing the best we can. Okay, well, it sounds like we'll have a few things to discuss in deliberative. I think at that point, at this point, I will close the application. Is there any other questions from staff or the applicant board? Okay. Thank you, Colleen. We will probably deliberate on this at the end of the meeting. Is there anything different that I talked about that other than Mary had motioned? No, it's pretty much. I'm asking. I don't know if this matters, but there's overnight parking on the street. We understand, but the obligation is to provide parking on site for these kinds of things. Well, we have four, and I have all my friends here. So if I needed an attendant, I would just, but they're right on top of each other in here. And I definitely could have, if it gets approved for that to have an attendant, then I would have that a minute away. It's the next door over and across the street. Okay. That my friends have, you know, it can be taken care of. Okay. The only time I got pinned in is when the US post office decided to park their car there. And we went, he went delivering all the mail and came back a couple hours later. It wasn't his regular route, but I appreciate all your time. Thank you, everyone. Okay. Thank you. We'll close the public hearing. And now we, 83 Central Avenue. I see Andrea's here. Is anybody else here to speak on this application for 83 Central Avenue? Scott, you're muted. Anyone wants to speak to this application? Raise your hand now. Okay, Andrea, will you swear to tell the truth and hold truth under pain and penalty or perjury? Actually, Brad, this is Giovanna Yarranga-Andrea. Ah, hi, Giovanna. I'm sorry, she is in a meeting because her work is like, they go by central time. Okay. She's enabled. She might be able to join us towards the end, I guess. So Giovanna, do you swear to tell the truth and hold truth under pain and penalty or perjury? Yes, I do. Okay, so the staff report indicates that with the changes that Andrea made, that it exceeds the lot coverage on this one. Okay. Were you aware of that? Yeah, she has shared everything with me, but there is no changes that she has made. She just acquired this property in January of this year. And there hasn't been changes. She's not asking for any additional lot coverage. It's just the existing driveway that is there that allows two cars to park side by side with one other behind it. I have a question, Brad, because we have talked about this one twice now and I just, for point of clarification, when I looked through the documents, has anything changed in the application since we continued the hearing last time? It sounds like this is kind of the same discussion that we had last time. I thought Mary had looked at this. If I may interject, Caitlin and Brad, at the last hearing, Brad asked me to work with the applicant to try to find a solution. One of the uploaded documents reflects my efforts at trying to solve the lot coverage question. And I was unable to do that in several attempts at trying to pare down lot coverage. It's through no fault of this current owner that the properties on Proctor Place have been redeveloped. However, gravel's been spread on that access drive and we are far exceeding allowable coverage now. Alteration to the driveway could not be considered without addressing lot coverage. And there's an assertion of an encroachment into a required setback that could not be approved. So I will tell you, I made honest efforts here and was unable to resolve the problem. And did the development on the Proctor Place properties, they put gravel down that wasn't there before? That's correct. And was that part of there? I won't say they, I will say between that period of time when the Proctor Place properties were sold, there was a small area where cars were pulling into a parking area on the West End. Once Proctor Place two properties were redeveloped, there was gravel spread on that westerly tail of 83 Central Avenue. There are no permits for that. And unfortunately that piece of land belongs to 83 Central Avenue. And so we're waiting for a DRB decision here to see what the next steps will be. If I may. Yeah, go ahead Giovanna. Thank you. I have spoken to the previous owner and he has related that that Eastman was in place there so that his parents were able to build the double wide to the max that they could with a driveway that was wide enough for two cars side by side. That Eastman had not, didn't have any gravel there and it was just an entrance so that the people could go into their properties on Proctor. So at some point, and the previous owner mentioned this that he wasn't aware because his mother lived there until she passed basically. And so at some point he believes without any asking or permission or anything, they put gravel there. So the assumption at this point is that Proctor, the owners of Proctor, they put the gravel so that it was easier for them to go to their property, to their homes. We also, and I say we because I've been helping my daughter doing some of the work around. The ramp that was there was very disgusting and the foul smell from the multiple cats that at some point lived had rotted some of the ramp and the smell was just no matter how much we put bleach and everything. So we ended up cutting down and taking that ramp. And what we have discovered is that the driveway is actually 18 feet long and it gets confusing but it is not part of the... So the driveway is not part of the slab that is under the double Y there. So I think originally when the ramp was there and Andrea was trying to measure everything that's when it got confusing because it looked like that slab was part of the driveway and it wasn't. So she's not looking to add any more lot coverage as a matter of fact. She is hoping to landscape the front and to make it more appealing and cleaner. I'm just gonna say this is a young girl in Burlington. We, as you know, the property values in Burlington are through the roof. Young people, we cannot retain our young people here to stay in Burlington because rents are through the roof. When this opportunity came, Andrea jumped at it. She bought this place for 215,000. She's been doing a lot of work with the help of my staff. I think the issue is that the change of use adding the B and B aspect to it is what raises some of these issues. Right, I understand that but she's not looking to change anything in the driveway. And I think that was the original issue. The driveway can easily accommodate two cars parked in tandem and one car next to it. She would not need to add anymore, even gravel or anything to extend that parking. It's just as it is. And now if Sonning or the city has an issue with the gravel that was put in the back on Proctor Place, then we certainly can work on that and remove that gravel from there or add soil and grass so that people can just drive through to get to their properties. But she's not looking. She's not looking into adding lot coverage. So Mary, the site plan that's in the application right now is one that you worked with the applicant to generate. There are three there. One is the approved, the last approved one from 1991. Yeah. One is a site plan that was submitted by the applicant. And the third one clearly says it's the staff attempt at trying to resolve the coverage and doing various coverage calculations, even going so far as considering tire tracks on the easement area and or removing the shed. And the lot is still over coverage. Could we go look at that one with a lot coverage calculations just to look at? So Mary, they have to be at 35%? 35% for base coverage. You're allowed an additional 10% for open amenities like walkways, decks, patios and open porches. Okay. So my annotations here will show at the very top, I have a gravel right of way illustrated 783 square feet. That reflects the extent of that access driveway in 2004. Still places the lot over coverage. Then I tried the yellow highlighter is what if we only did two tire tracks that would extend as far as the easterly most house on Proctor Place. And that calculation is there as well. For the configuration of the driveway, I drew it as a dimensional standards for one set of tandem parking. That's on the left-hand side and a single parking space for the room rental. I tried to minimize coverage as much as was allowable under the ordinance and the provisions under the standards that apply. Then I considered removing the extreme measure of what if we took the shed out and we're still overlock coverage. Was the site plan, the approved site plan that was in here was that overlock coverage? That was exactly at 35. It was like 34.89. Was the extension to Proctor Place wasn't gravel? Was not included. No. And that's what pushed it over. Very much so. And before Proctor Place was developed, all the parking was at the west side. It was only when the mobile home was removed and a home was built on the east side that there was access that then extended all the way to the east side of that tail end of a lot. So the method of parking and the parking access expanded as those properties were developed and there are no permits. And today as I went by, there was a car parking on the grass. That easement was only for access, not for parking. Right. We saw that that car was parked there and they're not supposed to be parked. I did replicate the setback from the property line that was approved in 1991. That was a three foot setback on the south end of the parking area. So I tried to retain the non-conformity that had been approved in 1991 and only illustrate the three parking spaces that are required. Sorry, Mary, could the applicant take out all of the gravel from that west end? Well, that easement is a private easement for access, not for parking. An access to where? Could it be shorter? Like, what does it access? Is there? There are two driveways there now. There did not used to be two driveways. So Jeff, if you see that easement that is highlighted in yellow. Yeah. To the left of that, there are two properties side by side that belong to the same owner. Yeah. And so one is a rental unit, I believe, and in the other one, the owner's mother lives there. And so when they come in from the back, from Proctor Place, they come in and one turns, like right away, you can see the little yellow one towards the left. That is one driveway to that first house. And then the one that continues to the back is that goes into this other driveway for the second property. Jevon, have you or Andrea spoken to them about their driveway at all? We did not speak anything regarding the gravel because we weren't completely unaware that at some point, like Mary said, the gravel had been put without a permit without anybody knowing. Yeah. So I guess the question is, could the gravel be removed if we talk to the owners, to Proctor Place owners and address this issue with them? And still they have the easement but without the gravel there. Well, they can't, the implication is they would not be able to use it without being able to drive on it and to drive on that they need the gravel. Without the gravel there, they could not drive it. I think they could be less gravel but something, you know, I think I was Mary was saying that it could be tire tracks or they could do less gravel. There's ways to, how much over the last coverage were they Mary? How much? 45.45% before removing bonus items and the shed. I can't see, my screen is cutting off the bottom of that plan. It looks like I got you down to 36.7. Yes, there it is. As opposed to 35, right? 35 for base coverage. So it's 1.7% of what's the lot size, 7,000 square feet, right? Correct. Okay. If the shed is removed, is there ability to remove pavement or tarmac below that as well down towards the parking spaces or does that eliminate some of those parking spaces? What I have drawn is the minimal amount allowed for the size of parking spaces for a set of tandem and for a single parking space. I will note for the record that the 1.7% is 119 square feet and the shed is 120 square feet. So that's after removing the shed. He's already removed it. Oh, he's already taken it off. Yes. Okay. And of course the applicant would have to agree to that. Yeah. And then you'd have to start cutting down the main structure. The driveway can't be smaller, as you said. As I've imagined it here, those are the minimum requirements for a parking space. But the amount of gravel on the other end could be lessened. That would be the only... Can you bring up the approved site plan? Cause I'm confused how we can't get to the previous approved site plan. At least I'm like, are there measurement issues? Because I thought the approved site plan had three parking spots, had the shed. But the 1991 permit, Caitlyn, did not include any of the coverage on the West side of the lot. It was just a partial site plan. Did not include the proctor place connection. Would that mean if they separated out that part of the lot, just hypothetically sold it to someone who might have an interest in it, that they would then meet the lot coverage over there, partial? Smaller lot. Smaller lot, it increases the percentage of lot coverage. And that same spot, Jeff, sure it's a smaller lot, but would they be conveying almost entirely a lot of coverage? Yeah. Would you be able to... The access to... Is it... I'm not sure what the proctor place house closest to this property is, but it looks like that turns into a driveway there. If there was no access to that driveway, and they just parked in front of the house, would you be able to expand green space a bit more? I think... I'm gonna give my staff a word. We don't have anybody here who's representing those houses on Proctor Place. Yeah. Anything that was gonna happen with them would have to happen with their awareness. I think... Mary. Yeah, absolutely. Not just with their awareness. Yeah. Yeah. We can send. The other question I have is, so we have the approved site plan that shows a driveway that's actually bigger than the current one. It has the shed, but it doesn't include any of the rest. Like if the assumption were that the rest of the lot was open, could we do... Like, because this is basically the problem is this doesn't actually have a lot coverage calculation on it, but these are all approved dimensions. If we operate it under the assumption, the rest of the lot that's not shown is open, can we calculate the lot coverage here and that's actually the standard we should be going in? It just seems like there's this impossible position that doesn't make sense to me when there is an approved site plan for... Well, that's an important omission from this 1991 plan. But as I stated, and you can see from the ortho photographs, there wasn't that much coverage on that easement area when the parking was all located on the west side of Proctor Place. There was a small parking area that served both dwellings. Looks like the parking area indicated on this site plan is also the smaller, so it's only 25 by 20. Mary's drawing it out to 36 to accommodate the tandem that they've asked for. Correct. It seems that this easement would in some ways more than allow the residents of Proctor Place to have the gravel that they have this easement, but it is the property of the Central Ave House and I don't want... I understand the need for gravel, but would we also be saying then that the owner of the Central Ave House has to not just honor the easement, but not enhance, but give some sort of ease for the people to use the easement to get to their house. I think that's what we're saying if we are saying that we are going to include some sort of gravel on the west end, be it the yellow stripes or whatever. I think the problem is the easement is really a property rights issue and it's between these two owners to work out what access means under the terms of the easement. Right now it looks like one of the users or maybe the prior owner expanded the easement use with the additional gravel, but unfortunately Mary's calculation is even if you took it down to just those tire tracks, still doesn't get them there for a lot of coverage. If I may, I just have a question. Yeah. If Andrea is not looking to change anything, to add more. If she's not adding a bed and breakfast, there are no issues. Right. Like if she's not adding more parking for the purpose of the... No, if she's not adding a bed and breakfast, there's no issues. If she wants to add a bed and breakfast, that's where the issues come from. Even though the parking already is there. It's a change of requirements. It does seem that things have happened that maybe we're out of her control and maybe she should have been in their control, but I'm not sure where the resolution lies at the moment. Mary... Yeah, I understand. You did the tire track calculation. Is that part of this? I did it. I used Google Maps and did the measurement on the scale from Google Maps, providing them just the most modest of access to the driveways that were established on Procter Place. I'm sorry if it looks like scratching on a napkin. It went through several iterations trying to pare down the log coverage. And what was the log coverage before you... I was trying to find the tire track change. What was that reduction? It's on the top of the screen. If you tilt your head sideways. I have two tire tracks. 288 square feet. And then that was a post-780. But what was the savings by going to the tire track option? You mean on the log coverage percentage? Even the square footage. Well, I'm using that program right away that was illustrated in 2004. And I outlined that on Google Maps and then developed an area for it. So the small gravel right of way that was illustrated down with 780. So it looks down here, when I'm looking at these calculations, it's like 36.7. Yeah. We have some other issues to talk about with this application too, that were included in the revised staff report. Yeah, that it's being rented as a whole house, not as owner-occupied. That's correct. Do you want to address that, Triavana? Yes. So I read that staff report, Mary, and there are two things that are inaccurate. One, this is Andrea's permanent residency. This is where she lives. But because of work, she travels a lot. She's a salesperson and she travels a lot. And this is one of the reasons why she wanted to do the Airbnb. Because sometimes she's not there. And like I said, she just acquired this home. She's just trying to make ends meet by having this Airbnb. She started this, but when it was brought up to her attention that you needed a permit, she applied for the permit immediately. And then I think after the first meeting that was brought up that she couldn't do this, she stopped, she paused all reservations. And I don't know, Mary, where you said that this, that she has bookings into next year because she doesn't. All reservations, there were a handful on the weekends and she has paused, she has not been receiving any reservations until this, you know, get approved. Mary, were you just looking at that calendar availability on that for a determined? Yes, our code enforcement officer brought it to my attention as well as a city counselor. Well, I can have her send you a screenshot of her calendar because she doesn't have any reservations. But the house is being advertised as an entire house rental. Well, that is how she listed it at first and then she paused it and she hasn't done anything with it. So this is really the applications for one bedroom. Right. Right? Right. Okay. So there's two ways to go on this thing, it seems. One is that you and Andrea can talk to the neighbors even though it sounds like there's not a lot of open, see if there is any way for them to meet you halfway and reduce, seriously reduce the amount of gravel there. The other way is we can just proceed with this application and discuss it at deliberative, even though it sounds like there's not much we can do with the information we have right now because it doesn't comply. That makes sense, Giovanna? It makes sense, yes. Too. But we would like to, I think she would definitely like to speak with the neighbor and try to figure out a way that it can work out. Okay. The challenge is, I don't think that get, I mean, even if she were to reduce it. Well, it's a question. I don't want to give false hope here. Right. But I don't really have a clear picture of how these other two houses access their property and if they're willing to meet them halfway on this thing or not. But I mean, I don't know, I feel like I would like to just make a decision on this one. Yeah, if she can, if we deny it, she could come back with a different application if she can resolve all those issues. But we've heard it three times now and we don't have a path to approval. So I'm kind of with Katelyn. So Giovanna, I think the consensus is that we will deliberate on this tonight and proceed that way, but it doesn't mean that you can't still take some actions to see if there's a way to resolve this if we can't, if it doesn't get approved. I understand. Okay. Thank you for your time. Thanks for your efforts on this. Okay, we will close the public hearing now. Matt is the last B&B of the night. Brad before, so I need to leave at 6.30. So I was wondering if we wanted to do a deliberative separately if you feel like it would be valuable to include me or if there are certain ones on the agenda that you want to discuss first. I don't have any sense, but I would just go in order and just take it as a comms. Jeff has recused on one item, which was a... You approved that already though, thank you. Brad, we've closed the total public hearing on all items just that point. Yes. Okay. So we're going to close the meeting and the meeting at this point. We're going to... Recording stopped. So on 83 central lab, which is ZP 22-50, I move that we deny the application and adopt staff's findings and conclusions. Second. Caitlin, second. Any discussion? All in favor? Four, five, six, six, seven. Were you positive too, Adri? Yeah, I said I. Okay, yeah. So one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Yes. Seven. Okay. So 69 orchard terrace, which is ZP 22-217. I move that we deny the application because the applicant is not in a position to provide written assurance that an attendant will be present at all times. The stacked parking is in use. And I guess ask staff to update the findings consistent with that. I'll second that. Any discussion? All in favor? I'm looking. Okay. What was the count on that? Was it? Recording stopped. The thing is... We're on ZP 22-184, 13 Lake Futaris. That's right, one. I move that we accept staff recommendations and improve the application. Third second. I see a case. Okay. Any discussion? People not want to give the benefit. Okay. Anyways. All in favor of the application of the motion. So we have three all opposed. AJ? I'm in. Are you? You're opposed. Yes. Okay. So motion fails. All right. Well, with that, I'm going to leave. So. Okay. So there. Recording stopped. Recording in progress. On ZP 21-184, which is 13 Lake Futaris, I move that we deny the application because the site does not provide adequate parking for the requested change in use and ask the staff update findings to inform to that motion. Second on that? I'll second that. Yeah. Brooks. Is there anything that you need to add to combat the staff report that says they're reducing the non-compliance? Does that need to be addressed in your motion? I'm asking really. I don't, I mean, I don't think so. I think we're saying the change in use to the bed and breakfast requires three or four parking spaces. And in our view, the prior non-conformity is not at issue because of that change in use. Okay. Okay. Any other discussion? All in favor of the motion. Oh, look at that. We got it all opposed. Okay, so it's five one. Recording stopped. One, two. Recording in progress. I move that we approve the application and the staff's findings and recommendations. For a second. Okay, Leo, seconds. All in favor. So, one, two, three, four. Opposed? Two. Brooks, so four, two. Recording stopped.